God doesn't exist
-
@Steven Cranmer said
"If one's concept of ultimate divinity is beyond all pairs of opposites, then aren't "existence" and "non-existence" just another pair of opposites to get past?
0 = (+1) + (-1)
Steve"
Math can't answer this in my opinion. Zero is still something. I am familiar with the equation of 2=0 and I guess in this case, God wouldn't be even this.
I think is more like the mental exercise used in the Brihadaranyaka Upanisad:
"Brahman is not this.. Brahman is not that.." Until everything in the infinite universe has been eliminated and only Brahman remains, then we come close to IT.
It is such a trap trying to define the unknowable.The most comfortable I've felt is with the idea of a non-existent God and therefore beyond definition because to define God, we would have to define every single existing thing in the universe and we would be always short.
-
It is not that God doesn't exist, God is just dead (yet still alive).
As you point out that is my own projection, as I see God as being akin to the initial source of the "Silent Bang," the fabric in which the cosmos were created.
A random quantum fluctuation, and where there was nothing came something. And what do we all do when faced with an empty room? Fill it with things! BANG
So, "there is division hither homeward" as God, essentially, pieces God back together again.
God does not exist, yet is constantly coming into being
-
@YHVH said
"Let it be stated that this whole understanding of the concept "God" is typically Western, and limited in this sense. This understanding of the term has nothing (nothing) [NOTHING!] to do with the Eastern understanding of "God" (as in the (purely thelemic) eastern orthodox church, before the extreme alienation that took place), which is wholly OK for westerners, but it's not that "that's it"."
I think I need help here. To what concept/understanding are you referring here as typically Western?
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Juan, I think this is well expressed. (I almost wrote "well thought-through," but I don't know that this is true. It's still fresh and new, and more intuitive and thought-through. It may still mature into something slightly different.)
It appears that your thesis is entirely based on the literal meaning of exist. (I really did understand and sympathize with Bill Clinton when he answered a deposition question by saying that it depends on "what your definition of IS is.") I think you are taking "exist" intuitively. I think you're off track when you say that Zero "is still something" so it doesn't do it for you, because Zero does seem to be the correct mathematical way to describe (in short-hand) what you are expressing - but I get that it doesn't explain it to you.
EXIST is a Hadit idea. The Latin sistere means "to stand," so ex-sistere means "to stand out." "Existence" is marked as differentiation from the whole and, therefore, has the meanings with which we usually associate it.
So, it takes a Hadit idea to exist - to stand out. If it doesn't stand out (a defined point) then it doesn't have what we intuitively understand as "existing." It's only an undifferentiated part of "nothing" (no THING).
@Metzareph said
"It seems to me that the only purpose of creation is to become nothing and then be perfect that way, because anything that exists is by definition less than what doesn't exist. "
The Thelemic model has two absolutes, and I think we need to perfect in both. One is to be the most perfect differentiated SOMETHING. The other is to be the most perfectly undiffierentiated NOTHING. The co-existence of the two of these is the model for moving through life.
"There is limitation in existence, so for one thing to be perfect, it has to be non-existing."
See above. But, also, there are two separate "perfects." The (one) perfect and the (other) perfect are one perfect and not two. (And you know the rest.)
"All those prayers to a non-existing God have now being re-directed to what I think God is like, when God is nothing, or no-thing. God is pure potential and its nature is to stay that way."
That's a very practical principle most people don't understand. As I covered in my San Francisco talk last week, potential increases to the extent tht context is truly empty.
-
@Metzareph said
"God is pure potential and its nature is to stay that way."
I missed this in my first read of your post. I like it a lot. In fact, I think it slashes through that Gordian knot of "exists" versus "not exists" altogether! Potentheism anyone?
@Jim Eshelman said
"As I covered in my San Francisco talk last week, potential increases to the extent tht context is truly empty."
Do you mean "content" ?
Steve
-
@Steven Cranmer said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"As I covered in my San Francisco talk last week, potential increases to the extent tht context is truly empty."Do you mean "content" ?"
Nope. "Context." The reciprocal of "content."
Content can't be empty except to the extent that it is the context for other potential content (nested contexts).
But I did mean "that" instead of "tht."
-
Recently, I read Liber 7 and decided to memorize Chapter V ( even though I had no intention to memorize any of them at first).
As I was reading it tonight, I came upon this
Liber 7,Chapter V:
"22. Every breath, every word, every thought, every deed is an act of love with Thee."
This thread then popped into my head...
For, I think that perfectly defines God, to me.Firmly agreeing that :
@Metzareph said
"God is pure potential"
With the addition of "and the result thereof."
-
Thank you Jim for the feedback...
@Jim Eshelman said
"It appears that your thesis is entirely based on the literal meaning of exist. (I really did understand and sympathize with Bill Clinton when he answered a deposition question by saying that it depends on "what your definition of IS is.") I think you are taking "exist" intuitively. "
Yes, I am using (or rather abusing) the word exist...
@Jim Eshelman said
" I think you're off track when you say that Zero "is still something" so it doesn't do it for you, because Zero does seem to be the correct mathematical way to describe (in short-hand) what you are expressing - but I get that it doesn't explain it to you."
Oh no, it explains it to me, but I guess I was not very clear. I think the equation is accurate but it cannot express the mystery of God, which is another thing I wanted to communicate. The mystery is sort of lost that way.
@Jim Eshelman said
"EXIST is a Hadit idea. The Latin sistere means "to stand," so ex-sistere means "to stand out." "Existence" is marked as differentiation from the whole and, therefore, has the meanings with which we usually associate it."
I kind of have a problem with that because the concept of differentiation. There is no difference in reality, and if we argue that you separate something from the whole, that something is necessarily less. In other words, you cannot differentiate God from God. So back to my argument that anything that exists is limited and imperfect. Now the key of this is that I am talking about only aspects of existence in Assiah. Physical reality is limited and distorted. God cannot be understood here in all its potential, and the little it permeates is just so unlike the real thing, that I felt comfortable with the non-existing God because it seems to work well on this plane, and it works well on this plane because (I think) it explains some of the most interesting aspects of God.
@Jim Eshelman said
"So, it takes a Hadit idea to exist - to stand out. If it doesn't stand out (a defined point) then it doesn't have what we intuitively understand as "existing." It's only an undifferentiated part of "nothing" (no THING)."
But in this context, Hadit doesn't stand out. Its existence is directly related to Nuit and they exist together as one. There is no differentiation in reality.
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Metzareph said
"It seems to me that the only purpose of creation is to become nothing and then be perfect that way, because anything that exists is by definition less than what doesn't exist. "The Thelemic model has two absolutes, and I think we need to perfect in both. One is to be the most perfect differentiated SOMETHING. The other is to be the most perfectly undiffierentiated NOTHING. The co-existence of the two of these is the model for moving through life."
You are talking about the existing and the non-existing?
@Jim Eshelman said
"
"There is limitation in existence, so for one thing to be perfect, it has to be non-existing."See above. But, also, there are two separate "perfects." The (one) perfect and the (other) perfect are one perfect and not two. (And you know the rest.)"
In other words, 2=1=0 if we finish the sentence... "nay, are none!"
So in reality, the reduction from 2 "perfects" to 1, to none gives the clue of God. Meaning, there is no differentiation, that God is actually everything without excluding one single thing, and when you include ALL, you have nothing... or the NOTHINGNESS that is God. -
@Metzareph said
"Oh no, it explains it to me, but I guess I was not very clear. I think the equation is accurate but it cannot express the mystery of God, which is another thing I wanted to communicate. The mystery is sort of lost that way. "
Well, sure. If you explain mystery, it ceases to be mystery. To remain mystery it has to remain unknown. Sometimes that's useful.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"EXIST is a Hadit idea. The Latin sistere means "to stand," so ex-sistere means "to stand out." "Existence" is marked as differentiation from the whole and, therefore, has the meanings with which we usually associate it."I kind of have a problem with that because the concept of differentiation. There is no difference in reality,"
I disagree. The field where there is difference is as real as the field where there is no difference. They are, however, different kinds of "real."
That is, Hadit, who is individualized manifestation, is as real as Nuit, who is not.
"In other words, you cannot differentiate God from God."
Does The Book of the Law not go to great lengths to express just this type of differentiation? Two separate "perfects" that are equally perfect even though complementary infinites? (Therein lies Mystery.)
"So back to my argument that anything that exists is limited and imperfect. Now the key of this is that I am talking about only aspects of existence in Assiah."
Ahhhhhhhhhh. Huge difference. It never occurred to me that you were talking about Assiah at all (or at least much).
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"So, it takes a Hadit idea to exist - to stand out. If it doesn't stand out (a defined point) then it doesn't have what we intuitively understand as "existing." It's only an undifferentiated part of "nothing" (no THING)."But in this context, Hadit doesn't stand out. Its existence is directly related to Nuit and they exist together as one. There is no differentiation in reality."
If they exist as one (so to speak) without differentiation then there is no Hadit. There is only Nuit. (Yeah, I know there is only Nuit when there is also Hadit.) - But since (new information) you are talking only about Assiah, then there is no Hadit per se in that sense, so the whole point becomes moot.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Metzareph said
"It seems to me that the only purpose of creation is to become nothing and then be perfect that way, because anything that exists is by definition less than what doesn't exist. "The Thelemic model has two absolutes, and I think we need to perfect in both. One is to be the most perfect differentiated SOMETHING. The other is to be the most perfectly undiffierentiated NOTHING. The co-existence of the two of these is the model for moving through life."
You are talking about the existing and the non-existing?
"That's as good a name as any - since Nuit is non-existing (not separated-distinguished) and Hadit is the definition of existing (as separated-distinguished). - But I would no longer apply this to your point, since I now know you are only speaking of Assiah.
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"
"There is limitation in existence, so for one thing to be perfect, it has to be non-existing."See above. But, also, there are two separate "perfects." The (one) perfect and the (other) perfect are one perfect and not two. (And you know the rest.)"
In other words, 2=1=0 if we finish the sentence... "nay, are none!"
So in reality, the reduction from 2 "perfects" to 1, to none gives the clue of God. Meaning, there is no differentiation, that God is actually everything without excluding one single thing, and when you include ALL, you have nothing... or the NOTHINGNESS that is God."Well, that's the definition of Nuit.
On your math, the only thing I'd disagree with is that there really isn't a 1. That number doesn't really exist philosophically. Only 2 and 0. (Makes for a bizarre binary system.)
-
"
On your math, the only thing I'd disagree with is that there really isn't a 1. That number doesn't really exist philosophically. Only 2 and 0. (Makes for a bizarre binary system.)"I disagree. 1 is the only thing that exists, and it expresses itself as 0 and 2. 0 & 2 are two separate because we are conscious, talking about it with dualistic words. ""Nothing" means nothing save from the point of view of "Two," just as "Two" is monstrous unless it is seen as a mode of "Nothing.""
I also disagree that Hadit implies existence/division/separation. I dont feel like quoting 20 things right now, but Hadit is Perfect being Not (i.e. NOT dual), and Crowley writes that Nuit & Hadit are really one in many places. The very very first comment to Liber AL says this: "The theogony of our Law is entirely scientific, Nuit is Matter, Hadit is Motion, in their full physical sense. They are the Tao and Teh of Chinese Philosophy; or, to put it very simply, the Noun and Verb in grammar. Our central Truth -- beyond other philosophies -- is that these two infinities cannot exist apart." That seems pretty clear to me. Hadit causes the appearance of forms (Magician) and their disappearance into naught (Exorcist). It seems severely limiting to say that Hadit is coterminous with or necessitates existence/division/separation.
65 & 210,
111-418 -
@aum418 said
"
"On your math, the only thing I'd disagree with is that there really isn't a 1. That number doesn't really exist philosophically. Only 2 and 0. (Makes for a bizarre binary system.)"I disagree. 1 is the only thing that exists, and it expresses itself as 0 and 2."
I diagree
What we are accustomed to call 1 is rightly called 0 - or, sometimes, 2.Perception of Unitive Reality ("The Vision of God Face to Face") is rightfully assigned to Sephirah 2 because two are involved - the whole Unitive Reality and the perceiver.
When that difference is dissolved, there is no 1 - because there is no other 1 to perceive it. There is only the singular, undifferentiated thing we call 0.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
I diagree What we are accustomed to call 1 is rightly called 0 - or, sometimes, 2."Thats my point. It is called both 0 and 2 under different 'circumstances.' By saying there is no 1, only 0 & 2, cant you see the inherent duality you are setting up, 0 and 2? They are both diverse expressions of 1, or of 0 (if you want). Differentiated & Un-differentiated. This dichotomy is really just 2 expressions of one continuous 'thing' as any study of duality will show you.
"Perception of Unitive Reality ("The Vision of God Face to Face") is rightfully assigned to Sephirah 2 because two are involved - the whole Unitive Reality and the perceiver."
First of all you are saying Perception of Unitive Reality = Vision of God Face to Face, which is a presupposition I simply dont agree with. How could a vision of Unitive Reality involve a Face to Face? That equation makes no sense. Kether is Union with God, did you miss that one?
In fact, now that I think of it, "Perception of Unity" is a sort of contradiction of terms. You can only perceive unity from that place of not-unity, i.e. when you ain't in that state anymore.
"When that difference is dissolved, there is no 1 - because there is no other 1 to perceive it. There is only the singular, undifferentiated thing. we call 0."
Or you could say its 1 expressing itself as 0. The zero is just a 1 bent around to make a circle, i.e. a way of looking at one without any attributes/extensions. Liber AL says lets not speak of Nuit as one but as none simply because it helps us realize the continuity of Nuit and the fact that nothing can be accurately/truthfully attributed. Its not that 'one' doesnt exist, its that 'nothing' is a 'better' name for It.
You said 'singular.' That implies 'one.' You say 'we call it 0.' You are admitting essentially the fatuity of language to express this. I cant help but feel that aversion to 1 is simply a parroting of Crowley saying what you are essentially trying to say. The fact that our perception of things resides either in '0' or '2' doesnt mean that '1' doesnt exist, except to perception. And even so, we could easily say that hte 0 is really just another name for 1 and say that our perception of things resides either in 1 (unity) or 2 (division). The fact taht we cant ascribe unity to unity while abiding in unity isnt an argument against its existence or reality.
65 & 210,
111-418 -
@aum418 said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"I diagree What we are accustomed to call 1 is rightly called 0 - or, sometimes, 2."Thats my point. It is called both 0 and 2 under different 'circumstances.' By saying there is no 1, only 0 & 2, cant you see the inherent duality you are setting up, 0 and 2? They are both diverse expressions of 1, or of 0 (if you want)."
I grin through this because we are discussing tactics of explanation, not actually.
I am absolutely thrilled at the psychological impact of someone "getting" that there is no 1. It seems so counter-intuitive at first that it really shakes the way of understanding things rather than just shaking labels. So, first orf all, its really effective and, therefore, useful.
I don't see any more duality in this than in what you're saying. Zero equals Two - they aren't two things - when the perception of duality isn't there, there is nothing to perceive and nothing to do the perceiving.
When you have - in the whole of Reality! - only one thing then there is nothing to perceive it. Therefore, you have no thing that can be perceived or can perceive it. The one is an artifice that gets skipped. When there is only (what we are used to calling) 1 thing, there is really nothing at all (since, among other points, being a "thing" is entirely a matter of perception).
"
"Perception of Unitive Reality ("The Vision of God Face to Face") is rightfully assigned to Sephirah 2 because two are involved - the whole Unitive Reality and the perceiver."First of all you are saying Perception of Unitive Reality = Vision of God Face to Face, which is a presupposition I simply dont agree with. How could a vision of Unitive Reality involve a Face to Face? That equation makes no sense. Kether is Union with God, did you miss that one?"
Kether is being "God" - it's in the being.
Sorry, I thought the topic area of your first question above had been heavily discussed and was widely known so I used shortcut explanations. "How could a vision of Unitive Reality involve a Face to Face?" It's a vision - a perception - therefore it has both a seer and a seen. There are 2 involved in the transaction. There is a persisting sense of self differentiated from what one is perceiving.
"In fact, now that I think of it, "Perception of Unity" is a sort of contradiction of terms. You can only perceive unity from that place of not-unity, i.e. when you ain't in that state anymore."
That's the point! But this doesn't stop people have having what, to them, is entirely persuasive as an experience of Unity. (It's really the last-ditch experience of duality - since their unseen p.o.v. is part of the equation.) Hence, the traditional title of the characteristic vision of Chokmah, "The Vision of God Face-to-Face."
"You are admitting essentially the fatuity of language to express this."
Oh, hell yes! How can this sort of thing be expressed in language? Hence my opening giggle that we're only discussing tactics. One picks the words that have the desired effect, and that's as truthful as one can get with language.
"I cant help but feel that aversion to 1 is simply a parroting of Crowley saying what you are essentially trying to say."
You can interpret it that way if you want (though I don't think he ever went as far as to say there is no 1). But it's not Crowleyanity, not parroting - it's that this is one of the most powerful philosophical points he ever made and it really solved a whole batch of philosophical connundrums with a single slice.
"The fact that our perception of things resides either in '0' or '2' doesnt mean that '1' doesnt exist, except to perception."
LOL, that's our difference, then. I come from the place wherein nothing exists except to perception. (At least, nothing has been "named" in the boradest sense of the phrase, or singularly identified in any functional way.) The journey up the Tree is a journey of shifts of consciousness, and this is one of the final ones.
"And even so, we could easily say that hte 0 is really just another name for 1 and say that our perception of things resides either in 1 (unity) or 2 (division)."
Oh, yeah, but that keeps us thinking in ego-centric terms. Give a typical person any excuse to leave ONE in the picture, and their ego is going to have a very difficult time getting out of it. Blow the whole idea away and suddenly there is this wonderful empty gap.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
I grin through this because we are discussing tactics of explanation, not actually.I am absolutely thrilled at the psychological impact of someone "getting" that there is no 1. It seems so counter-intuitive at first that it really shakes the way of understanding things rather than just shaking labels. So, first orf all, its really effective and, therefore, useful.
I don't see any more duality in this than in what you're saying. Zero equals Two - they aren't two things - when the perception of duality isn't there, there is nothing to perceive and nothing to do the perceiving.
When you have - in the whole of Reality! - only one thing then there is nothing to perceive it. Therefore, you have no thing that can be perceived or can perceive it. The one is an artifice that gets skipped. When there is only (what we are used to calling) 1 thing, there is really nothing at all (since, among other points, being a "thing" is entirely a matter of perception)."
Jim, I get a distinct 'teacher' attitude from you that is getting tiresome - you dont have to know it all. Thats probably just a simple impression, but Id rather talk on an equal level, as fellow students or lovers of wisdom or whatever. I know exactly what you are talking about, about how there is no one to perceive anything in Unity (" It is not known if it be known." -Liber Cheth). Im well aware of this and talk about it multiple times; I know what you are talking about, you dont have to repeat yourself.
You take the assumption that 'there is no 1' as a presupposition, probably because you read Crowley sayign it somewhere (possibly here?: "We have seen that "Two" (or "Many") are unsatisfactory as origin, if only because they can always be reduced to "One"; and "One" itself is no better, because, among other things, it finds itself forced to deny the very premises on which it was founded." -Magick Without Tears). The 0 and 1 are identical, and you are so obsessed with this notion that 'theres no 1' that you cant see that its just a different label for what you are calling '0,' which is just A LABEL. It is not 'TRUTH' or "CORRECT' its a more convenient, or effective label. You can call un-differentiatedness zero and I can call it one, but its still un-differentiatedness.
I dont see how you can say when there is 1 thing there is nothing at all. "Nothing" doesnt mean 'a lack of something,' like you imply in this sentence but its just a label for that non-dual state which is a continuum. A continuum isnt a lack-of-something, its an un-differentiated something. Saying that when there is 1 thing there is nothing at all is incorrect - there is no perception of anything, that is correct. Does going into samadhi cause hte destruciton of the physical universe? No - its the destruction of the Universe-as-you-perceive it, its the destruction of YOUR universe. Otherwise your conception is painfully geocentric.
"
"In fact, now that I think of it, "Perception of Unity" is a sort of contradiction of terms. You can only perceive unity from that place of not-unity, i.e. when you ain't in that state anymore."That's the point! But this doesn't stop people have having what, to them, is entirely persuasive as an experience of Unity."
Of Unity?! I thought that didn't exist! You surely mean nothing!
"
"I cant help but feel that aversion to 1 is simply a parroting of Crowley saying what you are essentially trying to say."You can interpret it that way if you want (though I don't think he ever went as far as to say there is no 1). But it's not Crowleyanity, not parroting - it's that this is one of the most powerful philosophical points he ever made and it really solved a whole batch of philosophical connundrums with a single slice."
In one line you doubt whether he actually said there is no One then in the next sentence you say 'this is one of the most powerful philosophical points he ever made.' Which one is it? He solved nothing except the problem of duality when you say 'Unity' or "One" by saying its better to define it as "Not" because 'Thou art continuous.' The qabalists figured that out a LONG time ago. So did Taoists, I think, with "Tao." So did all dialectical monists.
"
"The fact that our perception of things resides either in '0' or '2' doesnt mean that '1' doesnt exist, except to perception."LOL, that's our difference, then. I come from the place wherein nothing exists except to perception."
So youre a fan of Idealism? Sounds painfully geocentric to me (i.e. when i die, the universe dies cause its my mind). Once again, what you call 0 is just what I call 1, its just a different label for it; I cannot fathom why you are so averse to it. You admit the fatuity of language but somehow you dont extend this notion to numbers. Our interpretations of these numbers are entirely in language, too.
"
"And even so, we could easily say that hte 0 is really just another name for 1 and say that our perception of things resides either in 1 (unity) or 2 (division)."Oh, yeah, but that keeps us thinking in ego-centric terms."
And 'nothing exists except to my perception' isnt?
"Give a typical person any excuse to leave ONE in the picture, and their ego is going to have a very difficult time getting out of it. Blow the whole idea away and suddenly there is this wonderful empty gap."
Ok, so, then you have to admit that this isnt new or revolutionary at all. In fact, its the basis of the Buddha's doctrine of anatta. And the Jnana Yogi's practice of "Neti, neti" (not that, not that) denying all positive things.
65 & 210,
111-418 -
@aum418 said
"Jim, I get a distinct 'teacher' attitude from you that is getting tiresome"
Teaching is all I do - with every breath, with every thought. I can't explain why it's only starting to be evident to you. That's the machine I am and it's what I'm here to do.
This forum - as its subtitle above should at least hint - is an extension device of a school. If you don't want a teacher, don't sign up for the class.
"you dont have to know it all."
On this we agree!
"but Id rather talk on an equal level, as fellow students or lovers of wisdom or whatever."
As a teacher, I'm quite willing to use this as a device. But this forum was never created to be a general public open meeting - It's a very liberal class room in a specific school that exists to deliver specific teachings. Part of delivering those teachings means encouraging discussion and getting minds going - that's part of good teaching. But please don't ever confuse that with the idea that this is anything other than a classroom.
"You take the assumption that 'there is no 1' as a presupposition, probably because you read Crowley sayign it somewhere."
Hey, you must made that up! (BTw, I don't think AC said that. If so, let me know where you can find it. I've been taking credit for that step in the presentation as a natural next conclusion, but if it's his then I'd rather give credit.)
"The 0 and 1 are identical, and you are so obsessed with this notion that 'theres no 1' that you cant see that its just a different label for what you are calling '0,' which is just A LABEL. It is not 'TRUTH' or "CORRECT' its a more convenient, or effective label."
You aren't reading - or are refusing to pay attention to what you are reading. I already said that, albeit in different words. I began the last response by saying this is all tactics. How, then, is it an obsession? It's a technique, like all use of language.
Bottom line, the rest of your post shows that you just didn't read what I said, or didn't understand it - since you keep trying to push points I've already admitted or discussed. Hence my tendency to repeat when someone appears not to have heard the first time.
But I'll try not to make that mistake again with you.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Well, sure. If you explain mystery, it ceases to be mystery. To remain mystery it has to remain unknown. Sometimes that's useful."
A quick interjection here, a little off topic but pertaining to the matter... I don't think the mysteries can be explained. The trap with the 2=0 math equation is, (in my opinion) that it would seem like you explained it, when in fact you did not; because it is a shortcut that becomes easy to quote and makes you feel that you explained it.
What I mean is that mysteries cannot be communicated. A secret can be revealed or communicated. A mystery can only be revealed by direct experience.
If you were born blind, I would not be able to communicate the color red to you by any means. I can describe it and put a lot of effort in my description, but the color red would be a mystery to you... BUT, you may think that you really KNOW the color red when in fact you are blind.
I would say that logic (Knowledge, Da'ath) makes you lazy, because it gives you the sense of "understanding", when in fact you didn't even scratched the surface.
The perfect Mystery School is the one that puts people in the path to discover and see for themselves (hence in direct contact with) the true meaning of the mysteries... (like t.'.o.'.t.'.)
-
@Metzareph said
"A quick interjection here, a little off topic but pertaining to the matter... I don't think the mysteries can be explained. The trap with the 2=0 math equation is, (in my opinion) that it would seem like you explained it, when in fact you did not; because it is a shortcut that becomes easy to quote and makes you feel that you explained it."
As the one who first mentioned the 0=2 boogeyman in this thread, I just want to say that I agree completely that this mystery (a word with which I'm a bit uncomfortable, because it can be misused too) is in no way "explained away" just by identifying it. The shortcut is just a way of saying "this is the mystery I'm talking about..." and not an attempt to pierce its unpiercable heart.
Steve
-
The important difference in Crowley's 0=2 from the general Hinhu and Buddhist concept, is that Crowley's void is attained by unity of opposites, rather that by removing or casting out of elements.
It is ego transcendence by invoking the non-ego, rather than the traditional Buddhist method of banishing the ego.
The Buddhist tend to remove themselves from life. Crowley's method is to fully merge with life, be it pleasure or pain, hedonistic or ascetic, the key is in doing what you repulses or intrigues you, until it no longer does either. The ultimate goal is the same as the Buddhist, release from ego attachments. Perfect control over the repulsions and inclinations of the body and mind, by transcending them via burnout, rather than use it or lose it methods of Buddhism.
-
93 all,
I been tussling with the concept of "God" lately too and I think a trap when dealing with this particular issue is framing God as someone external from our selves. If reality is one (which seems to be a trap too), then it would probably do us some justice to reframe the God principle into some sort of activity we can measure by distance, quantity and quality i.e. the more one can extract oneself from finite, physical, complex states of be-ing, the closer one gets to infinite, pure and simple state of be-ing until be-ing no longer exists. We're sown into this activity. We can not count ourselves out of it. This activity seems to be happening on planes we can detect through experience and observation and those we can not detect in our current state of evolution. There is no "God" but there seems to be No-thing deciding to become A-thing so it can become No-thing again.
93 93/93
-
@Froclown said
"The important difference in Crowley's 0=2 from the general Hinhu and Buddhist concept, is that Crowley's void is attained by unity of opposites, rather that by removing or casting out of elements. "
Are you aware of Bhakti yoga?
"It is ego transcendence by invoking the non-ego, rather than the traditional Buddhist method of banishing the ego. "
More like banishing ego and non-ego, but yea... Its not that straightforward. They dont 'banish' anything like you would understand in the magick sense, they just come to realize theres no ego - and even perform egoless meditations like Mahasatipatthana (which Crowley recommends in about 4+ places... gasp!).
"The Buddhist tend to remove themselves from life."
This is incorrect and a common misperception. SOME might. Theravada Buddhism generally consists in trying to get beyond the wheel of life and death, so yea you can easily extroplate the idea of 'removing themselves from life' fmor this - they're also removing themselves from death, though. Mahayana buddhism is all about becoming a Bodhisattva to help all beings attain enlightenment etc, and very much is 'in' the world. In fact, some Buddhists practice meditation with their eyes open to symbolically affirm their acceptance of life and the world.
"Crowley's method is to fully merge with life, be it pleasure or pain, hedonistic or ascetic, the key is in doing what you repulses or intrigues you, until it no longer does either. "
This also is the Tantric Buddhist and Tantric Hindu method... And Bhakti yoga.
65 & 210,
111-418