Mind of Angel into Samadhi
-
@Frater INRI said
"
It is written "a star" (one of many?), not The only One or The One star, The Inseparable etc...
"I feel you are interjecting words into the sentence that are not there.
That is, as I see it, the statement can be interpreted in both fashions:
That each man and woman is a single, individual star.
Or, at the same time, they are part of the singularity, the Black Whole within which we all exist.Perhaps, most important is that "man and woman" begin as separate, but by the end of the sentence they are united as one... "a star."
The difficulty arises in the experience of the monad, or singularity.
As there is no difference between the perceiveR and the perceiveD - which ONE are you? -
@Uni_Verse said
"
@Frater INRI said
"
It is written "a star" (one of many?), not The only One or The One star, The Inseparable etc...
"I feel you are interjecting words into the sentence that are not there.
That is, as I see it, the statement can be interpreted in both fashions:
That each man and woman is a single, individual star.
Or, at the same time, they are part of the singularity, the Black Whole within which we all exist.Perhaps, most important is that "man and woman" begin as separate, but by the end of the sentence they are united as one... "a star."
The difficulty arises in the experience of the monad, or singularity.
As there is no difference between the perceiveR and the perceiveD - which ONE are you?"I've often considered this and see that both can be correct - with one exception; when Crowley talks about it, he mentions that "each star, in its particular orbit" etc.
So yes - "Every man and every woman is a star" can mean that every man and every woman is THAT star - but that would be of a greater level of truth than every man and every woman being their own star (to achieve this greater level of truth, you'd have to get rid of "that" and "not that" in the first place).
-
@Uni_Verse said
"
I feel you are interjecting words into the sentence that are not there.That is, as I see it, the statement can be interpreted in both fashions:
That each man and woman is a single, individual star.
Or, at the same time, they are part of the singularity, the Black Whole within which we all exist.Perhaps, most important is that "man and woman" begin as separate, but by the end of the sentence they are united as one... "a star."
"
Yes, that's yet another interpretation.
@Uni_Verse said
"
The difficulty arises in the experience of the monad, or singularity.
As there is no difference between the perceiveR and the perceiveD - which ONE are you?"Difficulty only for the mind, not for Jivatma, Star.
Even in liberated state (Moksha etc...), individuality remains, at least that's what Vedas and certain Masters proclaim (Bhagawad Gita and Sri Yukteshvar pop to my mind here).
-
@Dar es Allrah said
"
Also - in direct transmission if the other is ready and willing - you may have the honour to hold the reins and show him or her to the door of all unity."Helping, assisting others you mean, Dar?
Soror Meral has written a wonderful letter to some Frater, elaborating upon this exact subject beautifully.
I recommend the book.
I don't like online pushing on forums, but this book is worth the trouble:
www.weiserantiquarian.com/cgi-bin/wab455/41745.html -
@Dar es Allrah said
"It seems we are talking about 'The Two Truths' now."
I share your opinion.
The Book of the Law is wonderfully many-fold.
-
If the Stars go on forever, then Nuit is also infinite forever. She is the circumference, therefore there has to be multiple realities where there are different Nuits (or differently named, for we do not separate one thing from another, thereby cometh hurt.) However, we also learn that every Star is a Hadit with an accompanying Nuit.
(This must mean there is a MASSIVE female energy flowing through Creation that has taken it upon herself to care for, and evolve Creation, caring for Hadit before he comes back to the perfect explosion of his "Original" (now more evolved) Star.)
I believe I have found my answer during the past few days. Crowley says to forgive for the sake of forgiving. This goes along with Love Under Will, and Love being the entirety of the Law of Creation.
This ties into balanced mercy for those things that you are close to, or in the "family" of, and balanced severity as well, for them, and for protecting them from things outside of the Family.
So you are responsible for your own growth and evolution for forgetting the All (I believe there are higher and higher sets of HGAs, not just different evolutions of Chayot Ha Kodesh evolving into HGAs (maybe right before they climb the path to the next sephira on the tree, evolution going from Kether as four-faced gods, evolving into HGAs right before the climb into the next sephira starting all over at Malkuth. I must continue to explain myself.
Say we are in a Hod sephira, projected into the element of Fire. We all start out on Malkuth, and climb the Tree to Kether, becoming the Holy Living Creatures, evolving into HGAs to gain supreme knowledge right before the climb into the next sephira on the "higher" tree. So, In a "higher" Hod, climbing from Malkuth to Kether, going through aforementioned evolution, then climbing the next "higher" branch or path to Netzach, beginning again at Malkuth,) but I see higher sets of HGAs:
Where they have all begun to evolve past the "nothingness with sparkles" of themselves inside of the Circumference, and flowed into a Giant storm of Samadhi where higher senses are realized and there is a perfect "give and take" of HGAs, now a giant "colorful" storm of Divinity, where there used to be nothingness with stars.
I see then, a higher set of the same HGAs, separated into stars, looking at the past, into the mind of Samadhi that they "used" to be apart of, however the strong soul that bade itself forget was already "there", in the future, ready to evolve into a higher form of Samadhi with other stars, looking at and into that storm and learning to survive at a higher frequency, which is obviously where the next level of "sanity" comes from for the HGA.
-
@ThelemicMage said
"If the Stars go on forever, then Nuit is also infinite forever. She is the circumference, therefore there has to be multiple realities where there are different Nuits (or differently named, for we do not separate one thing from another, thereby cometh hurt.) "
I have a problem with the "different Nuits" because my core definition of her is everything that is (in any form, in any context, in all dimensions, beyond dimensions, etc.). - I suspect the difference here is that you are seeing "circumference" as circumscribing, limting, defining, segregating. I think the essential idea of Nuit is that She is a nonlimiting circumference - encompassing all, not limiting and defining all.
"However, we also learn that every Star is a Hadit with an accompanying Nuit."
Infinite space has, within it, infinite individual infinitessimal points. Each of these is an actual or potential Hadit (centers of individual stars), but all are points within the same infinite space.
Face it, She's a slut! <vbg> (Besides, biologically the model of "one woman & an infinite stream of men" is a superior model to the one on which contemporary society is based.)
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Face it, She's a slut! <vbg> "
LOL
LOL
-
Agreed. White cells have no moral code that impels them to save others. Red blood cells don't stop and worry whether they should bother carrying oxygen all day. Etc.
We're all highly differentiated cells of a common body
-
@Frater IRNI said
"Difficulty only for the mind, not for Jivatma, Star.
Even in liberated state (Moksha etc...), individuality remains, at least that's what Vedas and certain Masters proclaim (Bhagawad Gita and Sri Yukteshvar pop to my mind here)."
Perhaps there is a flaw in my understanding, but I have felt that attainment of true "One-ness" that is, attaining the Crown, Kether is simultaneous, or retro-active with "Zero-ness."
All is One, Knows the None ; 1 comes with the realization of 0 ; when 0 is actually {1,0} : 1:0:1.
Kind of like the definition of a point, in Cartesian Co-Ordinates, with 0 extended into 2-dimensions, bringing about the X-Y axis.
I am uncertain as to whether I am only muddling the idea by going further.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Face it, She's a slut! <vbg> (Besides, biologically the model of "one woman & an infinite stream of men" is a superior model to the one on which contemporary society is based.)"
Honestly, I do not know if I did not get the joke or something, but...
Some thing about it set me off kilter a bit.
More specifically,the part in parenthesis:
From a symbolic standpoint, I find no problem with the idea.
Genetically speaking, would that not be a detriment?
Especially if the one woman is not of good 'stock.' -
But what if the man is of inferior stock, hmm? He could conceive 100 children a month. She's not going to have more than successful pregnancy every 9 months.
-
@Dar es Allrah said
"Perhaps it (the book) is, but my resources are currently being invested elsewhere + I can't afford it + I've stopped reading and collecting book learning these days anyway. "
I see.
Maybe others will find it interesting.@Dar es Allrah said
" A Bodhisattva may vow to 'save all beings', but I am not interested in saving all beings. I think - some stuff we just do because we are part of the greater stream of consciousness and to do something with another at the right time (Kairos) is to extend the balance as appropriate to the organism as a whole."
Balanced point o view, well said.
-
@Dar es Allrah said
"
But if you'd like to discuss what she said and what you got out of it, I would find that interesting."Nah, thank you;
she just points out various aspects and motives for helping others. Great line of thought. -
Jim,
reading over your first response to this rather spacey post, after plenty of meditation and reflection upon the Universe(s) as a whole, I am rather understanding where the idea was I was trying to grasp.
The first thing that triggered it was that I read over my original post, and the word "before" didn't seem to fit at all, after all this "experience" I've been having so often every night that I can do such things.
Anyways, I am feeling the zero-point-field "vacuum" I believe you are trying to refer to, in the illusion of "before." It seems I have been out of time in some of my practices and meditation. I believe I am trying to find an appropriate balance of anticipating movements within nature and actually being an active part of the movement of such forces.
Now that I have begun a conscious revival of the thought processes that elucidate the conscious idea of being awake yet realizing I am in a dream, I shall be able to flow with it and rend my will with that flow.
I shall now go prepare to imbibe the medicine of the elves.
Your comments are appreciated muchly, dear Frater.