Goetic "Demons"
-
Well you have shown that we all have the capacity for the same sort of hallucinations and delusions, and perhaps a method by which such common illusions and cognitive tricks or misfirings can occur.
But it order to be taken seriously you should be able to produce these effects in controlled situations and provide tangible evidence for what you say.
anyone can say they bend spoons, may even believe it themselves if they whip themselves up into a state about it. But unless one can bend the spoon without touching it, in a situation where tricks ar slight of hand are ruled out, there is no evidence.
I claim to run, because I was put in charge of, a Second life simulation of the A.'.A.'. which I attempt to use all the source material the actual A.'.A.'. uses to the best of my ability to reconstruct the system, and fill in the gaps with some materials, rituals, and such that have worked for me, as voluntary alternatives.
I was never officially in the A.'.A.'. or the OTO nor any other Thelemic group, I did most of my work on my own, from Crowley's libers, Peter Carroll's Kaos magick, a great amount of Robert Anton Wilson, some Lovecraftian necronomican, a few dealings with neo-pagans, Buddhism, Taoism, etc.
Also the whole cannon of western Philosophy and the semanto-pathic systems of Discordianism and post-moderism in general.
Also physics/achemy from techo brache to bruno, Newton to Shrodinger.
-
sorry I am what you call an INTP
Arguments from title or claimed authority hold little watter with me, unless you can back up your claims with scientific evidence, they best you can get is a maybe. If your statements contradict existing evidence, then I will not accept them without strong support or showing known evidence to be wrong in some way, with strong evidence.
The strength of your conviction says nothing about how correct you are.
"Convictions cause convicts
Can you chart the path to captain Valentines sweet heart" -
It doesn't matter to me. Pun intended.
It would be nice if you would wake up and realize your statements are not supported and no more scientific than any other experiential observations, but you're obviously pretty full of yourself, so I think you'd have trouble finding any of the glaring holes in your pet theories.
-
Well I shall endeavor to discover textbook examples of haw the process of perception occurs, in the neuro-physiology of the brain.
I shall provide examples of exactly how atoms form molecules and DNA arises, how DNA acts as a template for proteins, those proteins form cells and cellular structures, up to whole organisms, those evolve over time. How Neural-nets form in brain tissues, which work to replicate the information in sensory input from nerves.
And how the sensory input used by the brain is divided from the event that caused the input of that data.
All of this is well known, understood and documented science.
Now, I said that the impressions that arise in our subject perception, have a physical source in the objective world.
Keep in mind I give no details about the nature of those other than they are physical, and in some way analogous to the subjective images they produce.
If we are brains in a vat, then the brain, the vat, and the computer putting the info in are physical, as are the wires and the electricity.
If there is an evil genie at work, then that evil genie is something, it is a physical object, a being of the objective world, and has some sort of a physical effect on our whatever objective form our minds take be it a brain or otherwise.
If spirits or other such entities are at play, then these must also have physical objective forms that can effect the objective form of the mind.
What is the objective mind to our subjective perspective if not the brain?
And where do impressions in the brain come from if not physical objects that have an effect upon the brain.
I have much evidence for my theory.
I see no evidence for your non-physical ??? whatever that means, undergoing some kind of change for some unknown reason, that can not be detected in any way, such that in builds a physical shell as a vehicle to interact with other non-physicals in a physical way.
-
Scientific proofs are based on the assumption that there is a world out there that is real, because it bases its proofs on statements like "in order to be taken seriously you should be able to produce these effects in controlled situations and provide tangible evidence for what you say."
In order to provide such an evidence we must assume what Philip K Dick terms reality: whatever remains when we stop thinking about it. Such a reality concept is a reality only provided we believe the same thing when we think about it in spacetime position 1 and get back to generally the same circumstance in spacetime position 2.
Doing that, however, is no different than when a thousand magicians "delude" themselves into believing the same general thing about something that's not commonly accepted by people who claim to be rational. After all, rationality is only clinging to the idea that something is practical, which something only is in the eye of the beholder. So as I see it, we're still on square 1, no matter which system of proof we use.
It's impractical to believe truthfully that the Earth is flat if we need to use its spherical shape for something practical, like relying on Newtonian laws when placing a satellite in geosynchronous orbit in its gravitational field e.g. So from that p o v people in the medieval times who distrusted Galileo were fools, because he had mathematical evidence to back up his claims but was thrown in the tower by the Papists anyway.
It's also impractical to assume that the Earth has extension and thereby can be called spherical if we get to the conclusion that in order to move the mind from point A to point B, one must transcend any reality and bend all given rules, if going to point B is more important than building a satellite, because the matrix of mathematical rules is shown to destroy itself, and the only thing that can save the gathered information, excluding mathematics, of humanity is the above given solution.
Example 1 of the two above defends theory 1 by result 1, and example 2 defends theory 2 by result 2. Both are inductively reasoned, something we never can seem to get out of, but it's useful nonetheless, because it's fun to build things which seem to sustain themselves more than seemingly more self destructive things.
The way I see it is also inductively reasoned, and the p o v including inductive reasoning is no more true than any other system of thought. There is no point to anything other than the chance of union, which isn't a point but a chance of union. All I'm saying is of course bullshit and absolute truth and whatever.
-
If there is chance of union there must be 2 things which unite.
Thingness = physicality
Uniting is a physical process.
If as you say everything emanates from a single non-physical source, and oneself is really that source, then there are not different things, and all things are in our mind. That would mean all other people and things are thoughts in your head. That is Solipsism, and goes against the Thelemic principle that all other people exist as centers of their own universe, but each exists separately in the body of Nuit.
As it is true that every phenomena of the mind, constructed from the sense organs and cognitive processes, is exactly as you say, derived from a single source, the mind. But the world of sight and touch is not the physical world, its the world of appearances.
The Physical world is that which is seen and touched, that which does the seeing and the touching.
I see some one on the street, What happens is that their Physical existence is projected as an appearance in my mind, I see the appearance. But It is assured that, that other person is not a mere figment of my mind, but has a real distinct existence of his own, and from his perspective I am but an appearance in his mind.
But Appearances aside the real world remains what it is, not a single point or a nothingness, but a plurality of different objects.
infinity objects effect the body. Infinity becomes 1.
The brain takes that 1 and divides in into dimension of sense data, each with 2 poles. The 1 becomes duality.
Since the all appearances are dualistic, the return to the 1 is appears as 0, as there are no dualities to compare.
But, the world out there exists as many objects, and magic effects mostly one of these objects, the brain, and how it displays the appearances produced in the mind.
-
Since there is no thing-in-itself, any textbook description of the "physical causes" of thought are nothing but ultimately meaningless relative labels describing delusion in minutiae.
All configurations of events/meanings present themselves in experience. Since they are neither our experience of them nor something other than it, they elude, at any given moment, both speech and thought. Like a conjurer's illusion, apparently visible but really nonexistent. IT is beyond the labels of one and many.
-
@Redd Fezz said
":roll:
Since there is no thing-in-itself, any textbook description of the "physical causes" of thought are nothing but ultimately meaningless relative labels describing delusion in minutiae."
Your pressupposition that there is no thing-in-itself isnt necessarily true, and I would LOVE to see you try to back up this statement (with anything, let alone Thelemic books).
"All configurations of events/meanings present themselves in experience. Since they are neither our experience of them nor something other than it, they elude, at any given moment, both speech and thought. Like a conjurer's illusion, apparently visible but really nonexistent. IT is beyond the labels of one and many."
Is IT not another label of the thing-in-itself?
65 & 210,
111-418 -
@aum418 said
"
@Redd Fezz said
":roll:Since there is no thing-in-itself, any textbook description of the "physical causes" of thought are nothing but ultimately meaningless relative labels describing delusion in minutiae."
Your pressupposition that there is no thing-in-itself isnt necessarily true, and I would LOVE to see you try to back up this statement (with anything, let alone Thelemic books)."
I was speaking in terms of scientific limitation, since this is the sort of evidence which was proposed. We cannot know things-in-themselves (if they exist) but can only postulate their nature from what we know about observable phenomena, which is a series of assumptions.
Nothing has been discovered to be a thing-in-itself and, upon further examination, we are lead further and further away from such a notion.
As far as Thelemic books, you could start with Book of Lies, maybe (45) Chinese Music or (5) The Battle of The Ants or (31) The Garotte.
@aum418 said
"
"All configurations of events/meanings present themselves in experience. Since they are neither our experience of them nor something other than it, they elude, at any given moment, both speech and thought. Like a conjurer's illusion, apparently visible but really nonexistent. IT is beyond the labels of one and many."Is IT not another label of the thing-in-itself?
65 & 210,
111-418"IT's actually not, seeing as IT is not a thing at all. IT is beyond existence and nonexistence, both and neither, everything and nothing.
-
As I Grok it. We differ in this way.
You believe this "IT" to be a single identical source that is behind all relative impressions (phenomena).
Where as I agree that This "IT" is the limit of the mind. I propose that beyond this limit is a multitude, which is somewhat like our impressions, something analogous to a volume of space with differing and separate entities which interact, ourselves being only one system of such entities.
A television for example. We can deduce that the images on the television are not really the objects the represent, further every image can be reduces to a binary pulse of electricity 1s and 0s. Those Binary pulses have a common origin, the cable wire. Thus it is true that all images on the TV are derived from a common source which is itself not anything like an image on the TV.
However, if we trace the wire back further to the camera. We find that the camera is pointed at actual objects in the world, and the pulses represent those objects, which are ultimately displayed on the screen as images made of light.
Those images are not the objects, but they are similar to or analogous to them.
Common language does not realize the images are not the things themselves, thus we call the image the physical object.
When I talk about Physical objects I mean the objects themselves not the images in our minds that represent them.
When I speak of the Abyss, I mean the abyss between the image and the object.
What Abyss do you allude to?
-
@Redd Fezz said
"
@aum418 said
"
@Redd Fezz said
":roll:Since there is no thing-in-itself, any textbook description of the "physical causes" of thought are nothing but ultimately meaningless relative labels describing delusion in minutiae."
Your pressupposition that there is no thing-in-itself isnt necessarily true, and I would LOVE to see you try to back up this statement (with anything, let alone Thelemic books)."
I was speaking in terms of scientific limitation, since this is the sort of evidence which was proposed. We cannot know things-in-themselves (if they exist) but can only postulate their nature from what we know about observable phenomena, which is a series of assumptions.
Nothing has been discovered to be a thing-in-itself and, upon further examination, we are lead further and further away from such a notion.
As far as Thelemic books, you could start with Book of Lies, maybe (45) Chinese Music or (5) The Battle of The Ants or (31) The Garotte.
@aum418 said
"
"All configurations of events/meanings present themselves in experience. Since they are neither our experience of them nor something other than it, they elude, at any given moment, both speech and thought. Like a conjurer's illusion, apparently visible but really nonexistent. IT is beyond the labels of one and many."Is IT not another label of the thing-in-itself?
65 & 210,
111-418"IT's actually not, seeing as IT is not a thing at all. IT is beyond existence and nonexistence, both and neither, everything and nothing."
Yes... beyond our notions that we ascribe to things but are really in our mind.... it is a thing-in-itself.
You say we cant know the thing-in-itself, but what is Samadhi?
Further, Schopenhauer figured that if the thing-in-itself is devoid of mind-categories (space, time, causality) there can only be one thing-in-itself that he felt expressed itself dually as Will and Representation/Idea. Nietzsche thought this dialectic to be incorrect and asserted the Will-to-power. Crowley asserted Thelema as the only Law.
65 & 210,
111-418 -
I'm glad you brought up Samadhi because it would be good to think about how it relates to this discussion so far. Transcendental experiences or experiences of formless realms are not the ultimate experience of IT because, though these are nondual experiences, there is still duality experience (just perhaps not for you in the moment). A formless realm is just the opposite of the form realm. In fact, having these sorts of experiences proves only one thing: that you are still having experiences and therefore missing THAT which lies subtly beyond experience (Chapters 51 and 74 of Book of Lies). This is the basic difference between the highest yoga and the lower vehicles. Crowley's philosophy proves that he was expressing this highest yoga and not the lesser forms found among his peers. HY has been described as "akin to waving a red flag in front of bulls" and what kind of effect did Crowley tend to have on people?
The "ultimate experience" or "non-experience" of THAT is as natural as everyday existence if realization has occured: the realization that experience itself, any thought, brings forth ever-fresh awareness, which is detached from the experience itself. It does not matter what the experience or thought is, we rest in the presence without becoming attached or conditioned by the experience. Everything appears in duality as a non-dual Wisdom Display. There is no rejection in this (thereby cometh hurt!). Every experience is regarded as an equal experience of "playmind" ... or "a direct dealing of God with the soul." IT is the Primordial State. IT is not a thing-in-itself because... what is IT? IT is not definable by any of our terms, so how could IT be a thing-in-itself? How could a thing-in-itself be shared so freely with nonexistent beings who appear through relative experience? This is to not exist at all as a "thing-in-itself". So it is beyond the concept of thing-in-itself. It is the ever-fresh awareness which is always changing and yet always remains present, perpetually different, formelessness expressed in form. IT is only a "thing" in the sense that IT is the constant Source, but IT is not a "thing" in the sense of an essence because even if we were to say at the very least in the simplest sense IT is "the essence of existence" then we also must include that "IT is also the essence of nonexistence" and such paradoxical qualities pretty much render any sort of attempt to label IT useless. We can say "IT is the mystery of life," but then we are right where we started.
The "naught-y knot!" "?"... "!" And, to answer Froclown finally, this is the Abyss I refer to. The Abyss between experience and Truth (nothing is true, everything is permitted, yes, yes). The gateway to the Abyss is Knowledge, all relative, all Lies. You can get lost here until you finally wake up to the realization of ? and ! "Doubt is a good servant, but a bad master." What is this experience? It is this experience! Da'ath is the throat region of the Tree of Life, where all nice labels come out as words to half-assedly describe the total experience to our liking. Going beyond this idea of making "things" out of experience is "crossing the Abyss." Chapter 61, The Fool's Knot, refers to Pé (mouth) in the dissolution of the House of God, where Crowley seems to be saying (to me at least), "I Pay (Pe) Nothing to see things how I choose (Pé: mouth, word, label). I destroy what is not to Create what I will (Pé: eat, digest, assimilate)." ("That is not which is" - Ch. 5) The Devil trump typically embodies samsaric delusion. The Devil is saying, "what you see is all there is." Here, Crowley is saying "after Ayin that triumphs over Aleph in Ain, that is O." The full circle of realization that the Devil (ie. What You See) is not all there is, but knowing this, you realize you can "see" what you choose and create as you will with your blind, weeping "eye". In the commentary, he explains to "act so as to balance your past Karma, and create no new, so that, as it were, the books are balanced. While you have either a credit or a debit, you are still in account with the universe." This is precisely the method of Highest Yoga which self-liberates all experience while remaining in the pure presence of the Flash of Knowing which is THAT (Pé: lightning from the mouth of "God" shatters the Tower with illumination). Otherwise, you are prone to samsaric delusion of clinging and aversion and these are the causes of Karma. The difference is whether or not you know what you're doing. Explaining this, Crowley did not go on to master his desires at the drop of a hat, as can be seen in Chapter 74, Carey Street. In the commentary, he explains the "impossibility of stopping on the path of Adeptship." In Highest Yoga it is often said, "better not to start, but once started it's better to finish." Becoming aware of the Flash of Knowing, the pure and instant presence, one can't help but notice when one has "fallen off the wagon" and what must be done to get back on is not always what the relative mind would prefer.
-
@Redd Fezz said
"I'm glad you brought up Samadhi because it would be good to think about how it relates to this discussion so far. Transcendental experiences or experiences of formless realms are not the ultimate experience of IT because, though these are nondual experiences, there is still duality experience (just perhaps not for you in the moment). A formless realm is just the opposite of the form realm. In fact, having these sorts of experiences proves only one thing: that you are still having experiences and therefore missing THAT which lies subtly beyond experience (Chapters 51 and 74 of Book of Lies)."
This isnt necessarily true at all. One can 'come to' later and look back at what just 'happened' and attempt to explain it. The birth of mysticism.
"The "ultimate experience" or "non-experience" of THAT is as natural as everyday existence if realization has occured: the realization that experience itself, any thought, brings forth ever-fresh awareness, which is detached from the experience itself. It does not matter what the experience or thought is, we rest in the presence without becoming attached or conditioned by the experience. Everything appears in duality as a non-dual Wisdom Display. There is no rejection in this (thereby cometh hurt!). Every experience is regarded as an equal experience of "playmind" ... or "a direct dealing of God with the soul." IT is the Primordial State. IT is not a thing-in-itself because... what is IT? IT is not definable by any of our terms, so how could IT be a thing-in-itself?"
I agree with you but you obviously have no idea waht the term 'thing-in-itself' refers to if you think it can be defined. It is by definition something that is beyond our mind's perceptions and descriptions. Read some Kant. Or try - that guy is quite dry.
"How could a thing-in-itself be shared so freely with nonexistent beings who appear through relative experience? This is to not exist at all as a "thing-in-itself". So it is beyond the concept of thing-in-itself."
Thing-in-itself is by definition beyond the mind's concepts. Even of space time and causality itself, hence why Schopenhauer said there was only one thing-in-itself which he called dually Will/Idea (or Representation), hence his book: The World as Will & Representation/Idea. I explained this already but you seem to have skimmed over it. Really I see where you are going, that any kind of word has its contradictions and such and I agree. What about "That which is not IT"... that would also necessarily be contained in IT and so paradoxes arise - the joys of mysticism.
I enjoy your posts a lot - thanks.
65 & 210,
IAO131 -
@aum418 said
"
@Redd Fezz said
"I'm glad you brought up Samadhi because it would be good to think about how it relates to this discussion so far. Transcendental experiences or experiences of formless realms are not the ultimate experience of IT because, though these are nondual experiences, there is still duality experience (just perhaps not for you in the moment). A formless realm is just the opposite of the form realm. In fact, having these sorts of experiences proves only one thing: that you are still having experiences and therefore missing THAT which lies subtly beyond experience (Chapters 51 and 74 of Book of Lies)."This isnt necessarily true at all. One can 'come to' later and look back at what just 'happened' and attempt to explain it. The birth of mysticism.
"The "ultimate experience" or "non-experience" of THAT is as natural as everyday existence if realization has occured: the realization that experience itself, any thought, brings forth ever-fresh awareness, which is detached from the experience itself. It does not matter what the experience or thought is, we rest in the presence without becoming attached or conditioned by the experience. Everything appears in duality as a non-dual Wisdom Display. There is no rejection in this (thereby cometh hurt!). Every experience is regarded as an equal experience of "playmind" ... or "a direct dealing of God with the soul." IT is the Primordial State. IT is not a thing-in-itself because... what is IT? IT is not definable by any of our terms, so how could IT be a thing-in-itself?"
I agree with you but you obviously have no idea waht the term 'thing-in-itself' refers to if you think it can be defined. It is by definition something that is beyond our mind's perceptions and descriptions. Read some Kant. Or try - that guy is quite dry.
"How could a thing-in-itself be shared so freely with nonexistent beings who appear through relative experience? This is to not exist at all as a "thing-in-itself". So it is beyond the concept of thing-in-itself."
Thing-in-itself is by definition beyond the mind's concepts. Even of space time and causality itself, hence why Schopenhauer said there was only one thing-in-itself which he called dually Will/Idea (or Representation), hence his book: The World as Will & Representation/Idea. I explained this already but you seem to have skimmed over it. Really I see where you are going, that any kind of word has its contradictions and such and I agree. What about "That which is not IT"... that would also necessarily be contained in IT and so paradoxes arise - the joys of mysticism.
I enjoy your posts a lot - thanks.
65 & 210,
IAO131"Samadhi in the sense I believe you mean is part of the lower tantra vehicles. Once you exit samadhi, the experience of nonduality is finished. Contemplation of pure and instant presence is "non-meditation" and ultimately a 24-hour 7-day-a-week experience of integration and nonduality expressed in duality.
I was referring to Kant, by the way. I've mentioned his Antinomies a few times on this thread already. On some level, I definitely would agree with the "thing-in-itself" as Kant himself indicated, but speaking in relative terms and materialist terms, the concept of a "thing-in-itself" is impenetrable, which is what Kant said, which is all I was trying to say in relation to the idea that things are ultimately "physical" things. We can't prove anything physical actually exists. A thing-in-itself can't be known, but experience of the Primordial State can be rediscovered, and in this discovery, the importance of experience is realized as internal, external and shared energy. Kant was a thinker, not a master of Highest Yoga Tantra. As far as Space is concerned, everything is space. There is no difference. But, even space we can not prove in any way but to say it is experienced. So, then, Space could be considered a "thing-in-itself," too, which is why Schopenhauer equated space and time with thing-in-itselfness. Right? But, if the thing is split into things, can it rightly be called a "thing," especially when those things are contradictory down to the most basic level of "thingness" and "non-thingness"? That's the point I'm trying to make. You might as well call it IT or SUCHNESS or WHATEVER and be done with it. Because if you do limit IT to a thing-in-itself, then that is solipsism and monotheism, both of which are not found experientially. This is the major blunder in the Evans-Wentz translation of the Tibetan Book of The Dead, for example, which talks of "sinking into the One Mind" and is completely at odds with the notion of dependent origination. The Vision of HYT is "there is no God, but everything is God," which is also the view Crowley expressed.
The Primordial State is beyond the mind's concepts, too, which is why masters often and traditionally would deny ever having received transmission and why it has been until recently so highly secretive. Having experienced the Primordial State, many masters will go back to teaching gradual methods of realization for the simple reason that they know it is a difficult path, since on one level it can be described as "nothing to do," which can give rise to all sorts of misunderstanding. Through gradual practices of devotional purification and through accumulative experiences of samadhi, one can get to know the Nature of Mind better. This is precisely how Crowley taught. But, the Guru-chela relationship is most important here because it is for the Guru, not the chela, to decide what stage the student is at and when to introduce the next stage until finally obscurations are completely removed and one arrives at the highest teaching, which is the Flash of Knowing pure and instant presence. This is how the A.'.A.'. was set up.
-
I hasten to add that I speak only from my own experience. I am not a master of either HYT or the system of the A.'.A.'. and any apparent error or logical inconsistency I've expressed is entirely the fault of my own inability to conceive, express or shut the hell up and should not reflect poorly on the teachings themselves. I took no particular oaths in this respect but I know from my experience with more advanced students that it is entirely bad form to speak authoritatively on these subjects and the teachings themselves are considered very precious and therefore kept secret. A widely-circulated improper View (or improperly expressed) is very harmful indeed. So, I am probably not doing much good at the moment, though my intentions are entirely pure with the desire to liberate.
-
So can you prove that your "energies" exist.
Can you show how experience creates that which is experienced, rather than as I say The thing which is experienced is the cause of the experience.
Yes all knowledge is relation, but knowledge is not the subject of what it knows. The thing known is the subject of knowledge. That is all knowledge is about, or refers to some thing other than the knowledge itself.
Even knowledge about the nature of knowledge, fits this category, only it form Russel's paradox.
Knowledge1 is about knowedge2.
Thus the elements of knowledge are symbols, as such they must indicate something. A reference must have a referent.
All knowledge and all elements of knowledge are signs, not the things the refer to. All these signs come from a common origin, that is they are all mind stuff. This mind stuff, from which all knowledge (signs) originates is that "IT" you refer to.
But, what about the whole world of which your mind is but one element. The world which the signs of knowledge attempt to refer to in the inner world of the mind.
You speak rightly of the inner world, the microcosm, but you do not seem to grok fully, but waiting will fill. Then perhaps you can grok the outer world, the macrocosm.
When it comes to the macrocosm I am only an egg. Perhaps there are some who can grok its fullness, but for me waiting is.
-
I find that prepositions in the mind cancel out like this, but in reality there is no negation of an apple that annihilates it to zero.
This practice of negation works on the mind, to discover the "ontology" of thoughts and perceptions.
But I would consider this Epistemology rather that ontology, as doubt even delusional doubt can not change the facts.
-
Mehhhh, to get this where it needs to be, I would have to quote a fairly lengthy text (too long to quote, but only 8 or 9 pages, really) called in an English translation, "Primordial Experience," which currently goes used on Amazon for about $1. And then we'd probably have to argue about it for a long time, too. Just buy it if you're interested in what I'm saying. (With commentary and everything, it's well over 100 pages, so it's worth $1).
Basically, Atiyoga disproves everything... rips away any hope of a ground to stand on and liberates you by showing you that you don't need anything to stand on... including concepts of "the absolute"... by a chain of everyday logic which can be understood conceptually, somehow, despite the fact that it is really beyond conceptual. It has the ability to wake one up, simply by reading it. Another book like this is "Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness." Actually, Naked Awareness is even moreso a "waking up" text.
I will give a few quotes from "Primordial Experience":
Grasping experience through thought, which is the sphere of operation of our "mind," is itself the ultimate content of what is.
Since one is free from seizing on perceptible qualities, there does not exist anything that is better or worse. This is the supreme path to be cultivated.
Since neither do conditioned events arise on their own nor do all configurations of events and meanings come about dependently, all these are taken beyond the realm of frustration and suffering.
When one has thoroughly grasped that there are no "entities," everything then arises as the total field of events and meanings— understanding this is the supreme state of those who have overcome emotional conflicts.
Space is unobjectifiable and is a mere name. That which is positive for an individual and that which is negative, being indivisible, do not arise.
[For the Victorious Ones] The mind is not engaged in seeking nor is it directed towards anything. One is free from knowing and not knowing.
The path of all great seers that is subtle and difficult to understand, is beyond thought and non-thought. It is divorced from verbal conventions in its being difficult to point out and inquire into—
Thus, it is not arrived at by words and is not in the realm of experiences of ordinary people and those apart from the supreme, comprehensive approach to the teachings.
From a logical basis in direct perception, etc., one thinks about entities within the limited conception of affirmation and denial;
But the very thought that follows in the wake of the continual grasping of experience by thought, having affirmed something as a valid means of knowledge, is itself then contradicted by the mind.Since the grasping of experience by thought does not itself exist as something within our limiting conceptions, there is no limiting conception to be thought about. If there is nothing to this grasping by thought, what valid means of knowledge can there be?
Therefore, the conventional ways of inquiring into things by worldly people are not necessary on this yogic path.
Here, one should inquire into this path starting from the characteristics that are the logical basis of our limited conception: "an entity."
This reality, known as that which is present internally and externally in the experience of all living beings is not as it is seen and intended by the six forms of apprehension, but is deceptive.If that which is apprehended while intoxicated by one's own grasping of experience by thought was valid, it would then be reasonable to say that these sentient beings would be free, just like those who have overcome emotional conflicts, who think, "There are no entities."
From the fact that these sentient beings are tormented by frustration and crushed by the enemy, time, it is evident that they are deceived. Otherwise, if that which is known through the sense fields were a valid means of knowledge, then, this being so, who would have a need for the noble path?
The path of ordinary perception is taught as the path of freedom, although one is not freed through sense perception. Since perceptually based awareness, which does not remove any frustration, is the birthplace which muddles the stream of awareness, therefore, it has been stated by the Victorious Ones that it is evident that what is perceived by sentient beings is deceptive.
Then how do these appearances make themselves felt due to deception? One's potentiality for experience, which always and everywhere tries to grasp experience through thought, is automatically enfeebled by this grasping. Since one's mental clarity, becoming deluded, has come under the power of lack of awareness acting as a conditioning factor, the general forms and specific details of experiencing appear as if existing-in-themselves, according to the three phrases of experience discussed below...
...and buy the book to read the rest.
My hands are tired... Hopefully, there was a hint of enough there to get the gist of where I'm coming from."So can you prove that your "energies" exist. "
And to answer this question: NO I CAN'T, which is why you can't prove everything is physical. Oh, what a naught-y knot we weave when first we practice to perceive.
?...!
-
why then does thing or that thing come to be what it is and as it is, rather than some other way?
If say a rock is an illusion that is really this non-physical spiritual essence or source. Them by what process, under what conditions, of for what reason, does this Rock manifest itself in the way that it does.
And if this this or that is not the case. That is all prepositions are of equal value. A is a Rock is just as true as A in not a rock.
If there is no actual state of affairs behind behind these self negating propositions, then why should it seem to me that Their is is or is not a rock, not both is and is not a rock.
Am I or some property of me that which makes a thing manifest, that is that breaks the symmetry of the negation. creating a rock that is manifest and the annihilation or opposite of a rock which is not present to connect with the rock and annihilate it from manifestation.
And if this immaterial source is a thing, that is subject to conditions, and manifests itself in this way rather than that for some reason., then that source counts as a physical thing.
any "thing" with properties that defines it by way of making it distinct from some other "thing" is a physical thing.