Moderator: Dan~
pilgrim-seeker_tom wrote:Jacob ... just finished watching your video on the notion of Chesed ... best one yet ... your body language spoke louder than your words.![]()
I don't know that I've interpreted all your body language correctly ... doesn't matter ... the overall feeling was very positive. I applaud your courage in posting the video.
As usual I did catch a few words.![]()
You said Chesed is the god of this world ... seems to fit the Biblical Lucifer story.
pilgrim-seeker_tom wrote:Jakob wrote:The way I see it, our reasoning faculty itself is a sediment of spirits relentless dynamic. It does not itself act, it reacts, and it has its predictable mechanism of acting.
It is spirit which pushes a raw idea through its passive, honing-stone of reason, so as to elaborate the idea.
I agree.
Yet the illusive and often cantankerous underpinnings of the word 'spirit' remain a mystery. Reminds me of St Augustine ... who spent 10 years with Manichaeism ... converting to Christianity ... in large part after coming to believe ... rightly or wrongly ... that spirit is substance. Since our physical world is entirely substance ... including spirit in that body of substance results in a certain level of mental comfort.
Many years ago I heard the analogy of a swarm of mosquitoes buzzing around our head. An analogy with some merit ... the swarm of mosquitoes is always an annoyance ... the mosquito that lands on our body is considered an immediate threat and we launch a counter attack. We swat away at the swarm in an attempt to chase the entire swarm away from us ... never works. We put a screen mesh over our head to create a buffer zone between the mosquitoes and our head ... analogous to atheism which attempts to install a buffer zone so as not to be harassed by the mysteries of spirit.
Jakob wrote:The idea of dyadic having logic at all is a result of a monadic principle encountering itself.
Thus, insights directly from the spirit tend to defy some of logics habit, but they always emerge of the same ground as that which logic shares and relies on.
Things always come to us through our primordial, living reason: our value system. Even logic is subservient to this. It determines the logical steps we are capable of accepting, surviving, in all our imperfections.
Spirit bypasses logic when logic is too weak and indirect and passive for our current state - all of us are stronger than dyadic logic, as all of us operate on the premise of being, entity, subject, which is monadic, and includes the dyadic as a dynamism of pulsating contradiction that keep arriving at higher levels of unity (yoga, lit: union)
I'm not familiar with the terms 'monadic' and 'dyadic'. After a cursory investigation I concluded ... perhaps incorrectly:
Dao = Monad Yin Yang= Dyadic
God = Monad Adam & Eve = Dyadic
Jakob wrote:Im not fully aware of which tradition disclosed these meridians - I always figured it for rooted in India, perhaps tens of thousands of years ago
You may be right ... certainly Yoga and Tai Chi seem to be fruit of the same tree.
Perhaps it's analogous to the Newton/Leibniz discovery of calculus.
Even more profound ... what was in the air about 2,500 years ago? ... when the human giants visited the planet at almost the same time ... Socrates/Plato ... Lao Tzu ... Confucius ... Buddha ... Isaiah![]()
This morning your comments seem to have given birth to a new thought concerning Churches, Mosques, Temples and so on. These buildings have always been perceived as a refuge ... a safe haven ... where the protection of the Sacred Divine is inviolable.
I'm thinking what if the opposite is true. These buildings were constructed as a prison or jail. This intention may well have been an unconscious intention. We agree that our presence in these buildings is an obstacle to ascension ... perhaps installing this obstacle was intentional.
Reminds me of the Cathars ... imagine humanity's reaction if mass media existed at the time of the Cathar genocide ... today's terrorism pales into insignificance.
Sauwelios wrote:I noticed that you've been referring to the Middle Pillar as the Pillar of Mildness, instead of say the Pillar of Equilibrium. I can understand why it can be called that, but the term "mildness" suggests an opposition to me that the term "equilibrium" does not. It seems to me to be more opposed to "severity" than to "mercy", even though "mercy" here probably means an impetuous kind of mercy that is as forceful as the severity. (From something I read somewhere in the last few days, on the different pillars as different paths of initiation, I think the mercy and severity correspond to the impulse and the rules from the final prose section of Blake's MHH, respectively.)
This issue may or may not be related to the in my view mistaken notion that there are actually, substantially, three pillars. The two outer pillars have traditionally been identified with Boaz and Jachin, the two bronze pillars at Solomon's Temple. There is, then, no third pillar, but the Middle Pillar stands for the invisible but intelligible unity of the two. In this sense, there's "really" only one pillar, this being the Tree of Life itself. This is the Lingam, the fire-pillar of Shiva, whose opposite ends Brahmā and Vishnu could not reach. The way this tripartite division is reflected vertically in the three Triangles--Middle, Right, Left--is, I think, of considerable interest.
Jakob wrote:
I urge you do do some serious, more than a few minutes long study about geometrical patterns in physics. I mean take a few weeks of a few hours each day. Its obvious to any intellectual that anything less is pointless on any subject, let alone a scientific one.
A little teaser as to the scenery you'll be passing early on:
http://gnosticwarrior.com/wp-content/up ... io-phi.png
In the mean time Ill commit to explaining some of geometrical necesities in the next episode, on the fifth sephira, Geburah.
The logic of the tree traces how something can be related to an undifferentiated field of possibility. Its not easy to grasp. As far from facile as things get.
Only for its gigantic challenge did I ever notice it as a 20 something explosive mind too strong even for Nietzsche.
The human mind cannot grasp the causes of phenomenon in the aggregate. But the need to find these causes is inherent in man's soul. And the human intellect, without investigating the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions of phenomenon, any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, snatches at the first, the most intelligible approximation to a cause, and says: "This is the cause!"
In historical events (where the actions of men form the subject of observation) the most primitive approximation to present itself was the will of the gods, and later the will of those who stand in the historical foreground - the heroes of history. But one has only to penetrate to the essence of any historical event, that is, to the activity of the mass of men who take part in it, to be convinced that the will of the historic hero does not control the actions of the mass but is itself controlled. It may seem to be a matter of indifference whether we understand the meaning of historical events this way or that. But between the man who says that the peoples of the West marched into the East because Napoleon wished it and the man who says it happened because it had to happen, there exists as great a difference as between those who maintained that the earth was stationary and that the planets revolved around it, and those who admitted that they did not know what held the earth in place but knew that there were laws governing its movement and that of the other planets. There is, and can be, no cause of an historical event save the one cause of all causes. But there are laws governing events: some we are ignorant of, some we are groping for. The discovery of these laws is only possible when we have finally abandoned the attempt to find the cause in the will of some one man, just as the discovery of the laws of the motion of the planets was possible only when men abandoned the conception of the earth as stationary.
Pandora wrote:I would be more interested in learning the historical context of this system, how it came about and why, before I would actually consider it seriously in itself. That's just me. There are many ways of looking at things and the surrounding historical environment is one of them. I do believe that most things that come about have a function or come out of perceived necessity. To know more about it would mean to learn more about its historical/cultural background. And that, too, would take a lot of time and study.
pilgrim-seeker_tom wrote:Jacob ... about some more thoughts on your video about Chesed ... stemming from your comment ... paraphrasing ... " suppose there was a group. of people ... liberal minded ... egalitarian ... who encountered an individual who held wildly different views/beliefs"
For me ... a micro example of the history/evolution of humanity.
[attachment=0]Group Think.png[/attachment
Back to your hypothetical scenario ... how is the contradiction resolved?
History suggests ... most often with conflict, hostility, violence, mutation(figurative not literal), death. All very Darwinian ... a materialistic view of life on this planet.
As your videos on Kabbalah indicate ... the fathers of Kabbalah, Daoism, Buddhism, Shamanism and so on and so on thought otherwise.This small community of courageous and curious giants in the history of mankind ventured deeper into the void ... the unknown ... attempting to extract rational and logical knowledge that lays deep within the shadows of the void.
We are fortunate to have the privilege of standing on their shoulders ... yet ... we must not shirk our responsibility to advance their search and/or propagate their findings among the current generations of peoples on the planet.
Coming to understand their 'understanding' is only the first step ... yes? ... no?
Back to my cartoon ... the open minded individual will 'see' the macro symbolism in the cartoon. For example ... the four or five people in the box symbolize a yuge and well entrenched ideological collective ... note the old man among children. The young boy outside the box symbolizes a younger and not so large collective ... with no boundaries ... no box to contain it.
Your comments about Trump triggered a memory ... Tolstoy's thoughts embedded in his novel "War and Peace". I am posting them here ... they seem so relevant.
Finally, your words ... "for the first time in history" ... while you were referring to the US Presidential election ... for me your words apply to the current moment for mankind. Today there are several "firsts" for mankind ... no more language barrier(s), logarithmic culture travel, speed of communication.The human mind cannot grasp the causes of phenomenon in the aggregate. But the need to find these causes is inherent in man's soul. And the human intellect, without investigating the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions of phenomenon, any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, snatches at the first, the most intelligible approximation to a cause, and says: "This is the cause!"
In historical events (where the actions of men form the subject of observation) the most primitive approximation to present itself was the will of the gods, and later the will of those who stand in the historical foreground - the heroes of history. But one has only to penetrate to the essence of any historical event, that is, to the activity of the mass of men who take part in it, to be convinced that the will of the historic hero does not control the actions of the mass but is itself controlled. It may seem to be a matter of indifference whether we understand the meaning of historical events this way or that. But between the man who says that the peoples of the West marched into the East because Napoleon wished it and the man who says it happened because it had to happen, there exists as great a difference as between those who maintained that the earth was stationary and that the planets revolved around it, and those who admitted that they did not know what held the earth in place but knew that there were laws governing its movement and that of the other planets. There is, and can be, no cause of an historical event save the one cause of all causes. But there are laws governing events: some we are ignorant of, some we are groping for. The discovery of these laws is only possible when we have finally abandoned the attempt to find the cause in the will of some one man, just as the discovery of the laws of the motion of the planets was possible only when men abandoned the conception of the earth as stationary.
The purest of armchair-philosophies - the refusal or inability of to identify oneself and ones human drives as the only template to read the nature of the world itself - the idea that one can read the world without suffering it and being transformed by it.
Except his love for the people in the box.
Fixed Cross wrote:This tree crosses the abyss, has requirement of all its resources to do so, and is weighed down by all its mass in contradiction of that effort -
but then, it doesn't move from one side to the other, it simply dwells on the threshold.
How exactly this predicament occurred, I wonder... where did the seed take root? Im looking for signs of the Earth having split underneath it. Which is what an encounter with Daath can be like.
but then, it doesn't move from one side to the other, it simply dwells on the threshold.
How exactly this predicament occurred?
Which is what an encounter with Daath can be like.
"This doctrine is extremely difficult to explain; but it corresponds more or less to the gap in thought between the Real, which is ideal, and the Unreal, which is actual. In the Abyss all things exist, indeed, at least in posse, but are without any possible meaning; for they lack the substratum of spiritual Reality. They are appearances without Law. They are thus Insane Delusions... Now the Abyss being thus the great storehouse of Phenomena, it is the source of all impressions."
Geburah knocks
Chakra Superstar wrote:I don't want to digress from the theme of this thread but I saw this photo today and thought it was an appropriate addition.
Tree of Life![]()
What is Real wrote:I see the Monolith from 2001 as physical representation of Daath, do you find this to be accurate? I also see these screens as a sort of Abyss of knowledge, man is being taken to a different place through these apples we are addicted to. The Star Child, the light reflecting on the face of Dave Bowemen.
Return to Religion and Spirituality
Users browsing this forum: No registered users