PDA

View Full Version : as within, so without



solomon levi
03-28-2013, 09:41 PM
I just saw this meme on fb that read, "If you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change." I hope to argue this convincingly, 'once and for all'. :) Not that I imagine to succeed.
Most everyone has heard that quantum physics recognises that we alter things we perceive through the act of perception. This can be easily verified by simple tests...
Do people respond differently to you if you approach them in love or fear, trust or suspicion, warmth or walls? If a dog charges you barking and bearing teeth with ears back, does it energetically affect you differently than if it came walking wagging its tail with head down?
Is there anything so easily verified?! Forget this business of subjective and objective... it is one infinity, one matter, one energy we live in, we share. It is name and body/form (namarupa) that give the appearance of separateness. But if you change the way you look at these bodies, they are the same subatomically, spiritually... they are energy... continued...

solomon levi
03-28-2013, 09:53 PM
energy which co-responds to energy, vibration, frequency... how frequently do you look at things this way? How frequently do you look at things as bodies separate from you, from the one 'mind', as hermeticism has called it... "all is mind; the Universe is mental."
If you want world change, remember this and apply it. Be an activist or whatever, but do this also. Mind is quicker than body. Body is the precipitate of the mind. If you want to change the precipitate, don't stir it around... change the pH.

glenerson
03-29-2013, 12:22 AM
Matter was created to tame or lets be vulgar, to enslave the Mind. Lucky is the Mind who is free from Matter, for this Mind is the Mind of no boundaries, no limits, omnipotent, God-like or even God itself.

God is like the Mind free of Matter. For God is independent of Matter.

If there is such mind that doesn't need a body, what mind it is? probably a mind that exist out of matter. An omnipotent self existing mind made up not of matter or energy.

Remember that to be a Creator, One must be distinct from your Creation.

To be like the Creator, you must be separated from the Creation.

Your mind is the key. Don't think of Creation. Think outside of Creation. Imagine what exists outside the universe. Imagine what is not "The All". The latter is easy because what is not "The All" is simply nothing, a blank state, state of Zero, the state of TRUE Singularity. The Nothingness, The Absolute, The Eternal.

The State of God, if you may.

Kiorionis
03-29-2013, 02:35 AM
Remember that to be a Creator, One must be distinct from your Creation.

To be like the Creator, you must be separated from the Creation.



I quite disagree with you on this point, glenerson. My opinion is that alchemy is a divine science and requires man or woman to be one with his or her work. How this happens is through the imagination, stepping inside the flask or allowing the flask to boil gently in you stomach.

glenerson
03-29-2013, 02:48 AM
I quite disagree with you on this point, glenerson. My opinion is that alchemy is a divine science and requires man or woman to be one with his or her work. How this happens is through the imagination, stepping inside the flask or allowing the flask to boil gently in you stomach.

His work and the alchemist are initially one. If he makes it to such a point that his work becomes independent from Himself or is made existing independently out of himself, then he just duplicated what God did on His creation.

We are all technically subset of a superset. Our work is a subset of ourselves. Our work is One with us and We are one with the creation. This is the default setting. Look at it as a jigsaw puzzle. So that the work becomes self evident, independently existing out of the Superset that is of Creation, you, the worker, must put and make your work outside of Creation. if you did this, You just made your work independent of Creation. This can also happen with the worker, since his work is his proof of concept that somethings within Creation can be put outside of Creation.

Separation from Creation. Making your work independent from yourself. You, a part of the Creation, made your work to exist outside of creation. That's something. A part of you, or technically you, made yourself outside, distinct, separate from Creation.

Bel Matina
03-29-2013, 03:43 AM
Solvete et Coagulate

solomon levi
03-29-2013, 09:17 PM
Matter was created to tame or lets be vulgar, to enslave the Mind. Lucky is the Mind who is free from Matter, for this Mind is the Mind of no boundaries, no limits, omnipotent, God-like or even God itself.

Yeah, if you're a victim. I would say matter was created by the mind to "enslave" the mind... because the mind was seeking a way to do this... it WANTED to. The mind wanted to smell flowers and see colors and feel sex and everything. You can't experience what you do not first dream/conceive. Matter is a child of the mind, the cross. It can be purified of dross, but it must be drossed first. This purification results in another exponential degree of the child/transmutation. It doesn't end in zero, but it does return to zero for the briefest of times, and then 1, and then 0, and then 1... the flux of the universal sea.



God is like the Mind free of Matter. For God is independent of Matter.

The independent part of God is independent from matter, but not the dependent part. That math looks good.
I do not image the God as half like you.



If there is such mind that doesn't need a body, what mind it is? probably a mind that exist out of matter. An omnipotent self existing mind made up not of matter or energy.


Now you're skipping steps from matter to energy. Consider matter is a relative definition, not an absolute one... Matter is energy that vibrates as the same speed as your attention.



Remember that to be a Creator, One must be distinct from your Creation.


Which is why there are other options than believing in a creator. :)



To be like the Creator, you must be separated from the Creation.


Several options...
1. the creator didn't create you to be like "him" but like "you". This is why there are many names for God in the bible, and many names for "creating, forming, making, materialising, imagining... in other words, physical creation, emotional creation, mental creation, etheric creation... There are four worlds of kabbalah; briah is but one level of "matter"/"creation".
2. Matter/Creation is a narrow spectrum of energy (a distillation) which changes as "you" change. You are the Youniverse, but only looking at a fraction of yourself right now and labeling it "matter".
3. So with matter/creation being relative, the death of one matter is just the birth of another - the phoenix rises from her ashes; the ouroboros swallows its tail.
4. If we say "no, but the destruction of EVERYTHING", it will still be relative if one sees or believes in the Infinite nature of God. In other words, to believe as you do one has to equate God with the finite, and most people won't admit to that. To say that something can be cut off from God is relative. It's true and it's not true... I can see it both ways. You've eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and now you see that way. I ate, threw up and then took homeopathic doses of the apple. :) (that was genius! who's writing this?)



Your mind is the key.
"said the mind!"



Don't think of Creation. Think outside of Creation. Imagine what exists outside the universe. Imagine what is not "The All". The latter is easy because what is not "The All" is simply nothing, a blank state, state of Zero, the state of TRUE Singularity. The Nothingness, The Absolute, The Eternal.

The State of God, if you may.

Again, my "the All" is not your "the All". Mine encompasses everything and nothing. You can't call it "All" if it isn't All. Your "All" isn't All. Mine is.
I imagine these things all the time. I imagined today yesterday. But that isn't All I did.

solomon levi
03-29-2013, 09:24 PM
His work and the alchemist are initially one. If he makes it to such a point that his work becomes independent from Himself or is made existing independently out of himself, then he just duplicated what God did on His creation.

We are all technically subset of a superset. Our work is a subset of ourselves. Our work is One with us and We are one with the creation. This is the default setting. Look at it as a jigsaw puzzle. So that the work becomes self evident, independently existing out of the Superset that is of Creation, you, the worker, must put and make your work outside of Creation. if you did this, You just made your work independent of Creation. This can also happen with the worker, since his work is his proof of concept that somethings within Creation can be put outside of Creation.

Separation from Creation. Making your work independent from yourself. You, a part of the Creation, made your work to exist outside of creation. That's something. A part of you, or technically you, made yourself outside, distinct, separate from Creation.

I see it this way too, without end, exponentially, fractally.
What you call Creation is an infinitely small part of another Creation, etc, etc.

glenerson
03-29-2013, 10:16 PM
Again, my "the All" is not your "the All". Mine encompasses everything and nothing. You can't call it "All" if it isn't All. Your "All" isn't All. Mine is.
I imagine these things all the time. I imagined today yesterday. But that isn't All I did.

For the All to be defined there must be an opposite concept that defines the All. If the All includes its opposite, it wouldn't be the All. It will be "the undefined."

solomon levi
03-29-2013, 10:48 PM
For the All to be defined there must be an opposite concept that defines the All. If the All includes its opposite, it wouldn't be the All. It will be "the undefined."

The defined is the undefined defined.

"The defined is the undefined defined; the undefined is the defined undefined."
- Serpentio's law of uncertainty


But yes, the All is undefined... a name without a form. It is infinite, thus cannot be defined/captured/imprisoned/grasped.

Seth-Ra
03-30-2013, 05:17 AM
The defined is the undefined defined.

"The defined is the undefined defined; the undefined is the defined undefined."
- Serpentio's law of uncertainty


But yes, the All is undefined... a name without a form. It is infinite, thus cannot be defined/captured/imprisoned/grasped.


Exactly. Hence the "unspeakable" name of God - because there isnt just one - yet they are all One.

"Antimony!!!" - cries the wolf, while the fox winks. :cool:


Good writings SL. :)






~Seth-Ra

thrival
03-30-2013, 07:08 AM
Kiorionis:

I know some alchemists like St. Germain wrote metaphorically of being inside their work, and others put a lot of hope, psychic or visceral energy into it, and for their own personal reasons, for whatever it's worth; but alchemy is also happening in nature (an expression of divinity) without any human input or awareness, and I think the stone would form of its own if the correct ingredient(s) are exposed to the proper conditions over time. Depending upon your recipe, just put your matter in an egg, adjust your hotplate and walk away. All a farmer can do is plant, water & fertilize, he has no control of the seeds sprouting, but if the seed is good and the conditions favorable, a relative number will sprout. It's a tendency of human beings to over-rate their own importance. Even billionaires eventually find themselves to be food for worms. Where did their high opinion of themselves ultimately get them!


I quite disagree with you on this point, glenerson. My opinion is that alchemy is a divine science and requires man or woman to be one with his or her work. How this happens is through the imagination, stepping inside the flask or allowing the flask to boil gently in you stomach.

glenerson
03-30-2013, 07:26 AM
The defined is the undefined defined.

"The defined is the undefined defined; the undefined is the defined undefined."
- Serpentio's law of uncertainty


But yes, the All is undefined... a name without a form. It is infinite, thus cannot be defined/captured/imprisoned/grasped.


I don't know man but if it is undefined then it is defined as "undefined". so it is defined. And also you encased your version of infinity to the word "infinite", thus you defined/captured/imprisoned/grasped it.

I don't know if you're just playing with words or trying to pose that you know the All but it sounds to me that you're just doing the latter. For the infinite is defined as the opposite of finite. i don't need to describe what infinite is all i can do is know what it is not for if i know what it is not i will know what it is. if you claim to know that it is what it is and what its not, you are negating its definition and you will come with no definition. so silence is the best way to describe the version of Your All because it has no definition. or possibly it doesn't exist for it cannot be manifest. Congrats. Welcome to the Zero fans club, where nothingness is the closest approximation of or the only way to define silence or no definition.

attaching attributes to the undefined is defining it. so it will not be undefined anymore. it will not be what you claim the all.

Zero. That's all you need to know if you want to know the All.

thrival
03-30-2013, 07:39 AM
It's pretty hard to claim you know the All and not know what's occurring behind two doors down, or two street corners. It sounds like an endlessly regressing game of rhetorical jousting / spiritual one-upsmanship to me.

Years back I recall reading something ostensibly channelled by/from aliens who reached the end of the universe and were afraid to proceed further because anything that crossed that threshold flew apart, there was no atomic cohesiveness at all; kinda' like the way the second death is described, reserved for souls who just wouldn't follow the program. The message was that souls have individual identities for a reason, with all the consequences, and that reprobates can be dissolved back into particle soup as if they never had been. (Call it the First Law of Utility-- anything that doesn't serve the creative purpose isn't allowed to exist. The Immortals get the last word.) FEAR OF GOD IS THE BEGINNING OF WISDOM.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fFv9CtPhdk&feature=endscreen&NR=1 (www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fFv9CtPhdk&feature=endscreen&NR=1)

solomon levi
03-30-2013, 09:49 PM
Thanks Seth-Ra. :)



Kiorionis:

I know some alchemists like St. Germain wrote metaphorically of being inside their work, and others put a lot of hope, psychic or visceral energy into it, and for their own personal reasons, for whatever it's worth; but alchemy is also happening in nature (an expression of divinity) without any human input or awareness, and I think the stone would form of its own if the correct ingredient(s) are exposed to the proper conditions over time. Depending upon your recipe, just put your matter in an egg, adjust your hotplate and walk away. All a farmer can do is plant, water & fertilize, he has no control of the seeds sprouting, but if the seed is good and the conditions favorable, a relative number will sprout. It's a tendency of human beings to over-rate their own importance. Even billionaires eventually find themselves to be food for worms. Where did their high opinion of themselves ultimately get them!

This is accurate if a human is JUST a human being. But no thing is JUST the separate body so easily perceived by our trained minds now.
I have experienced inhuman states of consciousness. But again, what is the definition of human? Are we not microcosm? As microcosm,
your above response loses accuracy and we are related to everything and influence our lab work.
Humans are an incarnate of spirit/energy, as is everything else. Technically, there is no way to remove us from anything, for our roots (all roots) find their source in the Whole/One/Infinite.
We can remove nothing without uprooting the whole. Every manifest thing is precious to God/Infinity - the "good" and the "bad", etc. I agree, man is not special except
to man, subjectivity at it's finest. Bees are special to bees and oats to oats and dust to dust... it's just resonance and mirroring.

"Humans are an incarnate of spirit/energy, as is everything else."
Here I do not say we are exactly as everything else... all things are evolving at different rates in the spectrum,
so our manifest differences are many. But as we approach the root (which cannot be reached, but can be seen, by a separate approacher)
we see less difference. Humans are "evolved", or more accurately IMO, INvolved, more than most because we can perceive more difference.

"Volve" is an interesting root. E means "out" and IN means "in".
Volve means motion, volition...
vulva (n.)
1540s, from Latin vulva, earlier volva "womb, female sexual organ," literally "wrapper," from volvere "to turn, twist, roll, revolve," also "turn over in the mind," from PIE root *wel- "to turn, revolve," with derivatives referring to curved, enclosing objects (cf. Sanskrit valate "turns round," ulvam "womb, vulva;" Lithuanian valtis "twine, net," apvalus "round;" Old Church Slavonic valiti "roll, welter," vluna "wave;" Greek eluo "wind, wrap," helix "spiral object," eilein "to turn, squeeze;" Gothic walwjan "to roll;" Old English wealwian "roll," weoloc "whelk, spiral-shelled mollusk;" Old High German walzan "to roll, waltz;" Old Irish fulumain "rolling;" Welsh olwyn "wheel"). http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=volve&searchmode=none

Evolving and involving are coagula and solve, defining and undefining, materialising and spiritualising... all acting on the one thing - not two things.
The scale/spectrum of the one thing is infinite to my vision, the tail (infinitely yin, slow, large, etc...) being swallowed by the head (infinitely yang, fast, small, etc...),
because seeing either one looks the same, like any area of the fractal has no orientating landmarks, just as when I've been in what I call "the void".
Our present existence right now is still in that chaotic void, but we have "organised" it to make life/sanity manageable. We have given fixity to the volatile.
The defined is the undefined defined...

Not trying to convince or change you, or even argue Thrival. Just explaining another view/option.
I appreciate our disagreements and how they have helped us to clarify and define ourselves and the universe.
You too Glenerson. :)

Seth-Ra
03-30-2013, 10:08 PM
Humans are an incarnate of spirit/energy, as is everything else. Technically, there is no way to remove us from anything, for our roots (all roots) find their source in the Whole/One/Infinite.
We can remove nothing without uprooting the whole. Every manifest thing is precious to God/Infinity - the "good" and the "bad", etc. I agree, man is not special except to man, subjectivity at it's finest. Bees are special to bees and oats to oats and dust to dust... it's just resonance and mirroring.

Bold and underline was added by me to emphasize.

I couldnt help but read that and think of this image:


http://s1.hubimg.com/u/1502212_f260.jpg

Which is both "0" and "1" simultaneously - which is called by us "perfection". :cool:

http://chimeralinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/symbol-fo-the-sun1.jpg

Micro, Macro - both are the same, tis merely position within them - wheels within wheels, rings within rings.
All is One, and None (N(otjust)one). ;)




~Seth-Ra

solomon levi
03-30-2013, 10:54 PM
I don't know man but if it is undefined then it is defined as "undefined". so it is defined. And also you encased your version of infinity to the word "infinite", thus you defined/captured/imprisoned/grasped it.

I don't know if you're just playing with words or trying to pose that you know the All but it sounds to me that you're just doing the latter. For the infinite is defined as the opposite of finite. i don't need to describe what infinite is all i can do is know what it is not for if i know what it is not i will know what it is. if you claim to know that it is what it is and what its not, you are negating its definition and you will come with no definition. so silence is the best way to describe the version of Your All because it has no definition. or possibly it doesn't exist for it cannot be manifest. Congrats. Welcome to the Zero fans club, where nothingness is the closest approximation of or the only way to define silence or no definition.

attaching attributes to the undefined is defining it. so it will not be undefined anymore. it will not be what you claim the all.

Zero. That's all you need to know if you want to know the All.

I agree. Except... :) You know that part where I say "excludes nothing including excluding something."?
This allows for the paradox that is inherent in everything that I see.

You're right, but only because you won't agree to see things my way. :)
I'm flexible. I can comprehend that someone can use a word, or many words to point at something undefined.
I can stretch to include that. That's all I have done. Given a word, or several words, to an unwordable, only so I can talk about it with others.
This does not MAKE it defined or alter it in any way, and it does. I can see both, even at the same time. I don't know how I do that, but I do it.
Intent does it... I decide or desire to do it and it happens. I could explain it and it might not explain anything.
(I can actually feel the "magnetism" (?) in my brain hemispheres when I see both at once. I'm just becoming aware of this... observing it closely...
and yes, I do get more silent. I can't think and do this at the same time. But I can alter between thinking and doing this at various speeds - the flux
I mentioned before... matter is defined by an agreement about flux speed/frequency. Just as clock time is arbitrary, or relative to something else
like the sun, so too is one's definition of matter/creation.)


"I don't know if you're just playing with words or trying to pose that you know the All but it sounds to me that you're just doing the latter."

Thank you for allowing it to be unknown. If you ask me, I will tell you in all honesty, I am not posing (second-hand) but sharing what I see (first-hand).
We are forced to play with words because they are not very fluid... thus green language, hieroglyphs, etc.
If i could just show you I would, without words. But I need your permission/agreement to do that and we need "God's" permission - resonance
between subconscious and conscious. If I send it, you need to be able to receive it. If you can't receive it, you might notice it in a dream instead of consciously.
Anyway, besides these discussions, I won't interfere or send it spiritually without consent because I love and respect you without agreeing... though I'm finding
more similarities between us, just different ways of wording it. And words are important here - they make the difference because
they impress the subconscious and then appear and people say "why? this isn't what i wanted." No, but it's what was intended.
"God"/providence/resonance/Life doesn't make mistakes... it (the objective?) is a perfect reflection of subjective consciousness.
These two ways can perhaps be described as microcosm to macrocosm versus macrocosm to microcosm. I would associate the first with Demiurgos and
the second with Christos. Sophia experienced both extremes. :)
But some will imagine Sophia, once finding her way back home, never returned again to those nasty archons.
My vision does not agree. What I see is people/consciousness always dreaming the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.
The unmanifest will dream of manifesting and the manifest will dream of unmanifesting...
This is Nature's motor, the revolution of the elements, circulation, alchemy...
You and I are Sophia. She did return! And will return to the 0...
The duration of that return is relative to one's frequency. We are always returning there and here... the flux.
It happens millions of times a second and it happens once every billion years and every other cycle, small or large,
fast or slow, galactic or subatomic... The end/return is not final, not an objective goal.