LOVE & Existence
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Aum418 said
"I have to disagree with Eshelman regarding duality above the abyss. There isn't duality.... the whole point is that there isn't duality, there isn't even an I separate from Other, let alone a discerning faculty to consider two things. There aren't "Things"... as that presupposes multiplicity, let alone 'characteristics' of 'things.' There is only One Thing and it can only 'know' or 'love' itself when its already in duality. It is against both Qabalistic dogma and my own experience to suggest there is duality above the Abyss."That all initially sounds good to reason, but it just doesn't happen to be right. It doesn't match actuality and it doesn't even match the definition of things."
I can't believe what I'm reading. Not only are you saying someone elses spiritual experience isn't right, you are literally going against Qabalistic dogma. It is somewhat offensive that you say 'it doesnt match actuality' - obviously it doesnt match your own experiences or lack thereof.
" No, "the whole point" is not that there isn't duality. With regard to duality, "the whole point" is that duality unites rather than separates. The two faces of a coin still exist, they're simply instantly recognized as being a whole coin."
No offense but this merely shows your own level of attainment and understanding, nothing about being 'right.'
"I'd agree that there isn't separation.
There is, of course, multiplicity and diversification. However, again, these are not seen as separating things but, rather, as uniting them. Binah consciousness alone (ignoring, for the moment, Chokmah and Kether) is global rather than isolative, but this doesn't deny the infinite number of distinctive points within space. "
This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You are speaking on the plane of multiplicity and, honestly, you are confusing the planes severely. It is also extremely audacious of you, again, to say what I said is simply 'wrong.' Just because you have not had an experience where there is no duality whatosever, including notions of uniting and dividing, etc. does not mean its 'wrong.' You obviously have your opinions set in stone already, so its a bit useless to argue.
"On a lower plane, human cultural acceptance doesn't deny human cultural diversity. On a higher plane, the universality of Nuit doesn't deny (but, in fact, affirms) the illimitable individual points of view defining Hadit."
Those are all words - Nuit is continuous, infinite, and yes you can speak of infinite 'different' view points but they are all One in the end of things. It is your mind that 'separates' them or views 'differences' which 'unite' things. Like I said, "Things" themselves dont exist in the trance of unity.
"But forget what I have to say about it. Let's go to the primary A.'.A.'. document on a grade that is entirely above the Abyss (and not just hovering near the door). "
You are forgetting Liber Cheth which is obviously related to crossing the Abyss.
"
No duality in this?"Its a certain perspective of working both with unity and the falsity of duality. I am fully aware of the Liber, its kind of pointless and a bit absurd to quote the whole thing. All this shows your own level of attainment and understanding. Of COURSE theres duality in that - its made up of words. Words are inherently dualistic no matter what, and one can experience this in Unity where there is no duality.
IAO131
-
@Aum418 said
"I can't believe what I'm reading. Not only are you saying someone elses spiritual experience isn't right, you are literally going against Qabalistic dogma."
As to the first - I'm not commenting on your spiritual experience, I'm commenting on the factual basis of states of consciousness. And, while I don't think I'm "going against Qabalistic dogma," I'm quite willing to do that if the dogma is wrong.
"It is also extremely audacious of you, again, to say what I said is simply 'wrong.' Just because you have not had an experience where there is no duality whatosever, including notions of uniting and dividing, etc. does not mean its 'wrong.'"
I didn't say that - you're putting words in my mouth. I said that this isn't a characteristic of the entire range of consciousness characterized as "above the Abyss."
"Like I said, "Things" themselves dont exist in the trance of unity."
Agreed. But you're confusing "the trance of unity" with the entire range of consciousness called "above the Abyss."
"
"But forget what I have to say about it. Let's go to the primary A.'.A.'. document on a grade that is entirely above the Abyss (and not just hovering near the door). "You are forgetting Liber Cheth which is obviously related to crossing the Abyss."
That's representing one particular phase of transition. It doesn't characterize the entire range of consciousness called "above the Abyss."
"
"No duality in this?"Its a certain perspective of working both with unity and the falsity of duality. I am fully aware of the Liber, its kind of pointless and a bit absurd to quote the whole thing."
I wasn't talking just to you. I was talking to everyone else who reads this. It seemed necessary to document the point. (I was going to only quote a few lines, but every few lines again made the same point so there wasn't an obvious cut-off point.)
"All this shows your own level of attainment and understanding. Of COURSE theres duality in that - its made up of words. Words are inherently dualistic no matter what, and one can experience this in Unity where there is no duality."
And you, of course, aren't using words?
I keep trying to give you a chance, and you just keep showing me that I might be making a mistake in even trying.
Yes, there are phases along the way characterized by what you describe. But you said that this was the way things are above the Abyss, inferring that it's the whole of the experience above the Abyss. It's likely silly discussing anything concerning the Abyss with you in the first place, but I didn't think it right to have you foist your errors on sincere students.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Aum418 said
"I can't believe what I'm reading. Not only are you saying someone elses spiritual experience isn't right, you are literally going against Qabalistic dogma."As to the first - I'm not commenting on your spiritual experience, I'm commenting on the factual basis of states of consciousness. And, while I don't think I'm "going against Qabalistic dogma," I'm quite willing to do that if the dogma is wrong."
You are commenting on the 'factual basis of states of consciousness.' What factual basis? Do you hold a degree in psychology or neuroscience? Are you referring to anything other than your own notions about 'consciousness' and duality? You certainly are going against the Qabalistic system if you think there is duality above the Abyss. If you are willing to go against it, why even use the system?
"I didn't say that - you're putting words in my mouth. I said that this isn't a characteristic of the entire range of consciousness characterized as "above the Abyss.""
Were you just referring to Chokmah or something? Why does it matter if you are not following the normal ideas about the Supernal triangle?
"
"Like I said, "Things" themselves dont exist in the trance of unity."Agreed. But you're confusing "the trance of unity" with the entire range of consciousness called "above the Abyss." "
I doubt that, especially since you yourself admit that you are going against the Qabalistic ideas about the Abyss. You are simply superimposing your own notions on the Qabalistic tree of life and pretending like they are 'factual bases of consciousness.'
"
"
"But forget what I have to say about it. Let's go to the primary A.'.A.'. document on a grade that is entirely above the Abyss (and not just hovering near the door). "You are forgetting Liber Cheth which is obviously related to crossing the Abyss."
That's representing one particular phase of transition. It doesn't characterize the entire range of consciousness called "above the Abyss.""
According to... you?
"
"
"No duality in this?"Its a certain perspective of working both with unity and the falsity of duality. I am fully aware of the Liber, its kind of pointless and a bit absurd to quote the whole thing."
I wasn't talking just to you. I was talking to everyone else who reads this. It seemed necessary to document the point. (I was going to only quote a few lines, but every few lines again made the same point so there wasn't an obvious cut-off point.)"
You could've just said 'look at Liber B vel Magi' but its your own forum.
"
"All this shows your own level of attainment and understanding. Of COURSE theres duality in that - its made up of words. Words are inherently dualistic no matter what, and one can experience this in Unity where there is no duality."And you, of course, aren't using words?
"I am, of course, but that has nothing to do with it. You were saying that the text of Liber B vel Magi used duality which it obviously does since it uses words which contain the inherent falsity in them.
"I keep trying to give you a chance, and you just keep showing me that I might be making a mistake in even trying."
A chance... for what? Expressing myself? You seem offended when someone contradicts your held beliefs like in the reincarnation forum where I called bullshit on your saying you dont have or need any proof.
"Yes, there are phases along the way characterized by what you describe. But you said that this was the way things are above the Abyss, inferring that it's the whole of the experience above the Abyss. It's likely silly discussing anything concerning the Abyss with you in the first place, but I didn't think it right to have you foist your errors on sincere students."
I personally think you are the foisting errors on others, obviously. Your demeaning tone is also quite telling. Gday jimmy.
IAO131
-
@Aum418 said
"You certainly are going against the Qabalistic system if you think there is duality above the Abyss. If you are willing to go against it, why even use the system?"
One wonders what you mean by "the Qabalistic system" - which source? Which variant? Neither the classical Qabalistic system (Hebraic up through G.D.) nor Crowley's system. Duality begins with the number 2 and characterizes everything below Kether (one might alternately say everything 'below' Zero), though the context within which duality is held, and one's understanding of it, changes.
But yes, let's add some other statements besides mine. These are gathered a bit hap-hazzardly.
In Crowley's commentary to Ch. 74 of The Book of Lies, he wrote:
"Step 1, the illumination of Ain as Ain Soph Aour; step 2, the concentration of Ain Soph Aour in Kether; step 3, duality and the rest of it down to Malkuth; step 4, the stooping of Malkuth to the Qliphoth, and the consequent ruin of the Tree of Life."
In the above, he characterizes duality as commencing immediately below Kether, i.e., with Chokmah.
In "One Star in Sight," in discussing the task of the Magus (an initiate opening to Kether from Chokmah), Crowley wrote:
"To attain the Grade of Ipsissimus he must accomplish three tasks, destroying the Three Guardians mentioned in Liber 418, the 3rd Aethyr; Madness, and Falsehood, and Glamour, that is, Duality in Act, Word and Thought."
That is, inherent in Chokmah consciousness (even mature Chokmah consciousness) are multiple kinds of duality. (The documentation of duality in both the nature and work of the Magus - in fact, its presence as a defining characteristic - was demonstrated above in the quoting of Liber Magi.) - Speaking of "One Star in Sight," one could as well note the various forms of duality inherent in the task of the Magister Templi.
From the Vision of the 5th Aethyr in The Vision & the Voice:
"And this is the great Mystery of the Supernals that are beyond the Abyss. For below the Abyss, contradiction is division; but above the Abyss, contradiction is Unity. And there could be nothing true except by virtue of the contradiction that is contained in itself."
Contradiction appears both above and below the Abyss, but it is understood differently.
"
"I wasn't talking just to you. I was talking to everyone else who reads this. It seemed necessary to document the point. (I was going to only quote a few lines, but every few lines again made the same point so there wasn't an obvious cut-off point.)"You could've just said 'look at Liber B vel Magi' but its your own forum."
Not all readers would have Liber B at hand. I suspect that a slight majority of them wouldn't know what it was, and more wouldn't have bothered to pick it up and check. The statements concerning duality are so frequent and clear throughout Liber B that it seemed quoting it was the simplest way to make the case.
"
"I keep trying to give you a chance, and you just keep showing me that I might be making a mistake in even trying."A chance... for what? Expressing myself?"
I meant that you are basically just a troll. You delight in disruption and derailing. I keep going back to treat you as if you are are something else, only to be reminded that you are basically just a troll and that I'm a sucker for responding to trolls.
But, while below the Abyss contradiction is division, above the Abyss contradiction is Unity. Therefore these engagements have value.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I meant that you are basically just a troll. You delight in disruption and derailing. I keep going back to treat you as if you are are something else, only to be reminded that you are basically just a troll and that I'm a sucker for responding to trolls."
It seems to me that you think people that dont agree with you are trolls. In fact, you gave me a forum warning for calling bullshit on your lack of evidence on the reincarnation thread. Remember that?
Contradiction implies two things, therefore separateness. One thing cannot contradict itself because theres nothing to contradict or be contradicted. We obviously differ on this point and I personally find your accusing me of being a troll ridiciulous and dare I say immature.
Gday.
IAO131
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I meant that you are basically just a troll."
I don't know about AUM being a troll per se - but he can definitely display a healthy hostility...
"But the keen and the proud, the royal and the lofty; ye are brothers! As brothers fight ye!" - Liber L. III:58-9
616
-
@DavidH said
"A thought came to me today while reading a book. Just wanted to get ideas from others about this:
I am still not clear about the supposed ultimate effect of crossing the abyss is. Do you retain consciousness or like some say, do you dissolve into the ONE? The reason I ask is because of this idea that popped in my head today. If there is a total union and only ONE exists, then can there still be LOVE? Does not Love imply a union of two separate entities? And if only ONE exists then does Love then cease to exist? In fact, if there is truly only ONE then perception ceases also since you need to be separate to perceive. In other words, a total union of all into ONE would be a complete NOTHING, that is a stop in consciousness, perception, love, etc. etc. You would cease to exist, no?
Any ideas?
LLLL,
David"Just noticed this thread, it's a fascinating subject. Some random thoughts taking triangulation from other "systems":
-
a lot depends on who you think "you" are. I think one of the neatest things I've seen anyone say about this business of the "crossing of the Abyss" is something from an Advaitin relative to the Advaita equivalent (I think it may have been Adyashanti, so that would be a bit Zennish too) who said that it's really a fundamental change in orientation. See, samadhi consciousness is in a way really essentially no different from above-the-Abyss consciousness, only the thing is that in samadhi (or rather on coming out of samadhi) one feels oneself to be a human being having a "God experience". Above the Abyss, I believe the orientation is reversed - one becomes fully and permanently God having a "David experience". Another way of putting it is that it's no longer a question of "experiences" at all - there is no longer any need to have "enlightenment experiences", because the Universe doesn't need "enlightenment experiences". It's already always the Universe.
-
the question about Love is something that has also vexed me for a long time (more in connection with qualms about Mahayana Buddhism and things like the Bodhisattva Vow). I think a clue is to look at Love as the polarity between Chokmah and Binah, between the blind creation of the Universe and its conscious appreciation (God's left and right hands, as it were). Rather than think of Love as uniting things that are disparate, I think "above the Abyss" (not that I'm claiming to speak from that exalted level) the idea is that the creation of duality is itself Love (i.e. it's the subterfuge the One uses to cognize Itself, to use an inevitably weak expression).
-
-
@DavidH said
"Do you retain consciousness or like some say, do you dissolve into the ONE? The reason I ask is because of this idea that popped in my head today. If there is a total union and only ONE exists, then can there still be LOVE? Does not Love imply a union of two separate entities? And if only ONE exists then does Love then cease to exist? In fact, if there is truly only ONE then perception ceases also since you need to be separate to perceive. In other words, a total union of all into ONE would be a complete NOTHING, that is a stop in consciousness, perception, love, etc. etc. You would cease to exist, no?"
A lot of the answers to these questions are in Liber 418. But then... To paraphrase... "My prophet is a fool with his one, one, one. Is it not all, and none by the book?" Above the Abyss duality is abolished because contradiction becomes unity, rather than an expression of duality, and rather than leading to further questions, contradiction becomes the answers. Thus 2=0.