God doesn't exist
-
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 -
I have no doubt that there is no God.
Read Chapter 50 of Book of Lies and especially the commentary: "God the macrocosm and the microcosm beetle... both imagine themselves to exist... the things which really exist, the things which have no Ego and speak in the third person, regard these as ignorant on account of their assumption of Knowledge."
There is also a chapter in there, somewhere between 30 and 60 where he makes the point that math won't do to explain ultimate reality, so 0=2 is not his ultimate "proof" of anything, but a pretty great suggestion.
The non-God is described as IT in Chapter 31 of Book of Lies. Check out Chapter 42, Dust Devils and Chapter 40, HIMOG.
There is nothing to perfect. All is pure joy.
Crowley has described something exactly throughout his work which is found elsewhere in the Atiyoga teachings, which explain fairly well his disagreement with old friend Allan Bennett, who was a Theravadin Buddhist. A Theravadin and a Dzogchen practitioner agree on just about nothing because the Theravadin is so far behind and below in general comprehension. Notice how throughout Book of Lies, Crowley sort of "puts down" Samadhi and emptiness and says repeatedly that magick is more important. He says the mind is more than rest, it is also movement. This is an important difference between Dzogchen and Theravada! The Theravadin's goal is rest (samadhi) while the Dzogchen practitioner realizes that the Nature of Mind is both and therefore never loses himself throughout his daily business, unlike the meditator who gets up and leaves the state of meditation. Yet, the theme throughout the entire Book of Lies is that the Great Work is the practice of meditation to obliterate yourself. A Dzogchen master would agree with this all, too. A Theravadin says, "All is suffering." A Dzogchen practitioner says, "All is pure joy."
Chapter 51, Terrier Work, shows that IT is a STATE (see commentary). This is the IT refered to in Chapter 31. But, in Chapter 51 it is referred to as THAT. And IT comes as a result of doubt (obliterate yourself).
The Nature of Mind itself is clear. It is awareness full with potentiality. It is likened to the sun because it is radiant awareness, illuminating all things. IT is not "one thing" because "one" is a concept relative to thingness. If we're going to use numbers to describe nonduality, 0=2 better represents the idea of lack of thingness (nonduality) relative to duality (thingness).
To go beyond this point-perspective, sense of self is dissolved into a broader perspective which reveals the knowledge of all things, which are in flux, relative and interdependent. Going beyond point-perspective due to a different interpretation of reality, one does not actually lose all sense of perspective, else there would be no multiplicity of realized beings. But, there are many, each different but with an identical nature underneath the Ego. When the illusion of Ego is discarded, the true nature is revealed. But, it is not sinking into "one" or "Godhead."
There is, in fact, no "one mind" behind it all, no "one mind" experiencing it all. To experience, consciousness experiences in point-perspective, which immediately cuts it off from other perspective. This is why, in various meditative practices, we practice "cutting at the root," or, as soon as differentiation occurs in our minds.
But this sense of radiant sun-like awareness, stripped bare, this "IT STATE" does not experience the entire Universe as his body in the way that "one mind" or "union with Godhead" would suggest, as if the planets are his fingertips and the stars his internal organs, as if simultaneously knowing the whereabouts of Fred in Colorado and Zrilok far off in the opposite corner of a parallel universe. IT is "one mind" as much as water is "one". Nature of Mind has one "quality", which in itself is qualitylessness, essencelessness, invisible awareness, which is what differentiates it from all else, but unites it with whatever it experiences. What differentiates IT is that IT remains relaxed and unattached to foci. IT is space which is found throughout all, whether it be matter, energy or seeming spatial emptiness.
Realization of IT is called a STATE, which should tell us something, just as water is a state of molecules relative to each other in motion through space. Those individual molecules are not water, but they are in the state of water. But, when oxygen and hydrogen mix in the right combination, we have one thing called "water," regardless of where or when we put those molecules together. Similarly, our True Nature is identical to that of the IT, when the obscurations are stripped away and naked awareness is left. Billions of individual beings can be in the same state of mind, but that does not mean they are a one-minded entity, literally speaking.
Everything is interdependent, so of course, it is natural that the material world would eventually connect back to our mental experience. The "subconscious" was a phrase coined to label this unseen gap. We know that in everyday reality, the subconscious simply refers to our deep memory. In terms of karma, we may think of it as a sort of "universal memory" like the Hindu Akasa, or consciousness energy, but the very fact it is a one-word label should give it away as a mistaken idea. Any movement in space is going to affect all the points in space around it, just as dropping a pebble in watter will cause ripples and bubbles. All IS in the mind: the mind magically creates when it experiences point-perspective. Delusion arises like a chain of friends supporting each other; all these little points of consciousness creating a mutual support of relative existence for each other. This is karma or Adjustment.
In the illustration of the mirror, the reflection is likened to the "image-making" energy of the mind. The mind does this endlessly, the way a mirror just reflects. The Nature of Mind rests... and IT moves (see Book of Lies). If a mirror didn't reflect, it wouldn't be a mirror at all. Similarly, the mind reflects, which is what makes it mind. But, the very fact that the mind reflects the projections of otherness-mind shows that point-perception is what makes mind be mind.
At least, in my mind, none of this indicates to me that there is "one mind" beneath this delusion. Not at all, no matter how. If there was "one mind," there would be no experience. Or else, it would be as if an initial mind thought about other beings and in so doing impregnated those other beings with a mind and life of their own. And the beings multiplied infinitely, yet somehow the original mind is the only one that matters because it is the "real mind." This is just Theism. And it is patently silly. How could One create motion? The object of our analysis is a plural, but it is empty everywhere, pregnant with potential since the beginning and throughout.
Note how frequently Crowley used Tibetan Buddhist terms throughout his work and especially Book of Lies where these very Dzogchen-specific ideas are related through his Theory of the Universe. "Guru, chela, om mani padme hum," etc. His description of the wind of the mind is identical to Dzogchen teachings regarding the initial swirlings of Nature of Mind, which wrap around a subtle sense of self and create the Universe as delusion we experience through the illusion of "I."
The mind can be thought of as an infinite luminous sphere: nothing, everything, both and neither and beyond these 4 categorizations. Leaving things simply as they are, there is no need for or room for God. There is only the self-liberating, all-creating power of Mind which itself is self-existing for all time. For more clarification on these ideas, I'd recommend "Flight of the Garuda" by Keith Dowman or this short text: www.dharmamind.net/TM1.htm
-
@Metzareph said
"Last night having dinner with a friend of mine, we discussed things related to God. After the typical premises of "God is everything" and that "God is everywhere" we touched on the nature of "everything" and "everywhere". It seems that the illusion of time and space creates the illusion of distance and the illusion of past-present-future along with the aspects of creation of different things, different places and different times.
Grasping the fact that all is here, right now, including the past, the present and the future was pushing the envelope, but the most interesting thing was coming to the conclusion of the non-existence of God. Basically, God cannot exist, because God is essentially nothing. It does not exist, and by not existing it can be anything and be anywhere.
I felt an incredible relief, like somebody had lifted a heavy weight off my chest. God is more complicated than I was able to understand, but just coming to the realization that we all attribute God our own projections and our own fabrications, made me breathe with confidence. The idea of God "in need" of its own creation to experience everything was very oppressive and depressing, because it implies the idea of co-dependence, not matter how joyful and wonderful and everlasting these cycles of creation and destruction of universes can be, because, yes, we talked about the nature of creating and destroying, big bangs and all those cycles. But somehow, even all this will become routine, and that I refuse to even begin to think of creation becoming boring.
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. There is limitation in existence, so for one thing to be perfect, it has to be non-existing.
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."
I have comed to the same conclusion myself, i perfectly agree with you.
I just have to add that acording to my belief, the purpose of creation is to become nothing as you said, but in the other extremis of nothing, that is infinite. For infinite and 0 are but the same thing, two faces of the same coin, and we are traveling toward the infinite , to unite with God, the Nothing. I really have to think more about it, but the main idea is this. -
@xfilesalbania said
"
I have comed to the same conclusion myself, i perfectly agree with you.
I just have to add that acording to my belief, the purpose of creation is to become nothing as you said, but in the other extremis of nothing, that is infinite. For infinite and 0 are but the same thing, two faces of the same coin, and we are traveling toward the infinite , to unite with God, the Nothing. I really have to think more about it, but the main idea is this."The only problem I have with this sort of thinking is that it glorifies the illusion of God. In the Book of Lies and elswhere, Crowley has repeatedly pointed out that God is an illusion or a delusion just like anything else in relative reality ("they imagine themselves to exist"). It is the not-god which we want to experience in order to understand our own delusion, and our projected God we create ourselves from our relative perspectives. Isn't this part of the key to Liber Al? What about Liber418 the 10th Aether? The Book of Thoth description of the High Priestess? Or the "water of water" description of the Queen of Cups (which not only applies to a personality type, but the condition of water of water itself)?
The wording of "traveling toward the infinite , to unite with God" implies that this is a deliberate set-up from the beginning to evolve, when in fact spiritual transformation goes up or down, not just upward, and always has since beginningless time. Realization does not involve a journey toward the infinite, since it is available here now in the present. Infinite or finite are only concepts. The realization is nonconceptual.
Other similar lines of thought that always stick in my craw are: "God is playing hide-and-seek with himself because it's fun!" or some such crap. We are not aware of our real nature due to the collective clinging and delusion of the essential elements of space, which over enough time produce the illusion of Self. These elements are part of the Nature of Mind which is the real, invisible, Nothing "substance" of awareness. As soon as the "winds" of the Nature of Mind begin to twist around the elusive sense of differentiation, we are on our way to heavier and heavier forms of distinction, separation and conditioning until we get to the point we are totally deluded about the nature of reality, an aggregation of elemental conditioning consumed by dualistic considerations. It is not like "the wise old man created everything and then rolled over and went to sleep" we repeatedly hear from people like Lon Milo DuQuette, etc. This sort of simplistic mythologizing is part of the problem, in my opinion. It creates a real obstacle to learning when everything becomes a personification.
Crowley is talking about escaping God concepts, even escaping the known Universe, which is in a "desert"... in other words, life as we know it is a spiritual desert, empty, harsh and dying:
DUST-DEVILS
In the wind of the mind arises the turbulence called I. It breaks; down shower the barren thoughts. All life is choked. This desert is the Abyss wherein the Universe. The Stars are but thistles in that waste. Yet this desert is but one spot accursed in a world of bliss. Now and again Travellers cross the desert; they come from the Great Sea, and to the Great Sea they go. As they go they spill water; one day they will irrigate the desert, till it flower. See! five footprints of a Camel! V.V.V.V.V.(High Priestess!)
WHEEL AND--WOA!
The Great Wheel of Samsara. The Wheel of the Law [Dhamma]. The Wheel of the Taro. The Wheel of the Heavens. The Wheel of Life. All these Wheels be one; yet of all these the Wheel of the TARO alone avails thee consciously. Meditate long and broad and deep, O man, upon this Wheel, revolving it in thy mind Be this thy task, to see how each card springs necessarily from each other card, even in due order from The Fool unto The Ten of Coins. Then, when thou know'st the Wheel of Destiny complete, mayst thou perceive THAT Will which moved it first. [There is no first or last.} And lo! thou art past through the Abyss. -
you really make good points, and i agree with you to a certain point.
By the way, i really haven't read yet the book of lies, or the other "liber" series. In fact i don't know much, i just see Crowley as an example to follow and find much inspiration in him.
But you shouldn't have problems when dealing with different points of view. Absolute truth does not exist at all, and the significance of existence, god, etc varies from person to person, none of us is right, but also , none of us is wrong.
Existence and life itself is a paradox, so everything is true and false at the same time. -
Definitely read Book Of Lies. I was flipping through it last night after my posts and there are quite a few chapters about this... in fact, the whole book is about this, I think.
Everything is true and not true, as you say, to a certain extent, but that is only because our magickal essence makes it so. We differentiate with the power of the word and project our essence into that label or container to make it true. So, Gods are beliefs come to life which are conceptual personifications of energy. Who conceptualizes and personifies? If self is an illusion, then these creations are temporal phantoms proceeding from Nothing. The magickal power to create is inherent in the Nothing from whence the idea of Self emanates. As Crowley stated, God does not exist until Tiphareth and Man not until Malkuth. They each are the result of potentialities and tendencies created by that potentiality from the original radiant source, which is always there waiting to be rediscovered. If not, nobody cares. No God is up there waiting for you to wake up or wake him up. In fact, the Universe is designed to kill you, since everything is only temporary. Crowley reverses the typical thinking of "life is a meaningless fight" to "fighting is a good enough reason to live." His aim was to teach worthy people to find their essence and beat death at its own game by seeing it from the other side. This is won by confronting fear and limitation and going beyond it, which includes God.
-
topics like this seem a good waste of breath. No offense, I see where you are coming from, but when you start talking about the negative in the positive....speech just seems to cancel out any progress you are trying to make. Maybe this is why buddha was always silent when students asked him about God. Silence seems the best answer.