Original post: Dunhill
[QUOTE=KCh]Truth is Relative and Nothing is Universal.[/QUOTE]
Would this statement therefore be a Universal Truth?
Nothing
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Captator
[QUOTE=Specktackular]This is why I like Levi's "The Great Secret". Once you give over your reason and liberty to doubt, you're screwed. If you can't trust science, you can't trust the astral plane, either. You can't trust experience or logic, so why trust this realization of yours about nothing... especially without proof? Interesting.[/QUOTE]
93!
I have no proofs, I only got an equation and some logic examples, but the proof for me is that I can see the feneomenon in nature, I understand how 0 can be the samething as 2, that is the proof for me, but I won't teach others how to see it, since i believe it's a nice feeling to discover this for onself. And once I did try to explain this my girlfriend - that wasn't such a big success, but then maybe i'm just poor at explaining
And really there isn't any reason against my way of thinking except asking questions about the diffrent abstracts matters such as "what is conscioussness?" Science doesn't know, and therefor they would put me down by saying that what I say just isn't true because we can't prove that consciousness is what you say it is. One can see it, but as science can't define things in themselves, I can't define nothingness in it self and it's relationship to "one" (there is no relationship, and people can't seem to accept this fact!). Because science is built on this kind of reasoning, science can never understand this.
This matter means quite alot to me accutally, because I think I have the solution, given by Crowley, Taoists etc, to the ultimate question about existance, beacuse of that I have few questions left around these abstract matters, and I can concentrate more on "experiencing" the universe.
In the end, I have the logic, I can see it manifested in nature (contradiction but I don't know what word to use). But what I can't prove and what science can't prove, what are things in themselves? And I don't really care, for what the logic equation gives me when aplied is that they are "nothing" in themselves, and that is somewhat tough to prove
The thoughts are almost scilenced after getting to understand it, and that is a fact that is quite amazing since I have been thinking about subtle matters concerning the existance of the universe for many years (as I believe many have), never to find any theory that were able to still the mind and satisfy it, but the logic in 0=2 is the mindcooler! And why is this so? Because I can see it! It is not just pure hokus pokus anymore, not just pure faith! It is real! (contradictions yeah I know, tough to explain since one can't see it for what it is, it's there like a myster beneath events, and can't be spotted, but can be seen in the same genius way that the kabbalah describe" the Ain soph aur").
And I can now concentrate myself on more important issues, the riddle of the universe is solved!
93 93/93
[QUOTE=Specktackular]This is why I like Levi's "The Great Secret". Once you give over your reason and liberty to doubt, you're screwed. If you can't trust science, you can't trust the astral plane, either. You can't trust experience or logic, so why trust this realization of yours about nothing... especially without proof? Interesting.[/QUOTE]
93!
I have no proofs, I only got an equation and some logic examples, but the proof for me is that I can see the feneomenon in nature, I understand how 0 can be the samething as 2, that is the proof for me, but I won't teach others how to see it, since i believe it's a nice feeling to discover this for onself. And once I did try to explain this my girlfriend - that wasn't such a big success, but then maybe i'm just poor at explaining
And really there isn't any reason against my way of thinking except asking questions about the diffrent abstracts matters such as "what is conscioussness?" Science doesn't know, and therefor they would put me down by saying that what I say just isn't true because we can't prove that consciousness is what you say it is. One can see it, but as science can't define things in themselves, I can't define nothingness in it self and it's relationship to "one" (there is no relationship, and people can't seem to accept this fact!). Because science is built on this kind of reasoning, science can never understand this.
This matter means quite alot to me accutally, because I think I have the solution, given by Crowley, Taoists etc, to the ultimate question about existance, beacuse of that I have few questions left around these abstract matters, and I can concentrate more on "experiencing" the universe.
In the end, I have the logic, I can see it manifested in nature (contradiction but I don't know what word to use). But what I can't prove and what science can't prove, what are things in themselves? And I don't really care, for what the logic equation gives me when aplied is that they are "nothing" in themselves, and that is somewhat tough to prove
The thoughts are almost scilenced after getting to understand it, and that is a fact that is quite amazing since I have been thinking about subtle matters concerning the existance of the universe for many years (as I believe many have), never to find any theory that were able to still the mind and satisfy it, but the logic in 0=2 is the mindcooler! And why is this so? Because I can see it! It is not just pure hokus pokus anymore, not just pure faith! It is real! (contradictions yeah I know, tough to explain since one can't see it for what it is, it's there like a myster beneath events, and can't be spotted, but can be seen in the same genius way that the kabbalah describe" the Ain soph aur").
And I can now concentrate myself on more important issues, the riddle of the universe is solved!
93 93/93
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Captator
93
Oh how I just forgot, If we could agree on that the universe is "nothing" then the equation would be true, but this won't happen until we deciede to leave the linear thinking which concerns going from 0->1,. we can't think like that when dealing with the "nothingness" since there is no going, there is no "1" there is "nothing". We can't treat somethings as "nothing" and somethings as "something" and try to reason our way from this "nothing" to "something" in a universe of nothingness, nothing is real, everything is nothing, and then nothing is all there is, and there is nothing
93 93/93
93
Oh how I just forgot, If we could agree on that the universe is "nothing" then the equation would be true, but this won't happen until we deciede to leave the linear thinking which concerns going from 0->1,. we can't think like that when dealing with the "nothingness" since there is no going, there is no "1" there is "nothing". We can't treat somethings as "nothing" and somethings as "something" and try to reason our way from this "nothing" to "something" in a universe of nothingness, nothing is real, everything is nothing, and then nothing is all there is, and there is nothing
93 93/93
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Specktackular
[QUOTE=Captator]93!
I have no proofs, I only got an equation and some logic examples, but the proof for me is that I can see the feneomenon in nature, I understand how 0 can be the samething as 2, that is the proof for me, but I won't teach others how to see it, since i believe it's a nice feeling to discover this for onself. And once I did try to explain this my girlfriend - that wasn't such a big success, but then maybe i'm just poor at explaining
And really there isn't any reason against my way of thinking except asking questions about the diffrent abstracts matters such as "what is conscioussness?" Science doesn't know, and therefor they would put me down by saying that what I say just isn't true because we can't prove that consciousness is what you say it is. One can see it, but as science can't define things in themselves, I can't define nothingness in it self and it's relationship to "one" (there is no relationship, and people can't seem to accept this fact!). Because science is built on this kind of reasoning, science can never understand this.
This matter means quite alot to me accutally, because I think I have the solution, given by Crowley, Taoists etc, to the ultimate question about existance, beacuse of that I have few questions left around these abstract matters, and I can concentrate more on "experiencing" the universe.
In the end, I have the logic, I can see it manifested in nature (contradiction but I don't know what word to use). But what I can't prove and what science can't prove, what are things in themselves? And I don't really care, for what the logic equation gives me when aplied is that they are "nothing" in themselves, and that is somewhat tough to prove
The thoughts are almost scilenced after getting to understand it, and that is a fact that is quite amazing since I have been thinking about subtle matters concerning the existance of the universe for many years (as I believe many have), never to find any theory that were able to still the mind and satisfy it, but the logic in 0=2 is the mindcooler! And why is this so? Because I can see it! It is not just pure hokus pokus anymore, not just pure faith! It is real! (contradictions yeah I know, tough to explain since one can't see it for what it is, it's there like a myster beneath events, and can't be spotted, but can be seen in the same genius way that the kabbalah describe" the Ain soph aur").
And I can now concentrate myself on more important issues, the riddle of the universe is solved!
93 93/93[/QUOTE]
You talk about science as if it were something other than your own ability to use logic. If you think about 0=2 a little more, you might see that the "solution" to the mystery of the universe dissolves once again. I can see it, too. Anyone who has had successful meditation can see it, but what is this state REALLY? Is the ability to blank out the mind proof that 0=2 explains the beginnings of the universe? Memories are suspended in brainfolds and synapses. If you successfully blanked out while your skull was open and a doctor started touching your brain, you would have instant memories beyond your control. So, while you might successfully blank out for a moment, everything else still goes on around you. To doubt everything to the extent that we don't trust anything, why trust this inner experience of "nothing"? Maybe you are bad at explaining it, as you suggest, but maybe your inability to explain this contradiction is telling you something you don't realize yet. You don't trust reality (which is based on personal experience and observation), but you trust a personal experience that you find impossible to explain. It's hypocritical, isn't it? (NOTE: I'm NOT calling you a hypocrite! I'm asking you if you can see it in this light.)
[QUOTE=Captator]93!
I have no proofs, I only got an equation and some logic examples, but the proof for me is that I can see the feneomenon in nature, I understand how 0 can be the samething as 2, that is the proof for me, but I won't teach others how to see it, since i believe it's a nice feeling to discover this for onself. And once I did try to explain this my girlfriend - that wasn't such a big success, but then maybe i'm just poor at explaining
And really there isn't any reason against my way of thinking except asking questions about the diffrent abstracts matters such as "what is conscioussness?" Science doesn't know, and therefor they would put me down by saying that what I say just isn't true because we can't prove that consciousness is what you say it is. One can see it, but as science can't define things in themselves, I can't define nothingness in it self and it's relationship to "one" (there is no relationship, and people can't seem to accept this fact!). Because science is built on this kind of reasoning, science can never understand this.
This matter means quite alot to me accutally, because I think I have the solution, given by Crowley, Taoists etc, to the ultimate question about existance, beacuse of that I have few questions left around these abstract matters, and I can concentrate more on "experiencing" the universe.
In the end, I have the logic, I can see it manifested in nature (contradiction but I don't know what word to use). But what I can't prove and what science can't prove, what are things in themselves? And I don't really care, for what the logic equation gives me when aplied is that they are "nothing" in themselves, and that is somewhat tough to prove
The thoughts are almost scilenced after getting to understand it, and that is a fact that is quite amazing since I have been thinking about subtle matters concerning the existance of the universe for many years (as I believe many have), never to find any theory that were able to still the mind and satisfy it, but the logic in 0=2 is the mindcooler! And why is this so? Because I can see it! It is not just pure hokus pokus anymore, not just pure faith! It is real! (contradictions yeah I know, tough to explain since one can't see it for what it is, it's there like a myster beneath events, and can't be spotted, but can be seen in the same genius way that the kabbalah describe" the Ain soph aur").
And I can now concentrate myself on more important issues, the riddle of the universe is solved!
93 93/93[/QUOTE]
You talk about science as if it were something other than your own ability to use logic. If you think about 0=2 a little more, you might see that the "solution" to the mystery of the universe dissolves once again. I can see it, too. Anyone who has had successful meditation can see it, but what is this state REALLY? Is the ability to blank out the mind proof that 0=2 explains the beginnings of the universe? Memories are suspended in brainfolds and synapses. If you successfully blanked out while your skull was open and a doctor started touching your brain, you would have instant memories beyond your control. So, while you might successfully blank out for a moment, everything else still goes on around you. To doubt everything to the extent that we don't trust anything, why trust this inner experience of "nothing"? Maybe you are bad at explaining it, as you suggest, but maybe your inability to explain this contradiction is telling you something you don't realize yet. You don't trust reality (which is based on personal experience and observation), but you trust a personal experience that you find impossible to explain. It's hypocritical, isn't it? (NOTE: I'm NOT calling you a hypocrite! I'm asking you if you can see it in this light.)
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Captator
93!
Logic stops when one try to disect the 0=2 and analyze the diffrent aspects of UNION, DUALITY and NOTHING apart from eachother.
" I can see it, too. Anyone who has had successful meditation can see it, but what is this state REALLY?"
If sucessfull, then the question of what it is doesn't arise, it isn't a state it is "nothing" Unsatisfactory huh? Yeah! It is! True poison to the mind that is built on the foundation of "self flattering" thoughts that can be "thought about"!
"Is the ability to blank out the mind proof that 0=2 explains the beginnings of the universe?"
Even Stephen Hawking comes close to this when he says that we can never reach the state of 0, when he says that there is no begining of the universe.
As I said earlier we can't go from 0->1 or 1->0. There isn't any room for linear thinking here... Someday the stupidious accident has just happend, and there is no way that we can determine the exact point when it happend between "the moment before" and "the moment after" the happening, There is an eternity between the points "before and afterwards". So when did the event acctually occur? Well it didn't. It never did.. For something to occur, we need to adapt that linearthinking again...and that is a waste of time trying to grasp the idea of nothingness. Our senses tells us that something has occured, and well that is the joy of living, but in a quest for truth, I can't accept it just as easily.
"Memories are suspended in brainfolds and synapses. If you successfully blanked out while your skull was open and a doctor started touching your brain, you would have instant memories beyond your control. So, while you might successfully blank out for a moment, everything else still goes on around you."
What is it that goes around? For the sake of objectivity we usually agree on this, but then I don't like to restrict my thinking to the more accepted collectivistic thinking.
"To doubt everything to the extent that we don't trust anything, why trust this inner experience of "nothing"?"
Because it's not an experience, I don't know anything about it since it's "nothing". There is none to be known about it. Why trust this "theory of nothingness"? Would be an more appropirate question. And the answer can be given in a very simple manner, before I lived my life, I was not. This is the thing about it, it's so simple and yet people want to complicate thing by talking about it! There is none to be said. Theories has been put forth, understand and live with it.
"Maybe you are bad at explaining it, as you suggest, but maybe your inability to explain this contradiction is telling you something you don't realize yet." You don't trust reality (which is based on personal experience and observation), but you trust a personal experience that you find impossible to explain. It's hypocritical, isn't it?"
The contradiction has allready been explained by others, people with a much better ability to put forth this problem in an intelligible manner.
By putting forward a theory that is saying, that all is nothing, is a contradiction in itself since we with our human minds usually like to ascribe validity to the reality we experience with our senses. It is a true deathblow to the mind. So I don't feel that there is something that I don't realize, I know that I realize nothing about the nothingness itself.
"You don't trust reality (which is based on personal experience and observation), but you trust a personal experience that you find impossible to explain. It's hypocritical, isn't it?"
I trust the reality, I experience it, I'm having a great time in this "nothingess" A hell of a good time in fact! But what I don't do is to confuse it with what the reality is ultimatly in it self! pure nothingess my friend So nohing hypcritcal about it, now that I made myself clear.
"(NOTE: I'm NOT calling you a hypocrite! I'm asking you if you can see it in this light.)"
Hey man sometimes I am a hypocrite!, but I'm not sure that I deserve to be called one at this very moment. It would be better if you did call me one, it would add some spice to this very discussion
93 93/93
93!
Logic stops when one try to disect the 0=2 and analyze the diffrent aspects of UNION, DUALITY and NOTHING apart from eachother.
" I can see it, too. Anyone who has had successful meditation can see it, but what is this state REALLY?"
If sucessfull, then the question of what it is doesn't arise, it isn't a state it is "nothing" Unsatisfactory huh? Yeah! It is! True poison to the mind that is built on the foundation of "self flattering" thoughts that can be "thought about"!
"Is the ability to blank out the mind proof that 0=2 explains the beginnings of the universe?"
Even Stephen Hawking comes close to this when he says that we can never reach the state of 0, when he says that there is no begining of the universe.
As I said earlier we can't go from 0->1 or 1->0. There isn't any room for linear thinking here... Someday the stupidious accident has just happend, and there is no way that we can determine the exact point when it happend between "the moment before" and "the moment after" the happening, There is an eternity between the points "before and afterwards". So when did the event acctually occur? Well it didn't. It never did.. For something to occur, we need to adapt that linearthinking again...and that is a waste of time trying to grasp the idea of nothingness. Our senses tells us that something has occured, and well that is the joy of living, but in a quest for truth, I can't accept it just as easily.
"Memories are suspended in brainfolds and synapses. If you successfully blanked out while your skull was open and a doctor started touching your brain, you would have instant memories beyond your control. So, while you might successfully blank out for a moment, everything else still goes on around you."
What is it that goes around? For the sake of objectivity we usually agree on this, but then I don't like to restrict my thinking to the more accepted collectivistic thinking.
"To doubt everything to the extent that we don't trust anything, why trust this inner experience of "nothing"?"
Because it's not an experience, I don't know anything about it since it's "nothing". There is none to be known about it. Why trust this "theory of nothingness"? Would be an more appropirate question. And the answer can be given in a very simple manner, before I lived my life, I was not. This is the thing about it, it's so simple and yet people want to complicate thing by talking about it! There is none to be said. Theories has been put forth, understand and live with it.
"Maybe you are bad at explaining it, as you suggest, but maybe your inability to explain this contradiction is telling you something you don't realize yet." You don't trust reality (which is based on personal experience and observation), but you trust a personal experience that you find impossible to explain. It's hypocritical, isn't it?"
The contradiction has allready been explained by others, people with a much better ability to put forth this problem in an intelligible manner.
By putting forward a theory that is saying, that all is nothing, is a contradiction in itself since we with our human minds usually like to ascribe validity to the reality we experience with our senses. It is a true deathblow to the mind. So I don't feel that there is something that I don't realize, I know that I realize nothing about the nothingness itself.
"You don't trust reality (which is based on personal experience and observation), but you trust a personal experience that you find impossible to explain. It's hypocritical, isn't it?"
I trust the reality, I experience it, I'm having a great time in this "nothingess" A hell of a good time in fact! But what I don't do is to confuse it with what the reality is ultimatly in it self! pure nothingess my friend
So nohing hypcritcal about it, now that I made myself clear."(NOTE: I'm NOT calling you a hypocrite! I'm asking you if you can see it in this light.)"
Hey man sometimes I am a hypocrite!, but I'm not sure that I deserve to be called one at this very moment. It would be better if you did call me one, it would add some spice to this very discussion
93 93/93
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: KCh
"Would this statement therefore be a Universal Truth?"
Any Truth must appeal to you and your experiences. If my statement is in accordance with your experiences then it is a truth correct? If it doesn't then it is not truth. But essentially it all comes down the the viewpoint of the invdividual in question.
"Would this statement therefore be a Universal Truth?"
Any Truth must appeal to you and your experiences. If my statement is in accordance with your experiences then it is a truth correct? If it doesn't then it is not truth. But essentially it all comes down the the viewpoint of the invdividual in question.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: evilsock
I've read the bits of this thread until it started to breakdown a little - very interesting from my point of view. I'm not partiularly scientific in my thoughts, but I'd have said that you are dealing in absolute states where that isn't the true nature of things. For example, to me it seems that there can be no absolute zero or that something and / or nothing somehow prove either state. To me it seems more reasonable to suggest that (say in the case of the universe and it's existence) it both exsits and doesn't exist at the same time. Something and nothing to me are absolute opposites yet the universe seems to exist in the flux of 'not knowing' which is why it's so hard to explain.
I've read the bits of this thread until it started to breakdown a little - very interesting from my point of view. I'm not partiularly scientific in my thoughts, but I'd have said that you are dealing in absolute states where that isn't the true nature of things. For example, to me it seems that there can be no absolute zero or that something and / or nothing somehow prove either state. To me it seems more reasonable to suggest that (say in the case of the universe and it's existence) it both exsits and doesn't exist at the same time. Something and nothing to me are absolute opposites yet the universe seems to exist in the flux of 'not knowing' which is why it's so hard to explain.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: cpmg_101
Specktackular
In buddhism, there's a phrase that goes like "All things are nothing." Giving an identiy to objects make them lose their essence, as they are, in fact, just nothing.
cpmg_101
Specktackular
In buddhism, there's a phrase that goes like "All things are nothing." Giving an identiy to objects make them lose their essence, as they are, in fact, just nothing.
cpmg_101
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Specktackular
[QUOTE=cpmg_101]Specktackular
In buddhism, there's a phrase that goes like "All things are nothing." Giving an identiy to objects make them lose their essence, as they are, in fact, just nothing.
cpmg_101[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm familiar with Buddhist concepts of "nothing". But, there's a few ways to take that statement. I covered Mu above. We covered No-Thing above. What it comes down to is a state of somethingness unlike any other thing we know or "negative existence" or whatever else you want to call IT; and I call it "IT" because it is something/some state that gives rise to the others.
[QUOTE=cpmg_101]Specktackular
In buddhism, there's a phrase that goes like "All things are nothing." Giving an identiy to objects make them lose their essence, as they are, in fact, just nothing.
cpmg_101[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm familiar with Buddhist concepts of "nothing". But, there's a few ways to take that statement. I covered Mu above. We covered No-Thing above. What it comes down to is a state of somethingness unlike any other thing we know or "negative existence" or whatever else you want to call IT; and I call it "IT" because it is something/some state that gives rise to the others.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Son of mr. gordo
cpmg,
Along with the general phrase "All things are nothing," there is also the complimentary phrase, "All things are something." To say "All things are nothing" solely by itself is just half the puzzle. The idea of Buddhism's "Middle Way" (Madhyamika Philosophy) are pretty thought provoking. If I use the example of an apple for instance.
An apple.
Is this an apple or is it not an apple. It's an apple because of the sujective projection of society's ability to label it as an "apple." It's physical impression of being red, spherical, having a stem, and overall contours are "apple." I can take a bite out of it, taste it, digest it, and then excrete it.
It is also not an apple because "what composes an apple?" Well, the skin, and seeds, and color make the apple. "What makes the skin, seeds, and color?" Well, atoms make up the skin, seeds, and color. "What makes up atoms?" Well, quarks make up the composition of atoms. "What makes up quarks?"
As you can see, an infinte regress occurs, thereby negating the existance of the "apple."
So, "does the apple exist?" Yes, and no for the above reasons. Hence, that is why the Madhyamika philosophy represents the pinnacle of buddhist philosophical thought (though maybe not the pinnacle of all thought for some.)
added edit:
What annoys me are stories of enlightened Rinzai Zen monks yelling KATZ! or holding up his shoe to signify "it is beyond words." Yes, it seems as though they have a solid understanding, but their way of conveying it to a seeker of truth would be incomprehensible.
In buddhism, there's a phrase that goes like "All things are nothing." Giving an identiy to objects make them lose their essence, as they are, in fact, just nothing.
cpmg_101
cpmg,
Along with the general phrase "All things are nothing," there is also the complimentary phrase, "All things are something." To say "All things are nothing" solely by itself is just half the puzzle. The idea of Buddhism's "Middle Way" (Madhyamika Philosophy) are pretty thought provoking. If I use the example of an apple for instance.
An apple.
Is this an apple or is it not an apple. It's an apple because of the sujective projection of society's ability to label it as an "apple." It's physical impression of being red, spherical, having a stem, and overall contours are "apple." I can take a bite out of it, taste it, digest it, and then excrete it.
It is also not an apple because "what composes an apple?" Well, the skin, and seeds, and color make the apple. "What makes the skin, seeds, and color?" Well, atoms make up the skin, seeds, and color. "What makes up atoms?" Well, quarks make up the composition of atoms. "What makes up quarks?"
As you can see, an infinte regress occurs, thereby negating the existance of the "apple."
So, "does the apple exist?" Yes, and no for the above reasons. Hence, that is why the Madhyamika philosophy represents the pinnacle of buddhist philosophical thought (though maybe not the pinnacle of all thought for some.)
added edit:
What annoys me are stories of enlightened Rinzai Zen monks yelling KATZ! or holding up his shoe to signify "it is beyond words." Yes, it seems as though they have a solid understanding, but their way of conveying it to a seeker of truth would be incomprehensible.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Son of a Montage
[QUOTE=Son of mr. gordo]
What annoys me are stories of enlightened Rinzai Zen monks yelling KATZ! or holding up his shoe to signify "it is beyond words." Yes, it seems as though they have a solid understanding, but their way of conveying it to a seeker of truth would be incomprehensible.[/QUOTE]
No more Seung Sahn for you then?
[QUOTE=Son of mr. gordo]
What annoys me are stories of enlightened Rinzai Zen monks yelling KATZ! or holding up his shoe to signify "it is beyond words." Yes, it seems as though they have a solid understanding, but their way of conveying it to a seeker of truth would be incomprehensible.[/QUOTE]
No more Seung Sahn for you then?
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Son of mr. gordo
LOL, well that's not what I meant exactly. What I dislike is that most Rinzai Zen teachers don't clarify their words or actions. Seung Sahn is definitely not in that category. Seung Sahn is probably the exception because in his books, he gives a more thorough explanation when he uses the KATZ!, holds up his finger, sits in silence, or drinks a cup of tea. Most Rinzai teachers seem to just go through the motions, but never end up explaing what their "KATZ!'s" mean. Seung Sahn actually takes the time to explain as best as he can (English not being his native language), why he gives the responses he gives. His book "Dropping Ashes on the Buddha" is a gem in the evergrowing books on Zen.
LOL, well that's not what I meant exactly. What I dislike is that most Rinzai Zen teachers don't clarify their words or actions. Seung Sahn is definitely not in that category. Seung Sahn is probably the exception because in his books, he gives a more thorough explanation when he uses the KATZ!, holds up his finger, sits in silence, or drinks a cup of tea. Most Rinzai teachers seem to just go through the motions, but never end up explaing what their "KATZ!'s" mean. Seung Sahn actually takes the time to explain as best as he can (English not being his native language), why he gives the responses he gives. His book "Dropping Ashes on the Buddha" is a gem in the evergrowing books on Zen.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Dunhill
I am reminded of a paper we had to write in an Eastern Religions class on Buddhism. The professor mentioned that turning in a blank piece of paper on Enlightenment while perhaps being acceptable, you would have to leave it up to his judgement that you knew the material. Oddly enough, nobody actually did it.
I have heard the apple story (or something similar). The context I recall regarded the position that words can only be used to describe other words and as such really had no independant meaning.
I am reminded of a paper we had to write in an Eastern Religions class on Buddhism. The professor mentioned that turning in a blank piece of paper on Enlightenment while perhaps being acceptable, you would have to leave it up to his judgement that you knew the material. Oddly enough, nobody actually did it.
I have heard the apple story (or something similar). The context I recall regarded the position that words can only be used to describe other words and as such really had no independant meaning.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Specktackular
[QUOTE=Horus]http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/uncle_al/lies/3.html[/QUOTE]
Am I to conclude that you believe this to be "right on"?
[QUOTE=Horus]http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/uncle_al/lies/3.html[/QUOTE]
Am I to conclude that you believe this to be "right on"?
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Specktackular
"All is real, both Changeless and Changeful. Maya is not in this system "illusion," but is in the concise words of the Sakta Sadhaka Kamalakanta, "The Form of the Formless." The world is its form and these forms are therefore Real."
-- Arthur Avalon's "The Serpent Power"
This is exactly my opinion.
"All is real, both Changeless and Changeful. Maya is not in this system "illusion," but is in the concise words of the Sakta Sadhaka Kamalakanta, "The Form of the Formless." The world is its form and these forms are therefore Real."
-- Arthur Avalon's "The Serpent Power"
This is exactly my opinion.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: OndeAander
Secondly, to reply to the "intelligence" of the universe.. My theory is that there is no intelligence of the universe itself. I think of life (or even physical matter as we know it) as energy that, "originally" by random combination, forms into "groups" that stick together and withstand outside influences. Application of a sort of "darwinistic" philosophy leads me to the conclusion that certain "random combinations" are, by simple logic or "natural selection", "favoured" over randomly moving energy. Over time, there would be more and more of them, because they don't just disintegrate back into the environment, whereas "everything else" = the environment itself remains in a state of change. The more and more complicated "lifeforms" climb from their most basic roots into complex and aware beings because the most dynamic of them will survive.. the continuing darwinistic cycle. I might further define consciousness as a concept of the "part" of a lifeform, its very shape and form, which remains (relatively) constant throughout time despite the total exchange of energy within the "parts" that make it up. (In the same way that, after a few months/years, your body is no longer made up of the "same exact" atoms, but has nonetheless retained its form.) I know it sounds so unglorifyingly simple, but somehow that fact itself is reminiscent of scientific discoveries we've already made regarding the way our bodies work, etc. So survival is life, stagnancy is death (even if it takes a very long time). The will to survive is not some abstract desire, but a principle of logic.. it is us in a way.
If there are any gods who "create", they are not outside the universe (for that is impossible, as I explained), they can be no more than lifeforms who have evolved "first" and who manipulate their environment as they see fit. Of course, the "beginning of time" is a whole different discussion.. I tend to think of it as infinite/cyclic, since "before the beginning of time" can't exist because --har har-- time did not exist "back then", and if there's an end we'd never know that it happened, and we'd never know the ass-end from the head anyhow.
Okok I've only skimmed the replies to this post, but I'll dare reply anyhow: I take a similar view of the existence of the universe. I think of the universe, everything that IS, as a "lake" of energy. With or without boundaries does not matter, as long as it's a closed system i.e. energy can be neither created nor destroyed, and it cannot "escape" the universe (if it could escape that would only prove that the universe is even bigger than we thought, sending us back to square one). Secondly, I will define "nonexistence" as the state of the lake being completely still, not a wave, not a single movement. As I said, it's a closed system, so if there is no movement in the lake, there never will be and cannot be movement. If there are waves in the lake, there will always be "the same amount" etc. So existence vs nonexistence is like a binary 1 and 0. You either have one or the other, period. And since everything does exist, that means existence cannot "cease to exist".I believe the universe IS intelligence, a form of "energy" for lack of a better word which is the building blocks of all else. It could be the dark matter, the Qi, the Tao, the cause of evolution, etc. Intelligence is the will that directs the universe, just as your intelligence directs your hands (matter) via the nervous system (energy) to type at your keyboard. Just as an inventor thinks up new ideas and then creates these ideas in reality out of matter. I believe that thought has the power to literally materialize. That is what magick is all about! (And I think everyone should watch the movie "Solaris," by the way.)
Secondly, to reply to the "intelligence" of the universe.. My theory is that there is no intelligence of the universe itself. I think of life (or even physical matter as we know it) as energy that, "originally" by random combination, forms into "groups" that stick together and withstand outside influences. Application of a sort of "darwinistic" philosophy leads me to the conclusion that certain "random combinations" are, by simple logic or "natural selection", "favoured" over randomly moving energy. Over time, there would be more and more of them, because they don't just disintegrate back into the environment, whereas "everything else" = the environment itself remains in a state of change. The more and more complicated "lifeforms" climb from their most basic roots into complex and aware beings because the most dynamic of them will survive.. the continuing darwinistic cycle. I might further define consciousness as a concept of the "part" of a lifeform, its very shape and form, which remains (relatively) constant throughout time despite the total exchange of energy within the "parts" that make it up. (In the same way that, after a few months/years, your body is no longer made up of the "same exact" atoms, but has nonetheless retained its form.) I know it sounds so unglorifyingly simple, but somehow that fact itself is reminiscent of scientific discoveries we've already made regarding the way our bodies work, etc. So survival is life, stagnancy is death (even if it takes a very long time). The will to survive is not some abstract desire, but a principle of logic.. it is us in a way.
If there are any gods who "create", they are not outside the universe (for that is impossible, as I explained), they can be no more than lifeforms who have evolved "first" and who manipulate their environment as they see fit. Of course, the "beginning of time" is a whole different discussion.. I tend to think of it as infinite/cyclic, since "before the beginning of time" can't exist because --har har-- time did not exist "back then", and if there's an end we'd never know that it happened, and we'd never know the ass-end from the head anyhow.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: ChaosTech
Speck, I'm too busy to read this whole topic now, but your original post in your assumption that there is no such thing as nothingness, emptiness, etc, just flawed, i.e. ignorant perception which makes certain things appear this way is accurate in my book. Define nothing, and you have missed it. It can't be defined, it can't even be thought of. It doesn't exist, so how could it be described, or even comprehended at all in the first place?
All that exists is an infinate multiverse of everythingness. Even in quantom mechanics this has been speculated upon, by the idea of an infinate amount of parallel realities, and that time, meaning change, like consciousness, is just a process of things moving from one reality to another, which is why it makes the appearance of things loosing pieces of what constitutes themselves or gaining.
There is an ancient chinese saying that "if you can think it, it must exist, somewhere that is."
People speak of some idea of Tao, God, ect, that which is "above," and yet, "within," aka is, all things, but they in their ignorance of dualistic thinking, think this Tao, God, etc is somehow seperable from the parts which make it so. We are all things, what makes up a thing is either a pure concept, or a combination of attibutes (things, concepts, like we are).
God, Tao, ect, is the only "nothing," as it's not just the parts themselves (things, finate), but the sum of all parts (everything, infinate). Everything that ever was, ever is, ever will be, and never was, never is, and never will be (speaking in terms of this reality (universe of the multiverse)), exists, has always existed and will always exist. The question is not if something exists, but if it exists within any given universe.
The things that constitute what makes up this universe, change at any given moment. On the subatomic scale, things, whether wave or particle, or some other form of energy, literally pop in and out of existence. Existence meaning this universe. Negatives collapse upon themselves. Thinking in negatives has it's uses as we are all concerned with the reality we are apart of at any given moment, being as we are a part of it, though truthfully there is no loss, destruction, or any other negative thing, just or ignorant false perceptions of multiverse change and so really our consciousness moving through one reality (universe) into another.
There literally is an infinate amount of ChaosTech's or Specktacular's, etc. What constitutes myself, or yourself, or anything at any given moment, is the things that make up it. For instance the ChaosTech right now, doesn't exist anymore in this reality, only the ChaosTech right now, and now he's gone again to be replaced by the one typing this line now. :lol:
But ChaosTech, in all his plethora of ever changing forms, exists and forver will, in one reality or another. Though, if I don't watch my Karma (results of my actions, reactions, and non actions, i.e. the process of my infinate becomming), what constitutes this hive consciousness who call himself ChaosTech (me), I might end up as a rock, which will take a very long while, in all probability again, until I regain a form capable of letting my Kia (spirit) become aware of itself again.
See just like God, Tao, ect, what is truly us, is not just the thoughts, memories, personality, egos, bodies (aka forms, as in physical and etheric (aka all energetic)) etc, that constitutes our being, but the sum of all the parts (kia, spirit, consciousness, will, perception (these last three only exist within a being of Kia that has parts which allow the kia to be aware of itself) etc).
The biggest flaw of many is to view "the source," as a thing, meaning something which can even be grapsed by the mind, logically or emotionally (illogically*), or felt by the senses. This "non-existent" source, is nothing, that is not a thing at all, but everything, literally everything. Not some "sea of cosmic energy," and so viewed like a pool of glowing water in which things, i.e. forms, spring into and out of existence. One minute existing, and the next not. This is flawed logic. Something can indeed come from nothing, because nothing is everything and everything is nothing. Spirit is form and form is spirit, to seperate either, is impossible. Things only go poof from any given existence, only to "reappear," in another. Negatives are lies, as the monists say there is only one. The road that leads to all leads to one, and the road that leads to one leads to all. It's the infinate loop, symbolised by the symbol 8 turned sideways.
Atleast this is the only thing which makes sense to me out of all the beliefs, religions, dogma, scientific crap (meaning purely empirical explainations), etc, that are out there to me. And best of all, I have yet to have anyone find a hole in it, i.e. come even close to finding any error in it to show it's even partially wrong. Of course like PC's HD6 theory, it's less empirical (testable) and more mathematical, and so logical yes, but provable or disprovable no. The interesting thing about it is that it isn't new at all, but if you carefully look, is a teaching which exists in virtually every human culture, though esoteric in nature, as it is hard to grasp by most. Hell, even primitive shamans knew this, that's why they drew so many spirals all over the place. As when one reaches the point in the middle of the spiral, (goes in an inward spiral), one is spewed back again in an outward spiral.
And the most awesome thing about the realization of infinity is that there is no limits of becomming. No limits to what you can (eventually, without enough kia, i.e. will/perception), become. Infinate expansion of consciousness. You can eventually become something so vast, it's beyond a human being's comprehension. So, why ever buy into lies? Why ever harm anything, unless there is no other option in order to surive (maintain what constitutes you), including yourself? We are all God, i.e. everythingness/nothingness, unlimited potential, at the core. We are all truly one. Do unto others as you would have done to yourself, as with ever action or non action you choose, your Karma (being, amount of expressed Kia), is either shrunken or expanded. To shink is the path of the lie, i.e. maya. As there, like in quantom physics, is a zero-point, for your consciousness. In other words, you can devolve to the point of a singular thing, but never any further. Why go backwards, when this is the path of lies, of limits, of ignorance of Infinity?
Liberation to all, we have all made it this far (into human beings), may we become true Gods, and beyond. There is no end, as there was never a beginning. Maybe we once were Gods, and somehow messed up, driving us into more and more limited forms, or maybe we are fragments of the Kia of some great diety which somehow shrunk itself back into it's composite pieces. Or maybe we've never been conscious to this degree, being pure eletrrons, or quarks, or something even lesser, which through randomness (Chaos), were blessed with ever increasing complex forms, which finally allowed for our Kia to go, "woah, I'm a thing and I know it." Whatever was the process for how we ended up being the hive energetic beings, in atomic bodies, called humans, we're conscious now, we have facilities to take us to even greater heights, so why not use them? But of course, before one begins actively chaning ones consciousness, let alone the bodies and minds which allow for it, it's wise to first understand the whys, hows, and whats of our present incarnations, else risk contraction, not expansion. This is why the first task to to know thy self, not merely in some shallow understanding of "this is who I am, and what I want," but fully understanding atleast a basic notions of how, why, and what, we do as individuals and as a species the things we do. Self mastery, is the first step towards aware (percieved and willed) expansive transformation, i.e. what many call transcendence.
Anyway, as always just my 2 cents.
Peace,
-CT
Speck, I'm too busy to read this whole topic now, but your original post in your assumption that there is no such thing as nothingness, emptiness, etc, just flawed, i.e. ignorant perception which makes certain things appear this way is accurate in my book. Define nothing, and you have missed it. It can't be defined, it can't even be thought of. It doesn't exist, so how could it be described, or even comprehended at all in the first place?
All that exists is an infinate multiverse of everythingness. Even in quantom mechanics this has been speculated upon, by the idea of an infinate amount of parallel realities, and that time, meaning change, like consciousness, is just a process of things moving from one reality to another, which is why it makes the appearance of things loosing pieces of what constitutes themselves or gaining.
There is an ancient chinese saying that "if you can think it, it must exist, somewhere that is."
People speak of some idea of Tao, God, ect, that which is "above," and yet, "within," aka is, all things, but they in their ignorance of dualistic thinking, think this Tao, God, etc is somehow seperable from the parts which make it so. We are all things, what makes up a thing is either a pure concept, or a combination of attibutes (things, concepts, like we are).
God, Tao, ect, is the only "nothing," as it's not just the parts themselves (things, finate), but the sum of all parts (everything, infinate). Everything that ever was, ever is, ever will be, and never was, never is, and never will be (speaking in terms of this reality (universe of the multiverse)), exists, has always existed and will always exist. The question is not if something exists, but if it exists within any given universe.
The things that constitute what makes up this universe, change at any given moment. On the subatomic scale, things, whether wave or particle, or some other form of energy, literally pop in and out of existence. Existence meaning this universe. Negatives collapse upon themselves. Thinking in negatives has it's uses as we are all concerned with the reality we are apart of at any given moment, being as we are a part of it, though truthfully there is no loss, destruction, or any other negative thing, just or ignorant false perceptions of multiverse change and so really our consciousness moving through one reality (universe) into another.
There literally is an infinate amount of ChaosTech's or Specktacular's, etc. What constitutes myself, or yourself, or anything at any given moment, is the things that make up it. For instance the ChaosTech right now, doesn't exist anymore in this reality, only the ChaosTech right now, and now he's gone again to be replaced by the one typing this line now. :lol:
But ChaosTech, in all his plethora of ever changing forms, exists and forver will, in one reality or another. Though, if I don't watch my Karma (results of my actions, reactions, and non actions, i.e. the process of my infinate becomming), what constitutes this hive consciousness who call himself ChaosTech (me), I might end up as a rock, which will take a very long while, in all probability again, until I regain a form capable of letting my Kia (spirit) become aware of itself again.
See just like God, Tao, ect, what is truly us, is not just the thoughts, memories, personality, egos, bodies (aka forms, as in physical and etheric (aka all energetic)) etc, that constitutes our being, but the sum of all the parts (kia, spirit, consciousness, will, perception (these last three only exist within a being of Kia that has parts which allow the kia to be aware of itself) etc).
The biggest flaw of many is to view "the source," as a thing, meaning something which can even be grapsed by the mind, logically or emotionally (illogically*), or felt by the senses. This "non-existent" source, is nothing, that is not a thing at all, but everything, literally everything. Not some "sea of cosmic energy," and so viewed like a pool of glowing water in which things, i.e. forms, spring into and out of existence. One minute existing, and the next not. This is flawed logic. Something can indeed come from nothing, because nothing is everything and everything is nothing. Spirit is form and form is spirit, to seperate either, is impossible. Things only go poof from any given existence, only to "reappear," in another. Negatives are lies, as the monists say there is only one. The road that leads to all leads to one, and the road that leads to one leads to all. It's the infinate loop, symbolised by the symbol 8 turned sideways.
Atleast this is the only thing which makes sense to me out of all the beliefs, religions, dogma, scientific crap (meaning purely empirical explainations), etc, that are out there to me. And best of all, I have yet to have anyone find a hole in it, i.e. come even close to finding any error in it to show it's even partially wrong. Of course like PC's HD6 theory, it's less empirical (testable) and more mathematical, and so logical yes, but provable or disprovable no. The interesting thing about it is that it isn't new at all, but if you carefully look, is a teaching which exists in virtually every human culture, though esoteric in nature, as it is hard to grasp by most. Hell, even primitive shamans knew this, that's why they drew so many spirals all over the place. As when one reaches the point in the middle of the spiral, (goes in an inward spiral), one is spewed back again in an outward spiral.
And the most awesome thing about the realization of infinity is that there is no limits of becomming. No limits to what you can (eventually, without enough kia, i.e. will/perception), become. Infinate expansion of consciousness. You can eventually become something so vast, it's beyond a human being's comprehension. So, why ever buy into lies? Why ever harm anything, unless there is no other option in order to surive (maintain what constitutes you), including yourself? We are all God, i.e. everythingness/nothingness, unlimited potential, at the core. We are all truly one. Do unto others as you would have done to yourself, as with ever action or non action you choose, your Karma (being, amount of expressed Kia), is either shrunken or expanded. To shink is the path of the lie, i.e. maya. As there, like in quantom physics, is a zero-point, for your consciousness. In other words, you can devolve to the point of a singular thing, but never any further. Why go backwards, when this is the path of lies, of limits, of ignorance of Infinity?
Liberation to all, we have all made it this far (into human beings), may we become true Gods, and beyond. There is no end, as there was never a beginning. Maybe we once were Gods, and somehow messed up, driving us into more and more limited forms, or maybe we are fragments of the Kia of some great diety which somehow shrunk itself back into it's composite pieces. Or maybe we've never been conscious to this degree, being pure eletrrons, or quarks, or something even lesser, which through randomness (Chaos), were blessed with ever increasing complex forms, which finally allowed for our Kia to go, "woah, I'm a thing and I know it." Whatever was the process for how we ended up being the hive energetic beings, in atomic bodies, called humans, we're conscious now, we have facilities to take us to even greater heights, so why not use them? But of course, before one begins actively chaning ones consciousness, let alone the bodies and minds which allow for it, it's wise to first understand the whys, hows, and whats of our present incarnations, else risk contraction, not expansion. This is why the first task to to know thy self, not merely in some shallow understanding of "this is who I am, and what I want," but fully understanding atleast a basic notions of how, why, and what, we do as individuals and as a species the things we do. Self mastery, is the first step towards aware (percieved and willed) expansive transformation, i.e. what many call transcendence.
Anyway, as always just my 2 cents.
Peace,
-CT
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Specktackular
"The universe is permeated with the odor of kerosene."
"The universe is permeated with the odor of kerosene."
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: thethird
When Crowley talks about nothing in 0 = 2 isn't he talking about Ain Soph, without limit, as opposed to the absence of anything, like he describes in The Book of Thoth? Sorry if that has been covered, my brain is coming out of a three year stupor and it may take awhile to get the gears to mesh properly.
When Crowley talks about nothing in 0 = 2 isn't he talking about Ain Soph, without limit, as opposed to the absence of anything, like he describes in The Book of Thoth? Sorry if that has been covered, my brain is coming out of a three year stupor and it may take awhile to get the gears to mesh properly.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Specktackular
[QUOTE=thethird]When Crowley talks about nothing in 0 = 2 isn't he talking about Ain Soph, without limit, as opposed to the absence of anything, like he describes in The Book of Thoth? Sorry if that has been covered, my brain is coming out of a three year stupor and it may take awhile to get the gears to mesh properly.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, funny, this is explained in Bruce Lee's JKD/Striking Thoughts, too. Basically, what Kch was saying about no-thingness being an experience you can feel because no-thingness is motion of some abstract mental sort. But, as we know energy and matter are the same; some other underlying "unit". And energy is motion, so no-thingness is this underlying "unit," which is what I was trying to say. That essentially the universe is mental, the underlying "unit" is consciousness and no-thingness is movement or consciousness in motion, rather than a fixed thought or conclusion.
[QUOTE=thethird]When Crowley talks about nothing in 0 = 2 isn't he talking about Ain Soph, without limit, as opposed to the absence of anything, like he describes in The Book of Thoth? Sorry if that has been covered, my brain is coming out of a three year stupor and it may take awhile to get the gears to mesh properly.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, funny, this is explained in Bruce Lee's JKD/Striking Thoughts, too. Basically, what Kch was saying about no-thingness being an experience you can feel because no-thingness is motion of some abstract mental sort. But, as we know energy and matter are the same; some other underlying "unit". And energy is motion, so no-thingness is this underlying "unit," which is what I was trying to say. That essentially the universe is mental, the underlying "unit" is consciousness and no-thingness is movement or consciousness in motion, rather than a fixed thought or conclusion.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: thethird
By consciousness in motion do you mean the energy used to get from one thought to the next? And, what is the difference between Nothing (Without Limit) and the concept of an all encompassing Everything? This may have an obvious answer, but like I said, my brain is a bit rusty.
By consciousness in motion do you mean the energy used to get from one thought to the next? And, what is the difference between Nothing (Without Limit) and the concept of an all encompassing Everything? This may have an obvious answer, but like I said, my brain is a bit rusty.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Specktackular
Here, this is why I'm loving this new book (which coincidentally, was compared to Crowley by the OF member who suggested it to me):
I think these 10 quotes are a great way of explaining it.
1. No-thingness is a form of process. In science we have finally come back to the pre-Socratic philosopher, Heraclitus, who said that everything is flow, flux, process. There are no "things." NOTHINGNESS in Eastern language is "no-thingness." We in the West think of nothingness as a void, an emptiness, a nonexistence. In Eastern philosophy and modern physical science, nothingness â?? no-thingness â?? is a form of process, ever moving.
2. The ultimate transcends human understanding ("no-abode") â?? The ultimate source of all things is beyond human understanding, beyond the categories of time and space. As it thus transcends all modes of relativity, it is called "having no abode" to which any possible predictions are applicable.
3. To be free of the binds of Time â?? To realize freedom the mind has to learn to look at life, which is vast movement, without the bondage of time, for freedom lies beyond the field of consciousness â?? care for watching, but don't stop and interpret "I am free," then you're living in the memory of something that has gone.
4. The Now is truth â?? This evening I see something totally new, and that newness is experienced by the mind; but tomorrow that experience becomes mechanical, because I want to repeat the sensation, the pleasure of it â?? the description is never real. What is real is seeing the truth instantaneously, because truth has no future.
5. The Now is all-inclusive â?? NOTHING EXISTS EXCEPT THE HERE AND NOW.
6. The Now covers all that exists. The past is no more, the future is not yet. NOW includes the balance of being here, experiencing, involvement, phenomenon, awareness.
7. Flow in the living moment â?? We are always in a process of becoming and NOTHING is fixed. Have no rigid systems in you, and you'll be flexible to change with the ever changing. OPEN yourself and flow, my friend. Flow in the TOTAL OPENESS OF THE LIVING MOMENT> If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves. Moving, be like water. Still, be like a mirror. Respond like an echo.
8. Remove the dirt of preconceived opinion. â?? Scratch away all the dirt our being has accumulated and reveal reality in its is-ness, or in its suchness, or in its nakedness, which corresponds to the Buddhist concept of emptiness.
9. Reality is being itself. â?? It is being itself, in becoming itself. Reality in its isness, the isness of a thing. Thus isness is the meaning â?? having freedom in its primary sense â?? not limited by attachments, confinements, partialization, complexities.
10. An intelligent mind is constantly learning. â?? An intelligent mind is one which is constantly learning, never concluding â?? styles and patterns have come to conclusion, therefore they have ceased to be intelligent.
Here, this is why I'm loving this new book (which coincidentally, was compared to Crowley by the OF member who suggested it to me):
I think these 10 quotes are a great way of explaining it.
1. No-thingness is a form of process. In science we have finally come back to the pre-Socratic philosopher, Heraclitus, who said that everything is flow, flux, process. There are no "things." NOTHINGNESS in Eastern language is "no-thingness." We in the West think of nothingness as a void, an emptiness, a nonexistence. In Eastern philosophy and modern physical science, nothingness â?? no-thingness â?? is a form of process, ever moving.
2. The ultimate transcends human understanding ("no-abode") â?? The ultimate source of all things is beyond human understanding, beyond the categories of time and space. As it thus transcends all modes of relativity, it is called "having no abode" to which any possible predictions are applicable.
3. To be free of the binds of Time â?? To realize freedom the mind has to learn to look at life, which is vast movement, without the bondage of time, for freedom lies beyond the field of consciousness â?? care for watching, but don't stop and interpret "I am free," then you're living in the memory of something that has gone.
4. The Now is truth â?? This evening I see something totally new, and that newness is experienced by the mind; but tomorrow that experience becomes mechanical, because I want to repeat the sensation, the pleasure of it â?? the description is never real. What is real is seeing the truth instantaneously, because truth has no future.
5. The Now is all-inclusive â?? NOTHING EXISTS EXCEPT THE HERE AND NOW.
6. The Now covers all that exists. The past is no more, the future is not yet. NOW includes the balance of being here, experiencing, involvement, phenomenon, awareness.
7. Flow in the living moment â?? We are always in a process of becoming and NOTHING is fixed. Have no rigid systems in you, and you'll be flexible to change with the ever changing. OPEN yourself and flow, my friend. Flow in the TOTAL OPENESS OF THE LIVING MOMENT> If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves. Moving, be like water. Still, be like a mirror. Respond like an echo.
8. Remove the dirt of preconceived opinion. â?? Scratch away all the dirt our being has accumulated and reveal reality in its is-ness, or in its suchness, or in its nakedness, which corresponds to the Buddhist concept of emptiness.
9. Reality is being itself. â?? It is being itself, in becoming itself. Reality in its isness, the isness of a thing. Thus isness is the meaning â?? having freedom in its primary sense â?? not limited by attachments, confinements, partialization, complexities.
10. An intelligent mind is constantly learning. â?? An intelligent mind is one which is constantly learning, never concluding â?? styles and patterns have come to conclusion, therefore they have ceased to be intelligent.
-
Occult Forum Archive
- Magister
- Posts: 287885
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:32 am
Nothing
Original post: Plastic
I think you are stretching Crowle's 0=2 equation too far.
It was used only as a written systematic supplement to the writen theory and relying too much on it would be as futile as examining the paper an essay was writen on
I think you are stretching Crowle's 0=2 equation too far.
It was used only as a written systematic supplement to the writen theory and relying too much on it would be as futile as examining the paper an essay was writen on