PDA

View Full Version : dualism



solomon levi
04-08-2013, 06:25 AM
dualism is a necessary stage of alchemy. i used to write about it quite a bit... how opposing (oppo - sing) forces are necessary for the manifest universe... how this corresponds to alchemy's 'war of two knights', 'armenian dogge and corascene bitche', etc. For years alchemists spoke of only mercury and sulphur until Paracelsus came along. And the east had yin and yang before that...
Dualism must certainly be understood. But al cheumia (fusion) is about joining (yoke/yoga)... religion comes from latin ligare: to bind. The P stone is triple fixed/bound...

thrival
04-08-2013, 06:04 PM
The Summum, (ostensibly a set of principles God wrote on to a second tablet, which Moses destroyed in a fit of rage because he felt his people didn't deserve such lofty truths, having sunk into idolatry) mentions that apparent opposites are just two sides of the same thing. However the parts can also exist separately (e.g. acids and alkalis), which we do see in alchemy.

Duality covers a broad range and nuances of topics, but it's no good to say that duality is a myth and then smear everything together as if distinctions didn't exist, that would be going back to mere chaos, which the awesome power of God seems able to separate and corral. It takes both knowledge and power to do the impossible and that's also how humans learn to recognize their place, because God isn't a human concept that can be "understood" ...or usurped.

glenerson
04-08-2013, 08:11 PM
The only thing that i can say is this

If you see your half and you recognize that it's your half, then you just saw the whole. because 1/2 + 1/2 = 1.

For if you're alone, you cannot see yourself. your half serves as your mirror.

And good thing is that after you recognize that you as a part of a whole exist, you can just coagulate with your half to go back to your prior state, but now with gnosis that you and your half together as One, alone, exist.

solomon levi
04-09-2013, 12:26 AM
I don't say duality is a myth. What i object to is that God is dual alone or in the end/goal... Infinity has no goal/end. All apparent beginnings and endings happen within God/Infinity.
I should perhaps agree with you guys about God if 'he' is not the utmost and Infinity is. If you guys are saying God is Infinity's right hand or something, then i can see that. I am assuming the word God belongs to the greatest. But most people do think of God in limited terms so I am the minority.
When one makes a doer and planner of God, one necessarily ascribes the corresponding laws and limitations... for ex, to do we imagine separation from the act and the thing acted upon. These three are rejoined in alchemy and other systems.
If God is an actor and planner, etc... he cannot be the omnipresent, omnipotent God. To me that is simple math/observation.
If I'm going to conceive myself and God, I'm going all out... not settling for a stage/dualism... God must include all possible stages or why call it God if it is part?

thrival
04-09-2013, 03:05 AM
I don't say duality is a myth. What i object to is that God is dual alone or in the end/goal... Infinity has no goal/end.

How do you know infinity has no goal or end? Maybe infinity has an end and God's goal is to fill it in "His" own time.


All apparent beginnings and endings happen within God/Infinity.

I'm going to be honest and admit that I don't know how far infinity extends. We know it's not supposed to have limits, but in reality it might. Also I'm not going to call God infinity, like the two words were synonymous. The other problem is that simply naming things or talking in words (as concepts) doesn't bring a person anywhere near to grasping real situations. It's mere dialectism.


I should perhaps agree with you guys about God if 'he' is not the utmost and Infinity is. If you guys are saying God is Infinity's right hand or something, then i can see that. I am assuming the word God belongs to the greatest. But most people do think of God in limited terms so I am the minority.

First off, how do you know how "most people" think of God? I can't think of any names off the top but I know more than a few people describe God as unfathonable, powerful enough to create and destroy systems of worlds, and everything on them, a transcendent spiritual entity with a personality, and rules of operation. I just find it very difficult to believe your idea of God is bigger than that, because if you understood even a particle about God, then you should be able to do as much in equal measure. I am not talking about God the idea, but God the living, personal entity, that gives and takes life, rewards and punishes based upon a person's good & bad choices. It makes a person responsible for their actions, a purpose beyond self, and a place to go. That's more than any idea can do.


When one makes a doer and planner of God,

God makes Himself the Doer & Planner. The doing is currently happening, based upon the Plan, whether humans grasp it, matters not. You as a witness isn't required to make it real, although you are free to recognize it, or not I suppose, but the latter would be akin to denying your own existence.


...one necessarily ascribes the corresponding laws and limitations... for ex, to do we imagine separation from the act and the thing acted upon.

Yes, absolutely we acknowledge separation from the thing acted upon. A carpenter is not the house or cabinet he built. Of course there are physical laws, like wave mechanics, light & sound propagation, gravity, and moral laws, the virtues & vices. They constrain to be sure, but no one is outside them, but maybe in their imagination. To be outside moral laws would make you accountable to no one, as if you spontaneously created yourself from nothing; and if that were true, you could spontaneously be anyone, anywhere, not to mention fix yourself, instantly, from any damage you might have suffered by being so "out there" that you tripped on an oversight, which of course, should never happen.


These three are rejoined in alchemy and other systems.

Nyah, I think those connections are overblown re: alchemy, at least in proportion to everything else. Alchemy is happening in nature without human input or awareness. Nature is doing it all by her little lonesome.


If God is an actor and planner, etc... he cannot be the omnipresent, omnipotent God.

Why? Just because you don't grasp something doesn't mean it isn't possible. God isn't obligated to limit Himself just so you can understand Him better. Anyway maybe He made you to be a tool/extension of Himself by breaking off a little part of His awareness to make "you." You would never get all of God, only the amount He broke off. So your limitation of understanding God is due to your own finiteness, the specific limitations the Planner built in.


To me that is simple math/observation.

What if God isn't observable or a math problem?


If I'm going to conceive myself and God,

Conceiving yourself? That's a funny one. I'll bet you had parents like the rest of us. If anything you are a concept made flesh & blood, but not by yourself. "Conceiving God" is as simple as recognizing your own ignorance and limitations, and the fact that you didn't "make" you. That implies a bigger Designer, behind the scenes. It doesn't mean you necessarily know your every role, or the entire stage-play. But willingness to acknowledge the Designer might earn His attention, at least more than ignoring Him might. Do you think God has any respect for atheists? But truthfully, you don't conceive God, He conceives everything and everyone. You might perceive Him, but only if He lets you.


I'm going all out... not settling for a stage/dualism... God must include all possible stages or why call it God if it is part?

But everything is not God. True that "Through Him and in Him we live, move and have our being," (He shares His substance with us) but it's only by His grace & permission that we exist at all. Is quite possible for God to dissolve any particular human-- body, soul & spirit, as if they had never been. Kinda' like flushing out a virus or parasite, and adding it's particles back to the amorphous glue-pot for re-use. He might even delegate the job to a lesser god, Shiva, for instance. Or why not just say "All is permissible." That would put you squarely in Alistair Crowley's camp of Satan-worshipers.

Kiorionis
04-09-2013, 06:10 AM
By way of parable: a spring of water emerging from its source. If you dig beneath it, to prevent the water spreading out in all directions, the water will rise to the level of the source and no further. Similarly, thought can ascend no higher than her origin.

If you dare to contemplate that to which thought cannot expand and ascend, you will not escape one of two consequences. From forcing thought to grasp that which cannot be comprehended, your soul will ascend, be severed, and return to her root, or else your mind will become confused.

something to consider when discussing the characteristics of 'God'.
the confusion above mentioned is profound and reluctantly recommended :p

I've always heard that the best way for man to understand 'God' is through Nature.
Does this mean Nature explains 'God' through analogy, metaphor. . . or both?
or through Her laws and universal principles?
Do these analogies, metaphors, laws and principles reflect triplicity (as in the Godhead) or duality or unity?
Or a Unity of All?

And my favorite question of the hour, is Nature infinite?
(please supply answers with your working definition of 'Nature')

solomon levi
04-09-2013, 07:37 AM
thrival, all your arguments are possible if you ignore the definitions/context i gave. I know Infinity has no end because it is Infinite. duh.
end = finite. you want to complicate everything. when you move towards the source things get simpler.
how do i know? how do you not know?
I know because i don't think. You don't know because you do.
your honesty is appreciated. no one knows. no one can know. it's infinite. that is the definition. simple.
"nyah, you think..." there's the limitation. thought can't encompass it.
just be honest again and recognise the limitations of thought.
"maybe... " your thinking again. maybe your butt is a toothpick. probably not. just be simple.

solomon levi
04-09-2013, 08:01 AM
that you don't recognise that people conceive themselves and God is part of your inability to comprehend. you BELIEVE in some objective reality that is never ACTUALLY existing. I am simply being more honest than you. You also conceive your idea of God... just don't admit it. You pretend you know something objective. I don't have pretenses. Sorry that's a negative to you. Someday maybe you'll join me. You're the one who doesn't recognise the limitations of thought. You have beliefs... I rely on direct perception.
I did make me. I guess that will be another conversation... I am not JUST this limited creation you imagine yourself to be. I've already explained that if you would/could listen.
Please... I have God's complete attention, as do all. We don't have to earn it as in your beliefs. It's a birthright. I've already explained this if you would /could listen.
I'm not atheist. You'll have to ask someone who is.
No. You mean everything is not YOUR partial "God". Everything is my whole God.

solomon levi
04-09-2013, 08:05 AM
lol. satan isn't my problem. It is yours and those who don't know God's omnipotence and omnipresence.
You fail to grasp the limitations... as soon as one plans, all other plans are rejected... that's a limitation. My God is not limited like yours, not part like yours. I don't have to worry about satan cause my God is not part like yours. Not in opposition like yours.
Why you have conceived such a frail God is beyond me.

thrival
04-09-2013, 11:44 AM
Hi Sol:

Actually I'm not conceiving God, at all. I wouldn't even know where to begin to do that. And I am not playing games of one-upsmanship, egoistical or rhetorical word-games, either. I am not saying my "notion" of God is better than yours. What I am doing, is describing a paradigm of the western-Jewish tradition whereby man was visited and attended by beings from a higher dimensional plane/frequency than the one we are on. That tradition is responsible for many of the underpinnings of our current civilization based upon a clear historical thread, that includes revelations & prophecy, in a real sense. Much of our legal system is based upon Mosaic law (eg.)

I am full aware there are other cultural traditions, and have looked into a few. For example, where do you think the native Americans learned about fasting (vision-questing?) It's been a while but I think it was the Book of Mormon that said Jesus visited America after His Ascension (and no, I'm not a Bible-banger, but it's as least as useful as any other book, or a lot of other people thought so.) The native Americans/red race know they are the descendants of Atlantis. And no, thoughts aren't everything, there's feelings too. But neither one are very useful if uninformed by truth, which simply is, but not so simply revealed. Yes I've read Castaneada's books, but ultimately found them to fail when describing development of civilization (where code of behaviour) is concerned. They are more or less godless. I can't remember a time where Carlos or Don Juan talked about a supreme Being as a living entity with Person-hood. The Angels who visit men and channel books claim God is such an entity who they fear, respect and pray to. I would be first to admit my perceptions are woefully inadequate to conceive God in a theoretical, much less actual sense. So I trust those Beings who are one step closer to the source. They seem to be in agreement on that aspect, and are not so impotent. Creation comes from somewhere else, after all, energies weaving and condensing into local matter.

A person can and will have thoughts & feelings, and place more or less importance on either or both. You said everyone has the Creator's attention, but if that were true, why wouldn't more people be getting the results they want? And objective reality is existing, but not observable from a subjective state, see? Maybe God has standards, and part of the results requirement is following the rules? ...at least some of those beings who got results, say it is so. You might contest it with them, it's not my job to prove their views, which are not yours. As for infinity, you are simply discussing a concept, a sideways 8. You've not seen it and don't know how far it goes. I mentioned in a different thread, about spacecraft aliens who claimed to have reached the end of the universe and found it to be a very scary place, of absolute nothingness, where neither matter or spirit holds together, because God hasn't chosen to extend Himself into that direction yet. You could cross that thresh-hold at your peril, not too much to be gained there, plenty to be lost. That's why even the angels recognize their absolute dependence upon God, and why pride is still the first sin.

solomon levi
04-10-2013, 05:02 AM
Well, most a conception of God. You've already shared yours, so yes, you are conceiving God.
If you want to take back everything you said about God and my views of God, then I'll believe you
wouldn't know where to begin. But you began just fine and now you're acting like an innocent.

Ok, Mosaic...Jewish tradition. Ever heard of Ain Soph?

Wow. God with personhood. Ok. Good luck with that. It's not for me.

Personally, I have had angelic experiences of my own, visions of God, aliens, and more.
These are not matters of beliefs for me or taking someone else's word for it.

Yeah, that's one reason I like Castaneda. :) He actually did speak about what God is - the human mold.

"Attention... why aren't people getting results they want..."
Because people do not know themselves. They think God is "out there" and this effectively limits their
ability to work with/through/as the one energy.

"And objective reality is existing, but not observable from a subjective state, see?"
No. :) Do you SEE it, or are you assuming it? You just said you can't observe it from a subjective state.
And in an objective state you would BE it I presume and not observe it either.
What do you do with this objectivity? Why is it important? What does it mean to you?

"Rules..." sure, we can conceive a conditional God or an unconditional one. I no longer have to jump through hoops for God's love/grace.

"Sideways 8"... no. I've told you plenty of times... Infinity has no image. Again, I refer you to Ain Soph for a Jewish view that might interest you.
A concept... yes. You think God with personhood isn't a concept? Where is he? In the past... in the heavens...
anything not right here right now is a concept.
You've not seen absolute objectivity but it's important to you for some reason.
Well, Infinity is important to me. It's true, I will never know it... only portions.
The end of the universe, if it exists, has nothing to do with Infinity. Infinity is not just the material universe.
I know it's limitless because that is the definition of Infinity. If i wanted to speak of limits, I wouldn't use
the word "Infinity". Simple.

"God hasn't chosen to extend himself..."
Ok. Then what I said was accurate: my conception of Infinity is more encompassing than your conception of God.
Now we have established definitions. Please keep them in mind if we converse further.

Anyway. We seem to not have much in common then. I am not a believer in other people's words that I can't
verify myself, and I don't say that from impotency... I can verify alot. I feel it's dangerous to put all your eggs in one basket.
For those with magical knowledge, it is not a big deal to conjure up a Jehovah or whomever. You can call it God if you want,
recognise a hierarchy, etc. That's not untrue... it just isn't my idea of spirituality. It's one option among many.
To window shop and compare prices and quality is the right of man.

solomon levi
04-10-2013, 07:30 PM
Isaiah 45:5-7
I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

So you exclude Isaiah from your list of prophets and seers? Cause a month ago you and Glenerson were saying
God is only good, only part, etc...

glenerson
04-10-2013, 07:38 PM
Isaiah 45:5-7
I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

So you exclude Isaiah from your list of prophets and seers? Cause a month ago you and Glenerson were saying
God is only good, only part, etc...


As thrival said, the cabinet will not become and is not the carpenter. So God creating "evil" will not make him "evil". He is distinct from his creation.

Or just what i've said, he creates the external evil to define Himself as Good.

so there's a purpose to creating evil, that is for Good to exist.

thrival
04-10-2013, 09:21 PM
Well, most a conception of God. You've already shared yours, so yes, you are conceiving God. If you want to take back everything you said about God and my views of God, then I'll believe you wouldn't know where to begin. But you began just fine and now you're acting like an innocent. Maybe I am innocent, apart from my fallen, sinful nature.


Ok, Mosaic...Jewish tradition. Ever heard of Ain Soph? No, I just googled it. First impression is it's a question for human hubris. "I AM the Alpha & the Omega." I tend to stick to problems that concern me. How God chose to first manifest Himself has nothing to do with me in the here & now, and what I think (or feel) about it won't change anything. Again, I think it's an attempt of humans to reduce God into something manageable. If a person knew God personally, they just might ask, but I'll bet the impertinence would be dissolved by fear & awe, in recognition of the Unfathonable's intelligence & power. At least that's how others have chosen to describe it.


Wow. God with personhood. Ok. Good luck with that. It's not for me. Actually the God who gives you life might very well be for you, as against you. "Turn from your ways, and live ye." (Speaking of sin, and the wages thereof.)


Personally, I have had angelic experiences of my own, visions of God, aliens, and more.
These are not matters of beliefs for me or taking someone else's word for it.

Well, me too (angels, relatives who passed on), which proved to me the veracity of an after-life and certain teachings. That's why I no longer feel the need to regress to concepts with less validity.


Yeah, that's one reason I like Castaneda. :) He actually did speak about what God is - the human mold.

But the mold is just a mold. The pattern originate(s) elsewhere, from outside the individual. That's why I feel the idea of humans creating themselves, is a non-starter. You could just as well say the same thing for an oak tree or any other thing that grows from seed. A pattern is a design that starts from a thought. The universe is a thought made manifest. It may contain aspects of the thinker, it's very difficult to determine how much of the Thinker's actual substance is invested in the enterprise.


"Attention... why aren't people getting results they want..." Because people do not know themselves. They think God is "out there" and this effectively limits their ability to work with/through/as the one energy. Really? so do you think (or feel) that identifying with the idea/notion/concept or 'feeling' of being God would help matters? Some people would credit their success for doing just the opposite, for example, praying to a Creator outside themselves, and having those prayers answered by Something bigger, and able to affect circumstances in a way they personally could not.


"And objective reality is existing, but not observable from a subjective state, see?" No. :) Do you SEE it, or are you assuming it? You just said you can't observe it from a subjective state. And in an objective state you would BE it I presume and not observe it either. What do you do with this objectivity? Why is it important? What does it mean to you?

Well, from personal experience I can tell you that any attempt to see reality from an objective state is met with stiff resistance by denizens of this world, who take it as an affront, and a threat, their very survival feeling threatened. I think that's interesting only to a point, but ultimately has an extreme dumbing down effect. Eventually it became clear to me that a person needs very strong immunity to resist the corrosive and undermining effects of subjectivity. Consciousness simply is, it can observe both states, but one is enforced more strongly (when so immersed) than another. Probably similar to why alchemists must exert energy and acumen to separate the elementary principles.


"Rules..." sure, we can conceive a conditional God or an unconditional one. I no longer have to jump through hoops for God's love/grace. In other words, you don't believe/think/feel that God has any rules? There is no such thing as sin, and no punishment/ill effects or long-term after-effects from making willfully bad choices? Isn't that the same thing as saying I can do whatever I want ("Do as thou wilt.") ...per Alisteir Crowley? What if God really has rules that He passed down to man, say Moses? What then? Or to ask it another way, what if there were no such rules? What kind of a world would you be living in then? What kind of universe would it be without any moral laws or virtues? Note I did NOT say that a person doesn't have a choice, even a forced choice ...to make. There's no claiming innocence after Eve bit into the apple (metaphorically speaking.) Apes got brains, no going back to dumb animalhood.


"Sideways 8"... no. I've told you plenty of times... Infinity has no image. Again, I refer you to Ain Soph for a Jewish view that might interest you. A concept... yes. You think God with personhood isn't a concept? Where is he? In the past... in the heavens... anything not right here right now is a concept.

Actually, the sideways 8 is such a symbol, but you don't have to use it if you don't want to. As for the concept of God as a Person, I'm only interested in the veracity, not the concept. There are also plenty of things outside your field of view that are real enough. Just because you're sitting in a dark basement doesn't mean the sun went down, and even the sun going down doesn't mean it went away for long. (crude analogy, I hope won't become endlessly regressive/argumentative.)


You've not seen absolute objectivity but it's important to you for some reason. Well, Infinity is important to me. It's true, I will never know it... only portions. The end of the universe, if it exists, has nothing to do with Infinity. Infinity is not just the material universe. I know it's limitless because that is the definition of Infinity. If i wanted to speak of limits, I wouldn't use the word "Infinity". Simple.

Yes Absolute objectivity is important for me because I'm fully aware how humans like to (whimsically) define the world based upon limited perceptions and then say that's all there is, because I 'wish' it to be so. Why do people waste so much time & energy baby-sitting each others' feelings? Think how often you do it yourself. What's behind that?

As for infinity, yes it's a concept but we don't know that it exists in fact. What we can be almost sure of though, is that none of us will experience even a fraction of it, but maybe the parts we do experience are what matter. As for limits, they exist. Even if infinity is real (not just a word/concept) that doesn't make a person or a spirit limitless. Rules impose limits, like basic physical laws. Even spirits are made of something, so there would be "physics" that apply to spirits too. Can any spirit go anywhere? I'm asking this from an objective point of view, not merely the feeling that I or you "wish" or prefer we could go anywhere. Again our feelings don't trump the constraints that bodies or spirits are limited by something bigger than the created "us." If God hasn't gone somewhere, and you and/or I are particles in God, then by going outside of God (assuming that were possible) we might cease to exist, because where neither matter or spirit will hold together, they simply fly apart.


"God hasn't chosen to extend himself..." Ok. Then what I said was accurate: my conception of Infinity is more encompassing than your conception of God. Now we have established definitions. Please keep them in mind if we converse further.

If infinity includes places God hasn't gone yet, then I will leave it to you to visit those places and kindly report back if you survive.


Anyway. We seem to not have much in common then. I am not a believer in other people's words that I can't verify myself, and I don't say that from impotency... I can verify alot. I feel it's dangerous to put all your eggs in one basket.
For those with magical knowledge, it is not a big deal to conjure up a Jehovah or whomever. You can call it God if you want,
recognise a hierarchy, etc. That's not untrue... it just isn't my idea of spirituality. It's one option among many. To window shop and compare prices and quality is the right of man.

Actually Sol, I bet you trust people a lot and don't demand verification of everything. Physical reality demands a certain faith in things unseen. Have you ever been to Moscow? Isn't there sufficient physical evidence for you to take someone else's word for it? Isn't it equally dangerous to put faith in unproven concepts? And what if God/Jehovah were real in His own right? would your denial of a fact or truth make it go away or take it out of the universe? Some truths are simply more inclusive and relevant having more direct impact upon the person or matter. You don't need to be as concerned with what's happening on say, Alpha Centauri.

solomon levi
04-10-2013, 09:39 PM
As thrival said, the cabinet will not become and is not the carpenter. So God creating "evil" will not make him "evil". He is distinct from his creation.

Or just what i've said, he creates the external evil to define Himself as Good.

so there's a purpose to creating evil, that is for Good to exist.

that isn't what Isaiah said. you are interpreting him to conform to your beliefs/preferences... very unscientific, subjective.

thrival... i'll respond soon... i appreciate this discussion.

glenerson
04-10-2013, 10:15 PM
that isn't what Isaiah said. you are interpreting him to conform to your beliefs/preferences... very unscientific, subjective.

i loled. you categorize my interpretation as subjective and i find your version of "The All" is subjective too. so we're even i guess.

solomon levi
04-10-2013, 10:46 PM
i loled. you categorize my interpretation as subjective and i find your version of "The All" is subjective too. so we're even i guess.

even is one option to guess. can you see no other possibilities or you only use math when it says what you want to see?
another possibility is that one of us is projecting their own subjectivity onto the other. since All means All and Isaiah said something different than you, Occum's razor...
plus you're doing it again here... i don't have a version of the All. All means All. you have a version/alteration where all means part. is your memory failing you, or is this where you know you're wrong and instead of admitting it, you lie about others to distract attention from your failed arguments?

thrival
04-10-2013, 11:15 PM
Sol:

One of the first thing I noticed when I visited this board was certain members' love of discussing "the All" and for the life of me I still don't find it relevant to anything, any more than the discussion of dualism; likewise the days and months, or numerology. I guess different people derive importance from same but for me it explains nothing useful.

solomon levi
04-10-2013, 11:36 PM
hi thrival.
definitely innocent apart from... that's the compassionate/integrating side of dualism. the judgement/separating side of dualism says 'get rid of the sinful. it is bad, not allowed, not worth loving, etc.'
in spagyrics we separate, purify and recombine. in my experience judgement separates, compassion purifies and not seeing the two sides in opposition but as one undifferentiated whole recombines.

there's nothing manageable about infinity/ain soph! you're reasonable and intelligent but sometimes you say the most absurd things. Infinity is infinite by definition and thus unimageable and unmanageable. Please get that. it's very simple. Yes! "unfathomable". How do you get this and not get it?! are you parroting or have you seen it yourself? be consistent... don't change your tune because i call it Infinity. Your unfathomable is my Infinity, my One, my All, my Ineffable, my unimageable, my God... if you apply this word to God, then we agree. allow that.
cont..

thrival
04-11-2013, 12:01 AM
Sol:

Judgement is useful & necessary, both to stay out of trouble, and as a teaching aid, when enforcement becomes necessary ("As above, so below.") Compassion is good, but only after learning has occurred, otherwise you are simply forgiving willful bad behaviour.

Infinity/Ain Soph is boring because its perfectly non-descriptive and not especially useful. It's pointless to ask God where He was before He was. That's what "Alpha & Omega" mean. Just having a definition in one's mind doesn't impart any particular skill or capacity. The Hubble space telescope shows galaxies as far as the eyes can see and beyond, and the inner dimensions as well, but so what. I don't agree or disagree to obtain warm, fuzzy feelings with other people. As far as I'm concerned, a personal God that answers prayer is infinitely more valuable, here & now, than a universe that extends to "infinity." You want to talk absurdity, just repeat that you made you.

solomon levi
04-11-2013, 12:05 AM
consistency... if God is truly Unfathomable, do not ascribe intelligence and power to it. Let it be Unfathomable. Then you will see God face to face. You are trying to manage the unmanageable. :)

God is against me in proportion to my conception of God being external and unwhole/finite... when God is truly seen as omnipresent, not just lip service, there is no possibility of for and against. If you hear anything i say, i pray it is this.

for me, technically, an angel is one who has never incarnated. people who have passed on don't look like angels. that's another topic though.
"That's why I no longer feel the need to regress to concepts with less validity."
In my book Moses is such a regression. One who sees is his/her own authority.

"But the mold is just a mold."
Yeah. And a golden calf is just a golden calf, and a concept is just one concept among millions... why are people so gullible? that was CC's point imo... what people have agreed is God is just what people have agreed is God.
cont...

solomon levi
04-11-2013, 12:21 AM
:) i'll finish this before replying to new posts. this PS3 is a slow way to communicate but all i have for the moment.
"The pattern originate(s) elsewhere, from outside the individual. That's why I feel the idea of humans creating themselves, is a non-starter."
I follow, but that is an unwholistic view. Autogenes is an archetype representing a stage of the one energy/thing. Everything existing exists because it "fell" through every stage from the Origin. To me, there is no more reasonable explanation, but this was seen by me, not reasoned. If we break the smear, the lifeline, into stages, it appears that the stage above creates the stage below. But this creation is evolution of the one (or involution if we are "falling" into matter).

solomon levi
04-11-2013, 12:26 AM
"The universe is a thought made manifest. It may contain aspects of the thinker, it's very difficult to determine how much of the Thinker's actual substance is invested in the enterprise."
Difficult to determine, but not difficult to see. There is only one substance.

"Really? so do you think (or feel) that identifying with the idea/notion/concept or 'feeling' of being God would help matters? Some people would credit their success for doing just the opposite, for example, praying to a Creator outside themselves, and having those prayers answered by Something bigger, and able to affect circumstances in a way they personally could not."

thrival
04-11-2013, 12:36 AM
Sol:

I am being perfectly consistent. All "unfathomable" means is smarter than you (and every other human being on terra firma.) Far be it from me to try and manage God. What I ascribe has no effect on Him who was before me.

God is against you by as much as you violate His common-sense commandments. Moses' agency helped create the civilization you currently enjoy, but that will only last as long as people volunteer to follow the rules. Civilizations rise & fall, for clear reasons, although people repeating those mistakes won't see or admit them.

You are finite, God isn't-- clear as day.

The Ascended were humans once, they are recognizable, just younger (usually) than when they checked out. Death doesn't preclude ascension, just the need to reincarnate.

God is much more than people have agreed to, because He is way beyond human concepts.


consistency... if God is truly Unfathomable, do not ascribe intelligence and power to it. Let it be Unfathomable. Then you will see God face to face. You are trying to manage the unmanageable. :)

God is against me in proportion to my conception of God being external and unwhole/finite... when God is truly seen as omnipresent, not just lip service, there is no possibility of for and against. If you hear anything i say, i pray it is this.

for me, technically, an angel is one who has never incarnated. people who have passed on don't look like angels. that's another topic though.
"That's why I no longer feel the need to regress to concepts with less validity."
In my book Moses is such a regression. One who sees is his/her own authority.

"But the mold is just a mold."
Yeah. And a golden calf is just a golden calf, and a concept is just one concept among millions... why are people so gullible? that was CC's point imo... what people have agreed is God is just what people have agreed is God.
cont...

solomon levi
04-11-2013, 12:53 AM
of course you must verify what you can for yourself. i do not ask you to believe me.
as this one thing denses down by dreaming within dreams within dreams, one can see how a less dense manifestation of oneself, of the one, can answer prayers. knowing that this is what occurs, that you are this one thing, makes praying more effective. faith is a substitute to knowing that works in some conditions.

hmm. i've seen no immunity... just these temporary shields which we occupy ourselves with. the threat is real... you, the individual wave cannot survive that encounter for long. we may glimpse it or get a notion of objective Infinity, but i doubt it can be sustained. whatever i saw of it was awesome/fearful enough. but it's not some edge of the manifest universe... it is everywhere... there is a black hole in every particle. as i say, everything exists from this nothing... macro and microcosmically.

ultimately no (rules), finitely yes. God is both. One is more encompassing. I am always looking for the bigger pictur

solomon levi
04-11-2013, 01:14 AM
the punishment is self punishment, just as prayer is answerd by self or not. we can break it up into conscious and subconscious and superconscious if you want but it's all consciousness interacting with itself.
we CAN do whatever we want, per God. Crowley was just a messenger. He only repeated what Rabelais said in the 16th century. Who is to say Crowley channeling Aiwass is less than Moses channeling Jehovah? Let's be unbiased/scientific.
Our brains have changed over time. Some suggest certain changes correspond to alien intervention and the introduction of language, written word, religion...

"I tend to stick to problems that concern me. How God chose to first manifest Himself has nothing to do with me in the here & now, and what I think (or feel) about it won't change anything. Again, I think it's an attempt of humans to reduce God into something manageable."

not consistently you don't. most of this post has nothing to do with the immediate present.

solomon levi
04-11-2013, 01:43 AM
"such a symbol"... the whole point is there is no such symbol. Infinity is imageless. 8 isnt no matter how you rotate it. At best it MISrepresents.

"I'm only interested in the veracity, not the concept."
no. you are right about Moscow, and i am right about this... there is no veracity to God the person except as you, me, and ET. :) yet still you cling to this unproven concept of a million yesterdays ago. Moses didn't even claim God is a person... not sure where that comes from.

"What's behind that?" i completely agree with this paragraph. but i babysit others cause they ask me to through their words and actions. On this forum i give myself more liberty to speak than in life. one might call it respect, compassion... but also wisdom to know that people don't change because of knowledge but because of life. so pushing them would be completely self-serving.

well, from my experience infinity is implied and more real than finite. i am aware how rediculous that sounds, but we know how the brain and... cont...

solomon levi
04-11-2013, 02:06 AM
and the ego do their smoke and mirrors game... well i know it first hand. that there are endings is more rediculous than that there are not. No one has proven the end of the universe or atom... they keep going larger and smaller. When we awaken from a dream within a dream, those dreams still exist as options. I've awoke and reentered dreams numerous times.
no, i've mentioned as well how astral body has material and limits. agreed. "bigger than the created us" is still us. That unfolding is what people call self-realisation or enlightenment. but it doesn't end, i want people to know.
we cease to exist if we cant adapt to the bigger picture. so start now if you can.

I'm reporting. Are you listening? :)

yes, Moscow. where is the evidence for finity? because my tv measures 18 inches? really, show me the end... put it in my hand. :)
Jehovah is real. Aliens aren't more God than us, just been in the universe longer, have more knowledge. It says in the bible he didn't want us to have knowledge and be as THEY are.

solomon levi
04-11-2013, 02:40 AM
reply to post 20...
1st paragraph... yes. i think we said the same thing. only you don't mention/have a "recombining plan".

2nd... exactly!!! It isn't useful or meaningful at all. But who is it that is not content to be, but seeks to use and consume? perhaps now you see why the world wont change... everyone wants to know "what's in it for me?" "what can i profit from this?"
"pray give me this and bless my crop and MY cows, etc."
that's the bs religion has become due to the separate ego idea and its corresponding split brain... "thanks Jehovah!" :)
"And he took one side/rib from Adam... male and female made he"

anyway, i doubt that will go anywhere.
absurdity? "god" forming Adam from dust seems sooo plausible!
whatever. you didn't listen to my description of dreams within dreams, self within self... thanks for ignoring after i've spent the last 3 hours sincerely responding.