Goetic "Demons"
-
@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.
-
This is all explained in-depth (which is the only way I believe would satisfy you, which is perfectly understandable) in the text. Basically, there are two ways, in this limited comparison, of looking at things. The relative logic way you are approaching reality is perfectly valid in itself, but it is totally insufficient for discovering reality. The grasping of thought to sensory input is the very cause of the muddiness of awareness. By its very nature, it is the source of confusion. In this way, entities and things seem to appear along with unending suffering. This will go on indefinitely so long as one is trapped within this illusion which is the grasping of thought. There are pointing out instructions for noticing the Primordial State and methods for cultivating and remaining present in the Primordial State. Since the transmission of this knowledge is beyond language and can be communicated in the flash of a guru's smile or, in the case of the historical Buddha, the simple raising of a single flower, this is why transmission is said to be mind-to-mind and, since the physical realm of things and entities is seen to be an illusion, this is why it is referred to as ultimately "spiritual." Something happens which is not found in relative logic or physical realms, something is transferred which is not measurable or communicable except for silent mind-to-mind communication. In the gradual methods of the 8 lower vehicles, the grasping mind is slowly deconditioned, but in the highest teachings it is said that unless this Primordial State is rediscovered, all the meditation in the world will not lead to liberation since liberation of all the awakened ones is nothing other than this Primordial Experience. Crowley rejected Theravada Buddhism, the 1st and lowest vehicle called by the higher vehicles, "Hinayana."
-
This STATE of liberation then is just another mode the brain can learn to operate in. A mode that does not use categories, and is dissociated (detached) from sensory input.
However this Illuminated state is as much a mode, state, or relative arrangement of the brain matter as is any other state.
A computer can operate is many different modes, but ultimately no matter how the computer displays its data, it is still a physical device.
-
When the curies discovered radiation, they theorized that is had a strange non-physical effect on physical objects.
Physicists proposed an immaterial ether as the medium through which light propagated.
Biologists proposed vital essences or forces which endowed inorganic matter with life.
Newton proposed that Gravity was action at a distance without a material cause, a strange property kept in place by GOD.
Magnetism was once believed to be a non-physical energy or unnatural attraction between substances, a work of spirits and magick.
Before Newton the theory was that tiny angels or demons rode on projectiles and kept them aloft with supernatural powers.
Each of these supernatural explanations has been proven incorrect. Do you propose that in just this one case, you have discovered a supernatural explanation, which has no real explanation? That we have come to the limits of science, just as all others who came before you had said. They all say, we have discovered something outside of science, something humans can not understand. And each of them has been proven wrong, with time.
I see a motive behind such thought, it is not a mere expression of facts, it is not a clear headed observation of what is the case. It is a fear, an anxiety, a deep rooted notion that Man in not meant to know these things, that TRUTH is toxic to the soul.
It is something I would call a Lovecraft complex. The belief that mystery is vital to a mans psychological and spiritual well being, and thus a fear that in some dark lab or in some ancient tome, the Light of reason and rationality might be glowing, sleeping but not extinguished. Waiting to illuminate the darkness and clear up all mystery, make all things mechanical, predictable, clear away romantic nations of free Will, individual uniqueness, mystery, child hood spirit of adventure, and make life into a dry, predictable, mechanical affair.
This is the danger of progress, the danger of truth, but it is also the burden of maturity. We must leave behind Childish romances, leave our enchanted forests and but on the lab coat, the business suit, and enter a new phase. That of the practical, rational ADULT.
The NEW AEON, is the manhood of humanity. Giving up external authority, also means taking responsibility and one mark of a responsible man is that he clears his head of childhood fantasy, and faces the world as the cold, logical, indifferent reality that it is.
-
You miss the obvious point: if every experience is only real insofar as we are "aware" of it, then everything is a product of mind.
Slightly reworded for emphasis "from the ground up" using your point of view:
Everything we observe is a construct of mind gained through the sense organs and put together and interpreted in the brain. This means everything physical, including our brains and sense organs, is a creation of consciousness. -
when I close my eyes, the world is still there.
When I refuse to believe is something, it doesn't vanish.
The world was here long before I was, will be here long after.
If everything was in my mind, there is nothing to learn, I would never experience anything new.
Mind does not create reality, Reality creates the mind.
-
@Froclown said
"when I close my eyes, the world is still there.
When I refuse to believe is something, it doesn't vanish.
The world was here long before I was, will be here long after.
If everything was in my mind, there is nothing to learn, I would never experience anything new.
Mind does not create reality, Reality creates the mind."
This is quite the simplistic take on what I have said. You are refuting solipsism, which is not what I am proposing.
-
consciousness is the processing of information by single particular a brain. Thus if you propose that physical matter is the result of consciousness, then you propose solipsism.
If you propose that all reality is actually in the mind of GOD then you propose Berkleyism which is also absurd.
but if we take Berkley's view, then What I am a ware of is God's ideas, and if they are not my own ideas then they are other than me, As such they are something external to me with a particular nature of their own, and thus count as physical objects.
-
By clinging to the grasping of thought after the sense experiences, arises the appearance of things and entities. By not conditioning our experience by thought, we experience raw presence of Primordial Awareness in which experience can be described as neither internal nor external and the appearance of things and entities do not arise. Not having experienced this state, one clings to relative logic, as you are now, believing it is correct.
But, if it was correct, there would be no further quesetions. Occam's Razor says "it must be so" and so doubt is undermined by faith. However, experiencing the Primordial State, we become aware of a wholly different kind of awareness, perception and a different sort of "Occam's Razor" which is not seen prior to experience of the State and the View. IT does not disappear like a hallucination or become fuzzy and muddled like relative logic. IT is definitely experienced and completes ordinary perception and relative logic by a unique shift of perspective which now encompasses the whole spectrum of perspective.
There is awareness conditioned by space and time and awareness which is not conditioned by space and time. All awareness is the Wisdom Display, but there are different ways of experiencing IT. This is why there is ordinary view and something else called the View. This is why the Primordial State is called a STATE or "awareness" or "experience" rather than a "thing" or "essence."
So, you can go on and on reasserting these relative logic "proofs," but it doesn't prove anything to someone who has seen beyond the limits of your reasoning. Just a brief example, you propose: "When I close my eyes, the world doesn't go away." If what you experience as physical sensation is the karmic view of shared consciousness, is there any way to prove otherwise while in the perpetually-reinforced trap of the experience? Your experience of the karmic view would always "materialize" as a continuous experience and would be reaffirmed by others who share your karmic view. This is neither solipsism nor the mind of GOD. In fact, there is no place for either view in this scenerio because it is beyond the categorizations of "one" and "many." Ask yourself why this solid, sure world of yours falls apart. If things are solid, why is everything in flux? Why do we die? Why are there different points of view? If this is all there is, why don't we understand it? Why do we torture ourselves with philosophy (shouldn't we be securely satisfied with the obvious truth abounding all around us)? Why do physicists suspect there can be no end to materialist inquiry? Etc. There are so many limitations to the view you cling to as "solid" evidence of fact which are answered in the Primordial Experience.
-
your questions are simple.
We die because me are mere collections of material entities, we are made up of parts, because of entropy those parts fall apart, and thus we die.
we have perspective because we are not all the same entity, we do not share a mind, we are each a separate entity made of different sub-parts, though we inhabit the same space, we are not the same entity is that space nor do we share the same experiences of the other objects in that space, from the same spacial orientation.
Physicists do not know there can be no end to inquiry, but they propose it for reasons of job security, and because their are many perspectives on a world that is so huge that our limited perspective has allot to look at.
You keep insisting that I never had the experience you speak of, I have. The difference is you think the word conforms to the way it seemed to your primal that is not fully processes sensory state, and I am talking about the world as it is, was, will be, even if no human being ever existed.
YOU are insignificant, the world goes not by your approval, the world does not care how it seems to you, it is what it is, and nothing you do can change that.
All ritual and meditations and such can do is alter the way the brain processes information, make the world seem in different ways, and there by give us a glimpse at how the machinery of the brain works.
-
You haven't had the experience I speak of and it's quite obvious by your simplistic answers to my "simple" questions.
Your karmic view "materializes" as a continuous experience and is reaffirmed by others who share your karmic view. Your tendency for describing things as collections of other things which fall apart due to another description called entropy does not explain anything. You are still under the delusion that a temporarily satisfying label/description explains "why." Also, your explanation of the existence of different perspectives by way of describing the situation as one being experienced by multiple entities is just stating the obvious relative view and does not help your case of promoting "real things". Clinging to these sorts of limited views as the summom bonum does nothing but limit your experience.
For the sake of tidying this all up in a neat little nutshell per the original topic...
1. You don't like fairytale terms like "goetic demons," but you're okay with "archetypes," is that right?
- Archetypes are nothing more than chemical reactions in physical brains, in your opinion. Is that right?
2. So, when archetypes or what-seem-to-be-demons interact with the conscious mind in a way which the conscious mind can't comprehend, it is similar to the loss of control one experiences while in a non-lucid dream state. Is that right?
- Presumably, you feel this experience is part of some un/subconscious aspect of the physical brain being felt by the conscious mind.
3. So then, anything experienced in the presence of the "supernormal" entity which science can not explain at the moment is an hallucination and any information gleaned from the "entity" is simply the product of chemicals in the brain coming to deeper, more obscure conclusions about reality than usual, which heretofore had not been "seen" by the conscious mind. But these surprising conclusions the brain has arrived at and presented through the imaginary medium of the archetypal entity are, nevertheless, based on previously stored data and originating from physical brain matter in the general way as usual, though with different results than more generally experienced.
Is this your perspective in a nutshell?
What's your opinion regarding other common aspects of the occult, such as "casting spells," astral travel, astrology, remote viewing, telepathy, etc.? Oh wait, in a nutshell, your concept of all these ideas are expressed in your first 2 responses on page 1 of this thread.
Your experience thus far is not very extensive and your conclusions not very scientific.