matter and energy

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

How is "as above, so below" any different from Buddhist Karma or Christian Judgement? That is, none of these things are provable scientifically, yet all are basis of philosophies.

Namaste juan,

thank you for the post.

hmm... well.. natually, to my mind this is very clear.

what is "above"? can't that also be "below"?

those terms are subjective terms and corrolate to nothing in the natural universe. in fact, those terms convey absolutely no information to me at all... besides which... it is my view that hermetic magik is misguided

hopefully, in our exchanges, i've been able to make it clear that karma is not judgement and why this is so. i recognize the difficulties that we've had in exchanging information, especially when it comes to philosophies that are radically different than those we encoutner on a regular basis.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

what is "above"? can't that also be "below"?

I had not considered this aspect, but yes indeed.

those terms are subjective terms and corrolate to nothing in the natural universe. in fact, those terms convey absolutely no information to me at all... besides which... it is my view that hermetic magik is misguided

hopefully, in our exchanges, i've been able to make it clear that karma is not judgement and why this is so. i recognize the difficulties that we've had in exchanging information, especially when it comes to philosophies that are radically different than those we encoutner on a regular basis.

Again, I wish no disrespect. I always enjoy our dialogues. And I believe I understand your position concerning Karma as compared with judgement via our previous discussions. My point was regarding non-scientific basis of philosophical belief systems. It strikes me as curious how grand and noble philosophies can be extracted from seemingly incredulous foundations.

I am sincerely not casting any form of personal judgement in any direction, merely making an observation. Especially since I have no understanding of Hermetic magik. And with due respect to neoxenos, his position of "if one does not believe in that Hermetic axiom, there is nothing more to be said" leaves me rather bewildered. Am I to understand that I must believe because I am told?
Dogmatic steamrollers raise my alarms. (I appreciate very much that you, Vaj, are no dogmatic steamroller!)

If I do not understand, and the one presenting makes such a dogmatic proclamation, then I can make one of two presumptions. The more logical presumption is to dismiss the presentation (though not necessarily the presenter). The alternative being to mindlessly adopt without question, something I seem, thankfully, incapable of doing.

What I was attempting to do is draw out what was intended, if in fact it can be rationally supported. And then let the chips fall where they may...

[Vajradhara]

Namaste juan,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!I had not considered this aspect, but yes indeed.

more and more Einstein is demonstrably correct... we do live in a relative universe

Again, I wish no disrespect. I always enjoy our dialogues. And I believe I understand your position concerning Karma as compared with judgement via our previous discussions.

oh, none taken i wanted to touch on that again as i recall we spent some time discussing it and it wasn't until futher in our conversation that i was able to make clear what i was trying to say i'm presuming my communication ability is imparied, not your comprehending ability

My point was regarding non-scientific basis of philosophical belief systems. It strikes me as curious how grand and noble philosophies can be extracted from seemingly incredulous foundations.

agreed!

I am sincerely not casting any form of personal judgement in any direction, merely making an observation. Especially since I have no understanding of Hermetic magik. And with due respect to neoxenos, his position of "if one does not believe in that Hermetic axiom, there is nothing more to be said" leaves me rather bewildered. Am I to understand that I must believe because I am told?

i don't presume to speak for neoxenos, however, this is familiar to me.. perhaps you as well.. though in a different form. this is analogous to the Christian admonition not to throw "pearls before swine..", if i understand correctly...a form of spiritual blindness, so to speak. to be honest with you, it's been decades since i've explored the western hermetic tradition.. so i cannot say for certain one way or the other in this case.

Dogmatic steamrollers raise my alarms. (I appreciate very much that you, Vaj, are no dogmatic steamroller!)

thank you, juan that's very kind of you to say... right back at ya

If I do not understand, and the one presenting makes such a dogmatic proclamation, then I can make one of two presumptions. The more logical presumption is to dismiss the presentation (though not necessarily the presenter). The alternative being to mindlessly adopt without question, something I seem, thankfully, incapable of doing.

What I was attempting to do is draw out what was intended, if in fact it can be rationally supported. And then let the chips fall where they may...

ah.. i see where you're heading with this... though we'd probably be better off in the New Age section regarding these aspects of the hermetic tradition.. though, i'm glossing that alot as there are many different schools of thought in this tradition as well.

as an aside... it occurs to me on occassion that i can speak no words that convey any meaning to anyone... unless we've already agreed on what the sounds mean... and i'm struck by this quite forcefully. communicating mind to mind seems the way to go... you know... like when the quarterback is reading the play and the reciever is reading the defense and both people know, of the three options on the play, post, in or curl, to run the post. it's communication that takes place without words..... and it seems to be the least likely to be confused... which is confusing in and of itself!

[neoxenos]

And with due respect to neoxenos, his position of "if one does not believe in that Hermetic axiom, there is nothing more to be said" leaves me rather bewildered. Am I to understand that I must believe because I am told?

I'm sorry for the confusion. My inital post here was misplaced, as this a forum looking for scientific evidence, and I cannot provide anything within the world of modern science to affirm it. So, what else can be said?

This is what I meant.

"As above, so below," simply is implying, "On Earth as it is in Heaven," in a way. For example, if we create a child through a sexual means, then God creates the universe through a sexual means as well.

Once again, sorry the confusion! I do not mean to appear hostile.

[I, Brian]

No hostility seen.

I think Vaj was pushing for deeper discussion.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, neoxenos!

Originally Posted by neoxenos

"As above, so below," simply is implying, "On Earth as it is in Heaven," in a way. For example, if we create a child through a sexual means, then God creates the universe through a sexual means as well.

Very well. Yet, I am still confused. I understood you earlier to imply that creation is done within a dream. Do I understand you to mean that God creates a fresh new universe for every child that is created by sexual means, as well as every time "He" happens to dream? A great deal of all of this seems merely symbolic to me. Are there other ways and means of creation?

Or am I to understand that the creation process in general is analogous to sex? The generating principle acting upon the incubating principle? (The Big Bang as a cosmic orgasm? ) And that only one instance at the cosmic level is required for the existence of all we know and understand?

And for clarification, which? Dream, or sex? Dreaming of sex? Or perhaps sexual fantasy? Or something altogether different?

Can you see the confusion your position creates in one not familiar with it? I mean no disrespect, but I do not understand. Without rational clarity, this philosophy is difficult to place in context, and difficult to view with validity.

Once again, sorry the confusion! I do not mean to appear hostile.

I did not view your post as hostile, merely dogmatic. Some form of core belief is to be expected. Dogmatic insistance in superiority is another matter. Around here we call that "fundamentalism." I sincerely hope you are not fundamentalist, that is, I hope you are tolerant of other's faiths and positions, and that you will not mind other's questions to better understand your faith and position.

I will look forward to your posts, welcome once again!

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

No hostility seen.

I think Vaj was pushing for deeper discussion.

indeed... that was my intention and aim

[Avinash]

Originally Posted by neoxenos

Mind, energy, and matter are the same thing. They are different condensations of MIND.

The Universe is nothing more than the condensed mind of the Cosmo-Architects.

For example, if we want to post a reply, we first construct this reply in the mental world, and then we reconstruct it in the physical world. So, matter is just like that, condensed mind.

Namaskar,

The universe is a projection (a very consistent one, but nevertheless) of the Cosmic Mind. The Cosmic Mind is a qualified part of the Supreme Consciousness. So everything, even your "own" thoughts and dreams are dreamt up or thought up by the Cosmic Mind and a part of the Cosmic Consciousness.

So matter is indeed a type of condensed or frozen consciousness and a projection of the Cosmic Mind. The only thing that is difficult to imagine is that the Cosmic Mind needs no brain like we do.

The idea of spiritual progress is to "travel back" as it were, along the different layers of the Cosmic Mind to return to the source of the projection. In the process we have to retract or give back our own individual existence (which is also layered) and we merge (yoga). Of course we were already one with That but in the relative world of the projection, seperation was still felt. --my 2 cts.--

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Avinash,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Avinash

Namaskar,

The universe is a projection (a very consistent one, but nevertheless) of the Cosmic Mind. The Cosmic Mind is a qualified part of the Supreme Consciousness. So everything, even your "own" thoughts and dreams are dreamt up or thought up by the Cosmic Mind and a part of the Cosmic Consciousness.

So matter is indeed a type of condensed or frozen consciousness and a projection of the Cosmic Mind. The only thing that is difficult to imagine is that the Cosmic Mind needs no brain like we do.

The idea of spiritual progress is to "travel back" as it were, along the different layers of the Cosmic Mind to return to the source of the projection. In the process we have to retract or give back our own individual existence (which is also layered) and we merge (yoga). Of course we were already one with That but in the relative world of the projection, seperation was still felt. --my 2 cts.--

however... none of this is science as it makes no testable predictions and cannot be falsefied, thus, it is a philosophical position.... and this is the philosophy and science section....


hmm... Brian... what do you think about seperating these two into their own respective disciplines? it's a bit confusing to have science and philosophy in the same section as the threads tend to conflate the two on occassion.

[neoxenos]

Hi juantoo3,

I refrained my discussion because I was not sure if it was prudent to talk about it here.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, neoxenos!Very well. Yet, I am still confused. I understood you earlier to imply that creation is done within a dream. Do I understand you to mean that God creates a fresh new universe for every child that is created by sexual means, as well as every time "He" happens to dream? A great deal of all of this seems merely symbolic to me. Are there other ways and means of creation?

Yes and No. Yes, for every creation, not a dream though. God does not dream because one who dreams is full of darkness, and God is Light itself.

If, for example, we build something out of clay, we formulate it mentally first, then we bring it into physical reality through movements of our hands. So, everything physical first existed mentally, everything physical has a mental precursor. Now, mind is a type of matter, or energy, because they are the same thing. We can say that physical matter is a condensed form of energy. But there is mental matter is well, which is still a condensation of energy, but not as much, the mind is a type of crystallization of energy, but it is less rigid crystallization than physical matter. Think of it this way, liquid water is condensed water vapor, and ice is crystallization/condensation of liquid water, yet, all three forms are the same thing. So what is mind? It is matter, just like a table or a computer is made of matter, it is the same energy, but much more volant. What is energy? It is the First Fiat, it is the phenomena of the universal noumena. It is that Astral Light of the Alchemists, it is the Divine Fire, that energy released by burning a match... we release that fire from within the wood, because that fire is already there, what we call burning is the release of that fire from within the element that is burning.

If we lived consciously in the Word of the Mind, which we could term a Parallel Universe that co-exists and co-penetrates with this physical world without trouble or confusion, then we could sit at a mental chair and hold a cup of mental tee as if it were physical, because, as we can say, the fish does not see the water it is in. If we were within the Mental Body, a body of mental flesh and bones, then everything would seem as it does here, because it is all relative.

Beyond the Mind is the energy of the Consciousness, which is more subtle and less condensed, and beyond that is The Reality, Atman, and beyond that is the Illuminating Void, the Anatman, and beyond that is the Non Manifested, the Ain Soph. So it all comes from the same source, each type the energy becomes more complex and thus more rigid. This complexity is the cause of mistakes and suffering, as we raise our Level of Being we experience forms of energy that are less complex and therefore it is more happy. That is Nirvana, Para-Nirvana, or Supra-Nirvana, or, we can call various degrees of Happiness the Nine Heavens...

Or am I to understand that the creation process in general is analogous to sex? The generating principle acting upon the incubating principle? (The Big Bang as a cosmic orgasm? ) And that only one instance at the cosmic level is required for the existence of all we know and understand?

There are Seven levels of Cosmos. A cosmos is a complete Creation, but there are seven recursive levels:

Protocosmos - The Infinitie - Do
Ayocosmos - Spiritual Sun - Si
Macrocosmos - Galaxy - La
Deuterocosmos - Solar System - Sol
Mesocosmos - Planet - Fa
Microcosmos - Physical Body - Mi
Tritocosmos - The Inferno - Re

The True Human is a Microcosmos, the one who has built a Cosmos within. The seven days of Genesis need to be played out within to create our internal paradise. The psyche is a Universe that, through much struggle and effort, must be known completely, if one wishes to return to Eden. If you come to know your internal cosmos you will know the external cosmos.

“Oh man, know thyself and you shall know the Gods and Goddesses.”

The Hu-Manas, or Spirit-Mind, has little to do with these physical bodies we have, the true Spirit-Mind is the Atman, the Being, that is the Hu-Manas Being, these phsycial bodies are just the inferior end of That Being.

And for clarification, which? Dream, or sex? Dreaming of sex? Or perhaps sexual fantasy? Or something altogether different?

I think it is best to see in a bit different terms. God can be seen as the Intelligent Principle. By sex as means of creation we should think of the Masculine Principle and the Feminine Principle conjoining to produce, for example in the Bible, the The White Dove of the Holy Spirit: that which fecundates. The physical analogue to these principles is Man and Woman, and the physical analogue to the creation of a Cosmos is the sexual act.

God creates with the Word. The Gospel of John is the Gospel of the Word. In the beginning was the Word (Father), and the Word was with God (Son), and the Word was God (Holy Spirit). In Genesis, God said, “Let there be light.” The Divine Word creates. The word comes from the larynx, which we know is connected to our sexuality because when a boy or girl grows up their voice matures, so the larynx is connected with sexuality. The Word of God comes from the larynx of God, who is both Male and Female at the same time. In Revelations, the voice of God is a voice of “many waters,” and in this sense it is saying that it is very fecund. The Holy Spirit is related with the Waters, it is creation, the Waters is the Sexual Waters, the principle of vitality. When Jesus walked on the Waters he is telling us that he was able to control the Sexual Waters. This is why the Voice of God separates the Waters of Life in Genesis. In synthesis, the Divine Larynx is a uterus that fecundates the Word, because it has been made fertile by the Waters of Life, and the Word itself is Creation. Jehovah Elohim can be seen in the following way: Jah-Hava, Father-Mother, and Elohim, which is a Masculine root with a Feminine plural ending: Gods and Goddesses. This is why it is better to say that Jehovah Elohim is hovering over the waters and not just “God.”

Can you see the confusion your position creates in one not familiar with it? I mean no disrespect, but I do not understand. Without rational clarity, this philosophy is difficult to place in context, and difficult to view with validity.

I did not view your post as hostile, merely dogmatic. Some form of core belief is to be expected. Dogmatic insistence in superiority is another matter. Around here we call that "fundamentalism." I sincerely hope you are not fundamentalist, that is, I hope you are tolerant of other's faiths and positions, and that you will not mind other's questions to better understand your faith and position.

I will look forward to your posts, welcome once again!

I understand now how I appeared. Thank you for telling me that. Dogma is ignorant and it is not something I wish to spread. Free will is a right of God, and everyone has a right to believe whatever they wish.


Thank you for the welcome. Hopefully this will make some sense, although I know it quite a lot!

[Vajradhara]

Namaste neoxenos,

thank you for the post.

i know you are responding to juan and i've only one thing i'd like to clarify, if i may.

Originally Posted by neoxenos

This complexity is the cause of mistakes and suffering, as we raise our Level of Being we experience forms of energy that are less complex and therefore it is more happy. That is Nirvana, Para-Nirvana, or Supra-Nirvana, or, we can call various degrees of Happiness the Nine Heavens...

i'm curious... from whence did you derive this information?

[neoxenos]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste neoxenos,

thank you for the post.

i know you are responding to juan and i've only one thing i'd like to clarify, if i may.

i'm curious... from whence did you derive this information?

Samael Aun Weor. It is a general statement that is attempting to say that there are Levels of "Heaven."

[Avinash]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

however... none of this is science as it makes no testable predictions and cannot be falsefied, thus, it is a philosophical position.... and this is the philosophy and science section....

Namaskar Vajradhara,

I was mearly summarising my own 2 cts on spiritual philosophy on the subject dealt with in some of the postings previous to mine. So perhaps you should have better addressed us as a group?

[Avinash]

Originally Posted by Avinash

I was merely summarising my own 2 cts on spiritual philosophy on the subject dealt with in some of the postings previous to mine. So perhaps you should have better addressed us as a group?

Besides that, the subtitles to the Philosophy and Science section are Physics, metaphysics, the enlightenment and the human experience

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by neoxenos

Samael Aun Weor. It is a general statement that is attempting to say that there are Levels of "Heaven."

Namaste neoxenos,

thank you for the post and the reply.

i presume this is the link that you were referencing:
http://www.gnosis-usa.com/Lectures/nirvana.html


after reading this... it would seem that Mr. Weor has misunderstood some Buddhist teachings

no matter...

here is a very good explanation of the Buddhist idea of Nirvana:

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/...data/fdd43.htm