PDA

View Full Version : spiritual reasoning



solomon levi
06-26-2012, 02:26 PM
I don't know if that title is appropriate. It's what came to mind for now.
I've talked about this elsewhere within threads, but I thought I'd give it a thread of it's own.

Here's the situation:
There are billions of conditioned/conditional paths.
There is only one unconditional "non-path".

If "non-path" is confusing, take it out:
There is only one unconditional. There are no degrees of unconditional.
There are inexhaustible degrees and combinations of conditions.


How simple is that? Is there any question to the veracity of those statements?

So why do people imagine that their conditioned path is the right one?
We have the unconditional standing out like...
https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTKn7GgtuOam_rOedOwsqyObpA978SaT 9sVIr95hCkpY_Wn5jfWtA

and you think your red tulip is the "right/true" tulip among billions?

Why do you search among the conditioned?
How preposterous is it to think that among the billion conditioned paths, you've found
the right conditions!

The elephant in the room is the unconditioned!
Why do you fight this?
What can be more obvious, more reasonable?


It's the same with unconditional love.
That's the only love there is.
Seriously, listen to the sound of this: "I conditionally love you."
Why even call it love when it's conditioned? So confused.

We all know unconditional love is the best/highest/purest.
But nobody wants that.
We want to feel special.
We want to be the only one that makes them feel that way.
We want dependance, commitment, promises, vows, security...
And we call that "love"!

I'm not saying it's wrong to want those things.
Why not call them what they are?


So one has to ask - do we cling to our conditioned spiritual paths because they make us feel special?

Okay - I hear the arguments that you're not special.
Let me say it another way - it gives you identity.
What would your identity be if you were unconditioned/unconditional?

Do you see it?
Concrete example - who would your lover be if you loved unconditionally?
What would distinguish them from anyone else?
Don't imagine that you can love just one person unconditionally! :)
That's as silly as conditional love.
If it's unconditional, it refuses no one.

Now who would you be without your lover, your parents, your children, your friends,
those who are close to you...??
Do you see where this is going?
And that's just the area of your affections.
Now apply unconditional to interests, knowledge, fashion, likes and dislikes, beliefs and disbeliefs...

Now who are you?

This is why we reject the only solution there is, the only freedom there is, the only true spiritual there is,
the only love there is...

I'm not saying that's wrong!
The unconditional allows all conditions.
You can't say that about any condition; every condition excludes/opposes/denies some other condition(s).


Following this simple reasoning, will religion ever solve anything?
Will government or politics? Military?
Any set of rules?
Of course not.
Not even Pythagoras' rules, or Jesus' or Moses' or God's.

Are these rules wrong?
No! Just stop pretending they're right!
They're one set of rules among billions of sets of rules.
They're not a solution. None of them!
Because they deny other rules/conditions/beliefs held by others which equals conflict, not peace!


If one sees/reasons this, does it have anything to do with being idle, cowardly or lazy?
If one sees/reasons this, it is also clear that to hold beliefs/conditions which conflict with others IS conflict!
What kind of reasoning tries to solve a conflict by adding more conflict to it??
At least by being "idle" I have stopped adding to conflict, which is more than any "activist" can say. :)

But I am not idle. I am just reasoning/seeing the silliness of trying to solve conflict with more conflict.
I am seeing the solution is not another condition, not an old set of conditions, not a rediscovered lost set
of conditions, not a newly evolved freshly minted set of conditions...
I am seeing the ONLY solution is unconditioned.

So what do I do about it?
There's nothing to do about it!
Life is already unconditioned. That's why we're all allowed our conditions.

"Hold on" you say. "If life is unconditional then you could breathe ammonia."

I can breathe ammonia! And then my body would "die". :)
Is death of the body (which actually hangs around for quite some time decomposing) the end of life?
Maybe for you.
Maybe that's why you give so much power to conditions - they keep you in your body/identity.

"Seriously though, your body can't breathe ammonia. That's why it died. The body has conditions."

Okay. But am I my body? Is that all you are? If that is your definition of being conditioned, then you
must believe you are your body and nothing more.
I said "Life" is already unconditioned. I didn't say bodies are unconditioned. I didn't say life means
being in a body.

So if we consider that closely, we see how identifying with the body has lead us to believe in and
empower conditions/the conditional. One emphasizing the body, the physical, has every REASON
to emphasize conditions. But that doesn't make you right, or wrong. It sure seems right, because it's
easy to assume that everyone is interested in preserving their bodies and staying "alive". But....
How did we go from spirituality to preserving flesh? Aren't we now talking about material reasoning?

solomon levi
06-26-2012, 03:39 PM
Alchemy is not chemistry.
Why not?
Chemistry is conditional/conditioned.

Alchemy introduces the unconditioned, undetermined, Prima Materia which is the origin of all conditioned things.

When one sees that, will they try to make the Stone through chemistry? through non-philosophical means?
Then why try to solve the worlds problems with conflict/conditions?
Why would a conditioned path (chemistry) produce a spiritual result (alchemy)?

"No one would argue that alchemy doesn't have conditions." you say.

That's true.

"You're talking about unconditional no-paths and alchemy has a wet and a dry path."

That's true too.
And what I said about alchemy and chemistry and conditions is true.
If you resolve this apparent contradiction, let me know. ;)

The unconditional includes the conditional. If it excluded it that would be a condition.
The conditional does not include the unconditional.

Andro
06-26-2012, 04:00 PM
If you resolve this apparent contradiction, let me know. ;)

I have an answer, but I have to leave for an hour or two.

When I get back, I'll edit this post with my angle on this :)
__________________________________

OK, I'm back. Just wanted to reserve this parking spot after Sol's post above :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"No one would argue that alchemy doesn't have conditions." you say.

That's true.

"You're talking about unconditional no-paths and alchemy has a wet and a dry path."

That's true too.
And what I said about alchemy and chemistry and conditions is true.
If you resolve this apparent contradiction, let me know. ;)

I see it a a simple matter of reverse-engineering.

I have often mentioned in the Spiritus Mundi (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2071-Spiritus-Mundi) thread that we use (for example) conditions of polarity and duality to manifest 'something' that is (eventually) neither polarized nor dualistic.

Reverse-engineering Genesis, if you wish.


The conditional does not include the unconditional.

But it is our portal/gateway to it. We use what we have (the cards we've been dealt - conditions, polarity/duality, specific qualities) to manifest the unconditioned, the non-dualistic, etc...

Awani
06-26-2012, 09:56 PM
To live 100 % unconditionally people around you would create conditions that makes this impossible. It all sounds great in written form still how to apply it to everyday life if one doesn't become a hermit in the woods?

:cool:

Awani
06-26-2012, 10:00 PM
Maybe all conditions don't matter if we have unconditional compassion? That would work in a practical way.

:cool:

Andro
06-26-2012, 10:19 PM
It all sounds great in written form still how to apply it to everyday life if one doesn't become a hermit in the woods?

This reminds me of Jack's tattoo, on the epic Lost (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2065-Lost) series. One of the translations given for the writing on the tattoo is:

"He walks amongst us, but he is not one of us."

The translation given in the show is probably incorrect according to some knowledgeable sources, but still I find this phrase to apply to the conditions described above.

It is also how I feel most of the time.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Shephard#Tattoos):


For story purposes, the tattoos on Jack's arm read: "He walks among us, but he is not one of us."
However, Matthew Fox already had the tattoos when he started on Lost.
The producers considered putting make-up over them but, instead, decided to keep them and just fit them in with the plot.[4]

According to Assistant Professor Xinping Zhu of Northeastern University, the tattoo is made up of four Chinese characters (simplified Chinese: 鹰击长空; traditional Chinese: 鷹擊長空; pinyin: Yīng jī chángkōng; "鹰", hawk; "击", strike or attack; "长", long; "空", space or sky) from a poem written by Mao Zedong in 1925, and the Lebanese Phalangist symbol. Fox's tattoo translates to "Eagles high up, cleaving the space".

Oh, just as well...

solomon levi
06-26-2012, 11:53 PM
Hi Androgynus. :)
Reverse engeneering... I'll consider that some more. Yes, I do see how the rotation of the elements
to manifest the quintessence is reverse engeneering! (that was a fast considering) :)

It also kept coming to mind what Salazius said recently in the SM thread:

"An important distinction needs to be made :

One has to undersand that there is a "Universal Archemical" path.

This may be shocking for some people. There is no Spiritus Mundi involved in it. A vast corpus of well known authors speak about it.

This is why Paracelsus said they are not real Philosophers, since he knew that Spiritus Mundi could result in a Higher Product.

This "Universal Archemical" path will eventually lead to a 40 days rejuvenation process that must be undertaken every 50 years. But, one will grow old every time.
It will probably have little effect on the astral body, giving no (or very limited) "powers".

Now, the Initiation of the Spiritus Mundi Stone will not be as much physical, but far more spiritual. This is more the kind of Initiation that Jesus endured. With a disappearance of the physical body and a total recreation of it. It's truly an Ascension. This is a Philosophical Suicide.

This needed to be said."


I don't want to misuse/mis-apply his words and would like to hear his comment, but it sure sounds similar in some ways.

solomon levi
06-27-2012, 01:28 AM
To live 100 % unconditionally people around you would create conditions that makes this impossible. It all sounds great in written form still how to apply it to everyday life if one doesn't become a hermit in the woods?

:cool:

Hi Dev :)

I'm not sure how you arrived at those conclusions.
If conditions could make the unconditional impossible, then the unconditional is conditioned.
In other words, that would mean the unconditional only manifests under certain conditions. :)
This is not correct reasoning. The unconditional is not a set of conditions.
People think this with freedom too - freedom will come about when we manifest these certain conditions.
Not true. Conditioned freedom is as silly as conditional love. The words freedom and love suggest no
limitations, and yet we ignorantly try to bring them about through conditions.

We get hung up when we think of how to apply this. It isn't an application; it's a seeing, a realisation, enlightenment.
When you see it, you don't have to do anything. It has always been there, unseen, unrecognised.
Your seeing or not seeing doesn't make it any more or less. But it will give you peace to see it.
You will know that all conditions are happening in unconditional freedom and are unconditionally loved/allowed.
That nothing wrong/unjust is ever happening; that all sets of conditions are equally conditioned compared to the unconditioned...
instead of 26 conditions are better/more free than 74 conditions. What is "more free" compared to true freedom?
Braveheart: "You're so concerned with squabbling for the scraps from Longshank's table that you've missed your God given right to something better."


"Maybe all conditions don't matter if we have unconditional compassion? That would work in a practical way." - Dev

Yeah, something like that.
But this still won't compare with seeing.
If you see, it will be natural and effortless.
If you don't see, it will be an effort, a condition, a reminding and forgetting to be compassionate.
You will be in conflict with yourself.
With seeing there is no conflict, no effort, nothing to be done.

Awani
06-27-2012, 01:37 AM
Imagine you have a girlfriend. With unconditional love (in the way I imagine you see it) then you could be with many women and men... but then the girlfriend would be upset because she herself is not unconditional. Or at work there are conditions doing work, you can't do work unconditionally... if so you could get fired.

Just two mundane examples but I am just trying to understand you fully (in theory I get you but not in practice). If I walk the talk then I would by default be an outcast. Unconditional only works if the whole world is unconditional.

That is why I said unconditional compassion is the only thing that works in a society setting that is full of conditions. I prefer the word compassion rather than love. Love to me is a different state than compassion, I can't imagine being in love with everyone but I can imagine myself having compassion for everyone. Maybe I am conditioning myself saying so?

I guess I am thinking/debating more on the physical plane in regards to actions like work, love etc... and you are thinking more on an internal state of mind. Yes? But I want to take the internal external. Within/without and all that.

As for freedom it is never given, it has to be taken.

:cool:

solomon levi
06-27-2012, 04:18 AM
"Maybe all conditions don't matter if we have unconditional compassion? That would work in a practical way." - Dev

Yeah, something like that.
But this still won't compare with seeing.
If you see, it will be natural and effortless.
If you don't see, it will be an effort, a condition, a reminding and forgetting to be compassionate.
You will be in conflict with yourself.
With seeing there is no conflict, no effort, nothing to be done.

For example, the Buddha was/is a realised being.
Buddhism, as a religion, turns his realisations into conditions, ideals, and therefore effort, conflict.
This isn't natural. It's conflict to try to be something you haven't realised yourself.
Religions use this and call it discipline, but it's simply conflict.
We are taught to admire the disciplined person.
Discipline is simply conditioning - belief in one set of conditions over other sets.

So again, it's important, there's nothing to do, no discipline - just see.
Seeing is a realisation that is different than thinking realisations.
In this thread I use reason in the hopes that some may see and hear.

Ghislain said (in Mind control thread):
"does anyone know what is and if they do could they explain the is to someone else?
Each person likes to think they know what is...they build their house of lies and live in them."

I've explained it - I don't know if it matters, if it is heard and seen.
Maybe it just causes more confusion because it sounds like conditions to apply,
but I'm trying to point out that this is not so.
I cannot make anyone see, anymore than other people's conditions can prevent you from seeing.
Everyone sees their "house of lies" as you say.
I prefer "The Universe rearranges Itself to accomodate your picture of reality."
Or, "The unconditioned is uniquely conditioned by each individual."
Or, "Unconditional love becomes personal relationships."

The essence of the realisation is this:
The conditioned happens in the unconditioned.
It is up to you which to emphasize.
But it's not so simple to just choose.
If you identify as a conditioned being/body, then you determine "what is" to the conditioned,
no matter how hard you may try to choose to emphasize the unconditioned.
Identity is a deeply imbedded/ingrained/consistent/repeated/subconscious choice.
What does today's new conscious choice have against a lifetime program?
So we can try the way of discipline, try and consistently choose the unconditioned
perspective until this becomes a new identity. But remember, the conditioned perspective
was drilled into you by everyone else; this time you're on your own. Will you be as ruthless? As motivated?
Do you believe in unconditional as certainly as they believed in conditions?
The other way is to see. From the outside we say, "that monk has equanimity."
I say he sees the equanimity of all sets of conditions relative to the unconditioned.
Just knowing/seeing that your ego/identity is one set of conditions among billions makes a difference.

solomon levi
06-27-2012, 08:29 AM
Imagine you have a girlfriend. With unconditional love (in the way I imagine you see it) then you could be with many women and men... but then the girlfriend would be upset because she herself is not unconditional. Or at work there are conditions doing work, you can't do work unconditionally... if so you could get fired.

Just two mundane examples but I am just trying to understand you fully (in theory I get you but not in practice). If I walk the talk then I would by default be an outcast. Unconditional only works if the whole world is unconditional.

That is why I said unconditional compassion is the only thing that works in a society setting that is full of conditions. I prefer the word compassion rather than love. Love to me is a different state than compassion, I can't imagine being in love with everyone but I can imagine myself having compassion for everyone. Maybe I am conditioning myself saying so?

I guess I am thinking/debating more on the physical plane in regards to actions like work, love etc... and you are thinking more on an internal state of mind. Yes? But I want to take the internal external. Within/without and all that.

As for freedom it is never given, it has to be taken.

:cool:

Ahh. I see.
Let me see if I can communicate this.
If we consciously volunteer to a set of conditions, if we agree to an agreement (relationship, job),
then that is exercising our freedom. The unconditional is emphasized. A new relationship isn't something we feel
we have to do; we love to do it. We can't wait to see them.
Same with a job. We agree to exchange our labor for cash.
We may dread the work, but each day we show up instead of quitting is an agreement.
We are free to not make that agreement. We are agreeing to conditions within freedom/the unconditioned.

To be aware of the choice, the freedom, is a big difference (emphasizing conditions or unconditioned).
The choice doesn't condition you if you know you are free to choose otherwise at any time.
This is controlled folly compared to folly (unconscious). Both are folly, but it's a big difference.
The difference is in the chooser, not in what s/he chooses. Whether they are aware of their freedom/love or not.

Bowfinger movie (couldn't find a youtube clip):
Robert K. Bowfinger: We're finished! It's over between us!
Daisy: But why?
Robert K. Bowfinger: You slept with Jiff.
Daisy: So?
Robert K. Bowfinger: You know, I never thought about it that way.
Daisy: So I'll see you tonight?
Robert K. Bowfinger: What time?

That's comedy but true.
Here's "10" - more serious. great depiction of both sides.
Jump to 6:20 for the conversation if you don't want to wait.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIft8Ym6_MI


"Unconditional only works if the whole world is unconditional."
Not true. It only appears that way from the outside.
But I do relate and understand that view and feeling that way because I bounce between outside and inside.

As long as compassion isn't a way to distance ourselves from love.
Definitions/identities are all-important. Defining words is also self-definition.
Some people can mentalise compassion (or love).
I've really tried to communicate the difference between mental understanding and seeing.
So I could say it depends on your definition of compassion, but more importantly, it depends on your identity.
If you identify with the unconditional, you can call it whatever you want. :)


Yes, the internal state of mind. Let's say that is the sun and the world is the moon which reflects the sun's light.
Whatever your identity is, the world reflects it.
Do we want to change the world so that it can tell us who we are? The external defining the internal?

Well, we can resolve this internal-external question by uniting them or at least blurring them.
Is taking mushrooms internal or external? It comes down to brain chemistry. Is the brain internal or external?
In your head, but in your soul, spirit? It's a matter of identity again.
As separate egos/bodies we're locked into this picture of dualism - the internal defines the external dualistically.
The separate identity sees separation and the world reflects it.
Or, the separate identity projects itself, its separation, upon the world, upon what is.

What I'm saying is, people will try to unify the internal and external which won't work as long as there is an ego.
A solution is to see the ego for what it is - a story, an agreement, one set of conditions among billions, associating
a string of people, places, things, times and events that did and didn't happen - who I am and who I am not.
Anyways, when the ego is seen for what it is and is not, the separation disappears.
Notice i didn't say when the ego is gone. Outsiders try to eliminate ego. Outsiders try to unify two things.
Insiders just see. They see through appearances. They see without the filter of knowledge/preconception/the past.
And when they see, everything is perfectly as it should be. There's no voice/knowledge/past/comparison to tell them otherwise.

Krisztian
06-27-2012, 08:18 PM
For whatever this is worth: I just wanted to mention that I greatly appreciate how well you, solomon levi and dev communicate on this Forum. It's nice to see the maturity, without 'flipping out'. . . . . It doesn't have to get personal, because it's not.

Seeker of Truth
06-27-2012, 11:18 PM
Solomon Levi

Evil Solomon :-) 000010000 (-: I think I saw this is another thread?/But it is also true that I mix letters often when I read to find different layers in words adding another dimension to any given sentence; Eternity Is Entirety In Tiny Tree)
In the act of breathing, being, and thankfully :-) writing, in this incredible forum where everyone is seen, you Sol see in such a way that you write in such a way, and as always it is beautiful. It is so simple: Unconditional is Truly Unconditional, easy :-) What you write Solomon you write in such a way as feels Truth that resonates with all of my all. You Sol, your sources, and your/my fellow discussion/forum-ist/perfect being(s) in perfection: Thank You :-)

I was reading this (The Divine Pymander) at work today between phonecalls and then again later in the evening after work, and I could see better. I felt that this is how you Solomon experience reality; from a perspective of unbiased truth. This is what I feel that you communicate, this is thank you:-)

From
The Divine Pymander, by Hermes Mercurius Trismegistus, tr. by John Everard, [1650], at sacred-texts.com

THE SIXTH BOOK, THAT IN GOD ALONE IS GOOD
http://sacred-texts.com/eso/pym/pym07.htm

....
" 21. For the eminencies of all appearing Beauty, are in the Essence more pure, and more sincere, and peradventure they are also the Essences of it.
22. For we must be bold to say, Asclepius, that the Essence of God, if he have an Essence, is … that which is fair or beautiful; but no good is comprehended in this World.
23. For all things that are subject to the eye, are Idols, and as it were Shadows; but those things that are not subject to the eye, are ever, especially the Essence of the Fair and the Good.
24. And as the Eye cannot see God, so neither the Fair and the Good.
25. For those are the parts of God, that partake the Nature of the whole, proper, and familiar unto him alone, inseparable, most lovely, whereof either God is enamoured, or they are enamoured of God.
26. If thou canst understand God, thou shall understand the Fair, and the Good, which is most shining, and enlightening, and most enlightened by God.
27. For that Beauty is above Comparison, and that Good is inimitable, as God himself.
28. As, therefore, thou understandest God, so understand the Fair and the Good; for these are incommunicable to any other living creatures, because they are inseparable from God.
29. If thou seek concerning God, thou seekest or asketh also of the Fair, for there is one way which leadeth to the same thing, that is Piety, with Knowledge.
30. Wherefore, they that are ignorant, and go not in the way of Piety, dare call Men Fair and Good, never seeing so much as in a dream, what good is; but being infolded and wrapped upon all evil, and believing that the Evil is the Good, they, by that means, both use it insatiable, and are afraid to be deprived of it; and therefore they strive, by all possible means, that they may not only have it, but also increase it.
31. Such, O Asclepius, are the good and fair things of Men, which we can neither love nor hate; for this is the hardest thing of all, that we have need of them, and cannot live without them.
The End of the Sixth Book....
THAT IN GOD ALONE IS GOOD.... "

( Rhetorical: Is it weird that I feel as if the words written in this entire piece I have read before I wrote them without actually having read them ... No is the obvius answer and Yes :-)

solomon levi
06-28-2012, 02:03 PM
Thank you Krisztian and Seeker of Truth.
I feel with you both, and with Dev.
Appreciation - Compassion - Love.


More on unconditional...
"This", "what is", "that which is", "here", "present", "before our very eyes"... if it is present in your
reality, your mind, your thoughts, the actual world, whatever... then it has been allowed.
Whatever is there in your reality has already been allowed. It is the ego that wants to reject things
and accept things, as if it can. But everything the ego notices has ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED
or it could not be noticed. IT'S TOO LATE! The ego cannot win - it is a farce, a pretense.
The truth is, everything is allowed unconditionally. The game is, the ego pretends that it has a
choice in what it allows and rejects. It has this appearance of choice when it is confined into very
narrow parameters. But when we see outside of those conditions, the unconditional is all.
My conditioned ego is one "thing" among millions of "things" that the unconditioned has
unconditionally allowed. It isn't the subject. It isn't the king. It isn't the chooser. Life has already
allowed everything. If we don't admit this we live a lie, pretending we can reject something.
Reject it from what?

Everything you are aware of in any present (past presents or future presents or right now) you are able
to be aware of it because it has been allowed by Source or whatever. AFTER noticing what has
ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED/ACCEPTED, you decide to accept or reject it.
Don't you see? See the difference in whether you identify with the unconditional or conditional?
When you see everything has already been allowed, you feel incredibly free.
When you allow what your true unconditional self is, unconditional love/acceptance, then you are
free from pretense. When the primary admittance is seen, the secondary rejection and acceptance
are seen for what they really are. Do you think you are powerful in your ability to choose? There is
no choice. Everything you pretend to reject and accept only causes you dis-ease. Your acceptance and
rejection are mere attachments/fixations - nothing like the unconditional loving freedom/allowance of
the true self, the original. You (the thinker/chooser) are not the original. Be humble. God is love.

This has been an addition to the thread, intended for no one specific. But now Dev's comment comes
to mind - "freedom is never given - it has to be taken". In the light of what I've just said, how can this
be true? What need is there to take from an unconditional giver? This idea of taking belongs to a separate
entity. I am hoping to convey the impotence of this separate ego. Whatever freedom it can take, you must
see that it is relative/apparent/temporal... not true freedom. No conditioned being/ego can be free, ever.
Free means unconditioned. The conditioned self/ego is not our true (permanent/immortal/original) identity.
It is a mask. It is one of the billion things that the unconditioned allows to appear. (Billion is really a tiny
number. I should say "one among innumerable things".) It is possible to realise one's identity as this
limitless capacity for all/allowance/love; and still go on with everyday life. Seeing things for what they
are allows us to utilise conditions without identifying with them. When we don't see the ego for what it is -
not free to choose; but free to choose from WHAT ALREADY IS - we have a false sense of power and a
false sense of blaming other egos and competing with them. Who allowed "what already is"? The
unconditioned you which is not physical. That is not to say that you have to become unconditioned and
not physical - you just have to see that the body and the mind and the ego are conditioned and see that
some"thing" is not conditioned, and the rest will be taken care of. Seeing the true relation of things
restores order/peace. A separate ego can only make separation. There's no other kind of ego. So we
have to identify with something else if we want healing/wholeness.

Awani
06-30-2012, 12:48 PM
Regarding freedom...

It has to be taken. If no action is done little will happen. I mean I go with the flow but I still got oars. I am not flowing like a leaf in the wind. I see myself as having wings.

No one freed my mind for me. It didn't free itself. I am willingly making an effort.

:cool:

solomon levi
06-30-2012, 01:38 PM
I'm not sure you read my last post.
You can't take true/absolute freedom.
Who are you going to take it from?
If it is unconditionally given, what's the point of taking what is already given before you can make a choice to take it?
You can pretend to take it.
You can pretend the unconditioned is your greatest enemy if you want.
It certainly isn't necessary.

True freedom is unconditioned.
How do you take an unconditioned thing?
What hand can grasp it?
What net encloses it?
What trap can ensnare it?
How?

We are not talking about the same freedom.

solomon levi
06-30-2012, 02:12 PM
Let's go with this idea Ghislain had in the mind control thread about people not
knowing themselves and having their lies about what is.

What is is everything. Because what is is what is presently seen.
In the present there is no comparison, no prior knowledge, nothing lacking.
Before anyone argues with me on this, the present which I am talking about
has no time. So you can't even think or speak - that takes time.
If you can't think - no comparisons, no knowledge, no past, no lack,
no freedom to take...

That sounds different than the subjective what is that I spoke of before.
But the subjective what is is placed over the timeless present, just as the
conditioned being pretends to choose when the unconditional has already been seen.
So yes, in your experience of the present, you are thinking right now.
But you're thinking over/in the eternal unconditioned.
If you see that, you also see there is nothing to do about it.
If you think there's something to do, you haven't seen what I am pointing at.
We are not communicating.

It is possible not to think. If you ever experience it, you wont be doing anything.
You may call it 'you' before and after the fact, but during the fact you'll see, there's no you.
"You" is a story/thinking we tell ourselves. The moment we stop telling ourselves the story
of 'me', there is no 'me' to be found. And there is no 'me' to do things.
Things get done, but not by a 'me'.

I am sorry so few have experience with this.
I think I'm describing it pretty well.
I don't think people want to hear.
Or maybe wanting to hear isn't enough.

Awani
06-30-2012, 05:03 PM
I read it all and I think the disagreements are due to the fact that language is not sufficient. After all it is a man-made invention and all things man-made are more or less flawed.

:cool:

solomon levi
07-01-2012, 07:34 AM
Thanks Dev.
Let me try this last thing one more time:

The things we choose, the things we reject or accept, the things we judge as valid or not, the things we sense,
the things we are given or the things we take... all things are already there for us to notice them before we
judge, choose, reject, take, or sense them. We are able to do all these things because they are already there
before we do them. All of our doings condition, judge and measure these things that are existing in an
unconditioned, unjudged, unmeasured state before we get a hold of them. I say they are unconditioned
meaning unconditioned by the conditioned mind, until the mind gets a hold of them.
These are two states - before and after the mind gets a hold of them. The simple fact that the mind can get
a hold of them means that they are already there to get a hold of, before the mind. But we don't need to
conjecture. We can witness it first hand.
So what's the significance of this? If you can see this state of pre-mind, you can identify with it. You are
glimpsing the unconditioned no self. You may even notice that your body is one of the things among the
already existing. This demonstrates that you are not the body, because you are seeing the body from the
unconditioned state, which is what you are. Unconditional is primary and conditioned is secondary.

To the conditioned mind, this seems insignificant or clever wording. To the seer, it means freedom and
enlightenment.
Sometimes the secondary is so conditioned that the primary means nothing; but the primary is everything.
The secondary doesn't exist without the primary. The primary still exists without the secondary. This is
significant.

Ghislain
07-01-2012, 12:06 PM
To the conditioned mind, this seems insignificant or clever wording.

With you on this one Sol...taking it a little further...

I was sitting pondering the use of trying to explain some of this to someone who
has never thought this way and has no interest in doing so...:)

They just think you're mad and someone to aviod.

Ghislain

Andro
07-01-2012, 12:36 PM
They just think you're mad and someone to avoid.

Which can often come in quite handy... especially the second bit...
__________________________________________________ ___

As for myself, I have a very simple 'system' (for lack of a better term).

I adhere to the concept of utter choicelessness. In each and every aspect of 'existence'.

In other words, I don't tell myself stories about 'having a choice' about any issue, even if it may appear that I do (have a choice).

What happens, happened and will always happen. It's a complex but also simple mechanism of NEED, which 'takes care' of each and every moment we perceive/experience.

A simple example of choicelessness is when you REALLY have to go (to the 'bathroom', or any other ex-pressing facility :)). Go argue with that... No choice here, when you are confronted with the point of no return.

Now, this is just an example to illustrate the concept - but ultimately, EVERY 'point' is a 'point of no return', interconnected with an infinity of 'other' points of no return, all occurring simultaneously when observed from outside linear time.

IMO there's no point in 'thinking' about choices, even though we mostly do (Should I go with this? Or should I go with that?)

Ultimately, from the eagle eye's view, there is no choice at all.

This, for me, addresses quite well the issue of conditioned/unconditioned. Everything is unconditioned when surrendering to choicelessness, regardless of how it is perceived/interpreted.

Conditioning (IMO) comes from generating thoughts/thought patterns that are inevitably related to the illusion of choice.

In other words: When you gotta go - YOU GOTTA GO ! ! ! (and unconditionally so :))

'IT IS WHAT IT IS' is IMO a good example of unconditioned choicelessness.

Isn't it?

otove
07-01-2012, 09:14 PM
Interesting topic, another facet of determinism vs free will. My opinions wouldn't count for much but my conditioned argument would be, that there are only paths if there are destinations, and the paths are the scenic route to the inevitable, meaningless existence. Do i pile up wealth in my own back yard or in in someone elses. At this point i go and smell the roses, have a pint or two and forget about it, try and enjoy these precious moments along the route.

otove.

Andro
07-01-2012, 09:20 PM
At this point i go and smell the roses, have a pint or two and forget about it, try and enjoy these precious moments along the route.

One of my all time favorite mottoes is: Drink The Wine And Let The World Be The World

Maybe it's time to put it back as my signature line, where it 'once' was :)

solomon levi
07-01-2012, 10:14 PM
Yes.
So you also experience the difference between, let's call it, reasoning back to unconditioned
and direct experience of unconditioned, Androgynus?
I'm sure you do, but can you say so for the record? :)
And perhaps attempt to describe the difference. (Ok if you don't want to.)

Could you second my claim that just knowing that the unconditioned exists, even reasoning back to it,
makes a big difference in one's life?
For me there is less stress, not taking oneself or others so seriously, a great degree freedom from beliefs...

The reason back to comes from having seen, and once seen, it changes you.
One knows what is primary and what is secondary, and knowing that, the secondary does not define one
so much and it becomes pliable or less "real"/out there.

Andro
07-02-2012, 01:03 AM
So you also experience the difference between, let's call it, reasoning back to unconditioned and direct experience of unconditioned, Androgynus?

Yes. Reasoning is needed to reverse-engineer perception to the 'natural' state of EVERYTHING being in fact unconditioned. Upon reaching the actual experience, reasoning becomes obsolete.


I'm sure you do, but can you say so for the record? :)

I've already said it, so if I repeat it I'll just sound like a broken record :)


And perhaps attempt to describe the difference.

The reasoning process is like an internal debate, affecting the way experience is perceived.

"Is this conditioned?"

"Is this unconditioned?"

It's like an imploding internal feedback loop, increasingly approaching the Zero Point of Inevitability :)

Now, in the actual unconditioned experience, there is no reasoning and no such distinctions, as it is a 'result' of surrendering to choicelessness.

Things may appear (to the by-stander) to be either conditioned/chosen, unconditioned/choice-less or anything in between. It doesn't matter anymore to the one directly experiencing from this state.

When there is no more illusion of choice, there is no more illusion of conditioning - NO MATTER how it appears from the outside.

From this state, even if something appears to be extremely conditioned/carefully chosen - it isn't. It's just pure unconditioned choicelessness at work :)


Could you second my claim that just knowing that the unconditioned exists, even reasoning back to it, makes a big difference in one's life?
For me there is less stress, not taking oneself or others so seriously, a great degree freedom from beliefs...

I'll first, second, third and fourth this claim Ad Infinitum if you wish - but it should make no difference to you once you're 'there' (by which I mean 'here').


The reason back to comes from having seen, and once seen, it changes you.
One knows what is primary and what is secondary, and knowing that the secondary does not define one so much and it becomes pliable or less "real"/out there.

I think that this primary/secondary distinction becomes irrelevant at this stage. It just is what it is.

Again, even if this APPEARS to be distinct or 'quantified' in some numerical hierarchy - it isn't.

solomon levi
07-02-2012, 02:41 AM
Sure, sure! Just for descriptive purposes, for the thread, for relating to some who
haven't noticed this, whether it is effective relating or not.??
For me, saying the unconditioned is primary is the same as you saying no
matter how much it appears we choose, it is still choiceless - the secondary can
never overcome the 'first without a second'. The secondary is a pretense/appearance,
yet seemingly very real. So, a lot of contradictions there I suppose, depending on
how one looks at it. But it's just a way of talking about it.

Andro
07-02-2012, 02:54 AM
For me, saying the unconditioned is primary is the same as you saying no matter how much it appears we choose, it is still choiceless -
the secondary can never overcome the 'first without a second'. The secondary is a pretense/appearance, yet seemingly very real.

Yes. I understand what you mean and I see the correspondence between our terminologies :)

chrysopoeia
07-02-2012, 03:30 AM
Let's go with this idea Ghislain had in the mind control thread about people not
knowing themselves and having their lies about what is.

What is is everything. Because what is is what is presently seen.
In the present there is no comparison, no prior knowledge, nothing lacking.
Before anyone argues with me on this, the present which I am talking about
has no time. So you can't even think or speak - that takes time.
If you can't think - no comparisons, no knowledge, no past, no lack,
no freedom to take...

That sounds different than the subjective what is that I spoke of before.
But the subjective what is is placed over the timeless present, just as the
conditioned being pretends to choose when the unconditional has already been seen.
So yes, in your experience of the present, you are thinking right now.
But you're thinking over/in the eternal unconditioned.
If you see that, you also see there is nothing to do about it.
If you think there's something to do, you haven't seen what I am pointing at.
We are not communicating.

It is possible not to think. If you ever experience it, you wont be doing anything.
You may call it 'you' before and after the fact, but during the fact you'll see, there's no you.
"You" is a story/thinking we tell ourselves. The moment we stop telling ourselves the story
of 'me', there is no 'me' to be found. And there is no 'me' to do things.
Things get done, but not by a 'me'.

I am sorry so few have experience with this.
I think I'm describing it pretty well.
I don't think people want to hear.
Or maybe wanting to hear isn't enough.


I think I understand what you are referring to, Solomin Levi. The eternal present moment, the timeless now, the eternal present, also known as the eternal presence.

Some inspiration:

"There is one power that surpasses all the consuming power of time - the eternal: He Who was and is and is to come, in the beginning and the end. He gives us forgiveness for what has passed. He gives us courage for what is to come. He gives us rest in His eternal Presence."
Paul Tillich

"Dying to the small self is the discovery of eternity.(?) Yes, provided we don't think of eternity as being everlasting time but a point without time, the so-called eternal present or timeless now. The Self doesn't live forever in time, it lives in the timeless present prior to time, prior to history, change, succession. The Self is present as Pure Presence, not as everlasting duration, a rather horrible notion."
Ken Wilber - Grace and Grit

"Eternal life belongs to those who live in the present."
Wittgenstein

And the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded in the Gospel of Thomas.

"They said to him, "Tell us who you are so that we may believe in you." He said to them, "You examine the face of heaven and earth, but you have not come to know the one who is in your presence, and you do not know how to examine the present moment."

"When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

And some more reading on eternalism (philosophy of time) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)).

chrysopoeia
07-02-2012, 03:58 AM
As to determinism vs. free will and philosophising over whether or not choice (or free will) actually exists, it could go on forever.

If you were to observe your dreams and in particular the way in which you recall particular dreams with particular qualities, you will realise that your seemingly new ideas and your seemingly free choices are not so new or free. And then there is no need to philosophise over whether or not choice exists but rather why things are as they are.

If you have ever experienced the I Ching, you will have experienced how fascinatingly non-random the seemingly random fall of 3 coins can be. I have seen many versions of this book and I feel some do not do this ancient Chinese oracle justice and just contribute to its misunderstanding and classification as 'New Age'. If you are interested, I recommend Richard Wilhelm's I Ching or Book of Changes, rendered into English by Cary F. Baynes with a foreword by C. G. Jung.

solomon levi
07-02-2012, 09:13 AM
I think I understand what you are referring to, Solomin Levi. The eternal present moment, the timeless now, the eternal present, also known as the eternal presence.

Some inspiration:

"There is one power that surpasses all the consuming power of time - the eternal: He Who was and is and is to come, in the beginning and the end. He gives us forgiveness for what has passed. He gives us courage for what is to come. He gives us rest in His eternal Presence."
Paul Tillich


These are great Chrysopoeia. We can see how the eternal unconditioned presence has sometimes been synonymous with God - I am that I am -
or the kingdom of heaven. Perhaps we can see how this is the only true freedom, forgiveness, peace - a peace that passeth all understanding.

What can we do, when the doing of the "small self" conditions whatever it touches?
We simply see it. But when I say "see", I don't mean our usual projection of the mind,
but a passive reception of "what is, was and will be".
This moment, this present what is, is as good as any to realise the Self/Presence which is eternally the same in all moments.
The aim of spirituality is to create the conditions for this to come about - but what conditions manifest the eternal unconditioned!?
We usually go through life feeling that "this" is not enough, and the subjective "this" will never be enough, no matter how many
conditioned things we acquire or add to "this". The emptiness can only be filled by the fullness of the eternal(ly) unconditioned present/presence.

But I speak in vain. Try all the paths. Exhaust everything.
That is all doing does is reveal the inadequacies of doing.
It may seem you are getting "closer", but what is closer to the unconditioned eternal?
It's as close now as it will ever be.
No matter how much I implore you... implore you to do what??
So they say, "This is only revealed by God."
But God is not other than you; though you can say It is when you are conditioned,
but even that is God.
If you want to do something, it is my advice that you try to accept/allow/admit every
present moment as God's divine providence. Don't judge it; don't reject any part of it;
don't try to escape it for what you prefer. That is called "sin". Do not put yourself before God.
Do not imagine you can do better than God. Do not imagine "this" should be "otherwise".
This present moment, "what is", whatever it is, is God's gift/present/providence.
What can I say if you reject what can only be given by God?
This Donum Dei is the stone, which the builders/doers reject.
They condition the unconditioned.
This isn't bad or evil; but it is the source of all suffering.
That is seeing things for what they are without judging them.
If it is suffering you want, by all means, reject God's gift...
imagine that conditioned you can do better than unconditioned God.
But there will be no peace until the son of man/satan/saturn/time is crucified.
Then the sins of the world are forgiven.
But this has already always happened, so it is incorrect of me to say "then..."

solomon levi
07-02-2012, 11:25 AM
If you have followed this reasoning, there are so many things we can now talk about.
For example, the difference between seers/sages and sorcerers... again, no good and bad implied;
I'm just going to say what they are.

A seer rests in the peace of non-action, receiving the Donum Dei, like the Tao te Ching describes.
A sorcerer has seen the unconditioned, and because of this freedom, s/he takes liberties with the conditioned world.
A sorcerer can bend the rules because s/he knows the "source" (sourcerer) of them.
A sorcerer can do miracles, turn water into wine, manipulate spirits... all kinds of things.
The point is, the sorcerer manipulates the conditioned world(s), for personal (conditioned) reasons.
They are able to do this because they have seen there is no difference between the conditioned and the unconditioned.
Enlightened people, seers, say/see the same thing, only they don't care to act or do anything or have powers or do miracles.

Consider what I've just said in regard to the mind control thread.
The Illuminati and Masons are doers/builders/sorcerers.
They act under the unconditional freedom of the 'eye of providence' - that is their God;
the same God as the seers/sages/enlightened (illuminated), only they work in the conditioned/time/saturn/satan.
All the "atrocities" they commit are "allowed" and "forgiven" by the unconditional God. Can you handle that?
They are sorcerers who are free (freemasons) to act outside of man-made laws and "morals and dogma".
I'm sure not everyone of them realises this, but many do. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

These are the reasons alchemists don't want the stone to fall into the wrong hands.
But there are no wrong hands; yet we are free to act as if there are.
So some alchemists and enlightened beings are political and try to lead the world into "light", as their controlled folly.
Others may be on a serious mission. :)
And others are sorcerers, "false messiahs" who also preach about "light" while serving darkness.
But in the unconditioned, what is light and dark? right and wrong? true and false?

Now, before anyone gets any big ideas about doing sorcery without punishment, guilt, condemnation from God, etc...
you can perhaps see how individuals are various degrees of conditioned.
For example, you can listen to me and like what I say without seeing it yourself and make it your religion.
You experience "forgiveness/freedom" to the degree that you see and are conditioned.
This may be hard to follow, because I'm talking about the difference between subjective "what is" and the unconditioned Isness,
which are the same, only we experience them differently according to our degree of conditioning.
As "false" as this is, the conditioned self experiences it as real.
So let's say... (laughing... I'm sorry. some of you will think I'm the devil after reading these posts.) let's say there's the
enlightened person or alchemical adept, who still medels in politics and tries to steer the world. The part of that which
is conditioned, maybe 5% - I don't know, is "forgiven", but not forgiven. The conditioned must be purified with hell-fire.
Sound crazy or do you follow?
Here's what Jesus said about it:

Matthew 5:17-26
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing."

So what I have placed in bold, these describe the "degrees" or percentages I was talking about.
Do sorcerers experience forgiveness or hell-fire?
Forgiveness is there/here, but every condition is a "choice" of suffering.
Hell is not a judgement as we usually think of that word - right and wrong.
But "the Judgement" is real. The weighing of one's heart against the feather of truth is real.
That conditioned things/beings suffer is real.
To the degree we participate in conditions, we suffer.

So what am I trying to say?
Be aware of your choices, your beliefs... of all conditioned things.
You want to free Tibet? Suffering.
You want to feed starving children? Suffering.
Are you for or against abortion? Suffering either way.
You want to fight injustice? Suffering.

Conditions are suffering. Will you solve suffering with suffering?
I know it seems against reason to do nothing, and I'm not saying what you should do...
I'm saying what things are, truthfully and accurately.
The doings of mankind have created the misery.
We think "right doing" will solve "wrong doing", but both are sets of conditions and conditions are suffering.

So what I was getting at is, as free as you may become, to the degree that we partcipate in the conditioned, we suffer.
God is unconditional forgiveness. But subjectively, we aren't "choosing" God/providence. We are choosing to act, to alter "what is".
We are believing in conditions, not unconditional forgiveness.
Does it matter? Only subjectively. But look at to what degree you are subjective! "Every last farthing..."

Can one do sorcery and not suffer? I don't know.
I know conditions = suffering.
What motive can there be to act from the unconditioned?
Can there be an unconditioned motive?
If not, one surmises that sorcery is suffering.
10% suffering looks pretty damn good to 85% suffering...
How involved are you in making a change?
And how involved are you in the unchanging, ever-changing, unconditioned Presence?

Again, it's not bad to suffer. Is it worth the price? Surely we'll say "yes" sometimes.
Isn't that what a divine incarnation is? Sort of. :)

And although it may seem confusing, the conditioned happens within the unconditioned.
It IS the unconditioned, even though it doesn't seem so.
When suffering is "what is", you don't know it as suffering.
So in spite of what I said above, suffering needn't be eradicated. :)

chrysopoeia
07-02-2012, 11:48 AM
These are the reasons alchemists don't want the stone to fall into the wrong hands.

Yes, I have read this many times but I wonder whether the Stone could ever actually truly fall into the wrong hands. For the path has certain prerequisites. Could someone who is predominantly 'evil' in nature ever actually walk such a path without being burned? For it is a true test of fire. Certainly not for the faint-hearted or unworthy.

solomon levi
07-02-2012, 12:52 PM
I should have worded that a little differently.
"These are the reasons..."
I mean the general reason of people using power to do harm.
There are other specific reasons some have arrived at in laboratory alchemy.

Yes, I suppose it depends on what we mean by wrong hands. As I said, there are no wrong hands.
But relatively, how clean were John Dee's hands if we are to believe he acquired the stone, even if he found it.
Or, does the book "The Red Lion" ring true in that a person murders an alchemist and steals the stone and ingests it.

I don't know how to judge this.
For me, if it could fall into the wrong hands, it wouldn't be an accident, therefore the hands are not wrong.

'Unworthy' is a complicated word for me. Unworthy in whose eyes? Does the unconditioned see/measure unworthiness?
Do we have to be worthy of unconditional love? Subjectively, yes. Objectively, no.

Does alchemy describe something subjective (personal, conditioned) or objective (impersonal, unconditioned) or both?

Some thoughts on whether an evil person could make the stone were shared in this thread:
http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2631-Good-vs-Evil-and-the-Quality-of-the-Stone

solomon levi
07-03-2012, 02:25 AM
"There are two magnets in man, i.e., two wills contending for man: the one universal, the other particular;
the one related to the Divine Centre, the other to the self centre. Therefore these two contend for the soul.
The Hermetic picture of the two dogs, the Corascene dog and that of Armenia, as they sometimes are called,
is an illustration of this, as is also the allegory of the Duellum between the two knights; in the common life
they are not in contact, they are remote from each other, the one, that related to the self-will, being carried
out through the senses; the other,the good life, being hidden and required to be sought out by the will and
desire of man turned toward it." - Mary Ann Atwood, Suggestive Inquiry

solomon levi
07-04-2012, 02:47 PM
I had said conditions = suffering. Here it is said differently:
Context - understand that Aleph = absolute unknowable mystery that is life-death existence-nonexistence.

"Cosmic Drama -
According to the Qabala, when ALEPH is projected into existence it becomes YOD. YOD symbolizes, not the power (pouvoir) or ableness to exist, but the assertion of actual existence itself. So this timeless energy or power of ALEPH can become projected into existence—into time. But, by this, it becomes limited. That which was without limit becomes subject to temporal succession. Hence this implies a sacrifice on the part of ALEPH of its own unique character. It has to give up something of its own wholeness and self-consistency. It compromises its nature when it becomes YOD and is thereby involved in contradiction. . It becomes what it was not and, in doing so, opposes its own nature. The war with time enters into all existence and becomes a war between ALEPH and YOD."
Carlo Suares - Cipher of Genesis

chrysopoeia
07-05-2012, 03:10 PM
I should have worded that a little differently.
"These are the reasons..."
I mean the general reason of people using power to do harm.
There are other specific reasons some have arrived at in laboratory alchemy.

'Unworthy' is a complicated word for me. Unworthy in whose eyes? Does the unconditioned see/measure unworthiness?
Do we have to be worthy of unconditional love? Subjectively, yes. Objectively, no.



Ok, I understand what you mean, Solomon.
Yes, 'unworthy' is perhaps a complicated term. What I meant to say was perhaps more along the lines of 'those who do not have what it takes' or 'those who are predominantly evil in nature' or perhaps simply 'unsuitable'. You can be burned if you make a mistake and you do not have to be predominantly evil in nature to experience that. So, it just makes me wonder whether someone predominantly evil in nature with ill intentions and an insincere heart could ever walk the path without being burned. Surely nature would not allow it...

chrysopoeia
07-05-2012, 03:17 PM
"There are two magnets in man, i.e., two wills contending for man: the one universal, the other particular;
the one related to the Divine Centre, the other to the self centre. Therefore these two contend for the soul.
The Hermetic picture of the two dogs, the Corascene dog and that of Armenia, as they sometimes are called,
is an illustration of this, as is also the allegory of the Duellum between the two knights; in the common life
they are not in contact, they are remote from each other, the one, that related to the self-will, being carried
out through the senses; the other,the good life, being hidden and required to be sought out by the will and
desire of man turned toward it." - Mary Ann Atwood, Suggestive Inquiry

This is also interesting. You have this quotation on your blogspot.

Two wills contending for man: one universal, the other particular to the person. This could be taken to mean that there are two paths which a man can take in life. Two choices, two possibilities: one is of the will of God, the other of man. Remote from each other, separate. So, it is again related to the concept of free will which I would prefer to call 'seemingly free will', for if you were to observe your dreams for a long period of time and the way in which you come to recall particular dreams with particular qualities, you will see that your seemingly new ideas and seemingly free choices are in fact not so new or free. It would seem that inevitability and predestination are much closer than most people would like to think, but this does not mean you cannot make choices which feel free. So herein lies the question, if it is so, is there truly any other path that a man can take except for the one which unfolds before him? And if there is only one path, is there also only one will? And whose will determines this path?

solomon levi
07-05-2012, 03:34 PM
Hi Chrysopoeia. :)

It's synchronistic you should post that now. I just wrote some new blogs related to this subject: Adam, and The River of Life.
They're my most recent two if you want to check them out. Just finished them before i came here to see what's going on. :)

I see the key in your phrase, "the one (path) which unfolds before him".
People are not always looking forward. Mostly they look to the past/known to define themselves and reality.
If we were receiving time as it unfolds before us, it would be unknown, the will of God. Instead we pursue the plans we've made,
the will of man, as you put it. God is an unknown/unknowable. To turn your face to God is to face the unknown.
This is my seeing anyway. :)

Check out the blog. I cover all the things you spoke of. I must have written it for you. :)

Bel Matina
07-05-2012, 04:03 PM
The bit about two magnets is a good way of introducing the doctrine of two suns, but I'd like to add a bit which takes it a step further. In our practice we find many magnets, which might lead to a sophmoric objection that this talk of two magnets is nonsensical. This is easily defused by an explanation that the content of the signs vary by context, but this actually misses the mark. We find magnets in those places we invest with an external autonomy - that is, wherever gold has injected itself into the matrix. The lower sun and, once it has become reified, the higher sun, are instances of this broader principle, which deserve their special attention on account of their centrality.

chrysopoeia
07-06-2012, 03:50 PM
Hi Chrysopoeia. :)

It's synchronistic you should post that now. I just wrote some new blogs related to this subject: Adam, and The River of Life.
They're my most recent two if you want to check them out. Just finished them before i came here to see what's going on. :)

I see the key in your phrase, "the one (path) which unfolds before him".
People are not always looking forward. Mostly they look to the past/known to define themselves and reality.
If we were receiving time as it unfolds before us, it would be unknown, the will of God. Instead we pursue the plans we've made,
the will of man, as you put it. God is an unknown/unknowable. To turn your face to God is to face the unknown.
This is my seeing anyway. :)

Check out the blog. I cover all the things you spoke of. I must have written it for you. :)

Thank you, I will have a look at them. :)