I would say that in the beginning there was nothing. No time, no space, no God, no thing.
Then it was pretty hard to start something.
But... it looks as if something must have started, so it's worthwhile examining how.
I guess it started with a first glimpse, not with a fully-fledged omniscient God that jumped out of nowhere.
And also not with some complicated mathematical laws that produced the universe.
Neither with an incredible amount of amorphous energy which became the Big Bang.
So let's try to figure out how that first glimpse might have been.To my opinion it must have had the following qualities:
- Creativity
- Spontaneity
- Surprise
(perhaps more)
It sure was not so easy for this Something to come out of nothing. Actually, it's far more likable that nothing stays nothing instead of a Something jumping out of it. So there indeed was an enormous amount of spontaneity required, something we can also describe as free will. Without free will the nothing would have stayed the same, and we wouldn't have a Something now.
Also it was creative as added to spontaneous, because spontaneous alone could also be a repetition of something you did before. And it was not only creative but also spontaneous because you can create in a predictable manner.
The last ingredient, surprise, is perhaps the most important. If that Something wouldn't have been surprised and astounded about the fact that it exists it wouldn't have seen much difference to being nothing and might have fallen back to it.
These three ingredients by themselves call for labelling this Something as conscious. If you think about it then there's no way that anything that is not conscious would emerge from a total nothing.
It is obvious that mankind's many religions were somehow influenced by this Something. I can think of God in Christianity, the Tao in Taoism, the Spirit in Nagualism, different appearances of the highest entity in different cultures... But (and a big But there) not everywhere it was really that Something those religions described. We would need to describe its qualities and sort them out from human projections, also from perceptions of other spiritual entities that made this picture most confusing.
The main thing I wanted to show with this post is that consciousness is not a product of materia but has been there before.
Full Version: The Beginning of Time
There is only One Now. Eternal, Absolute, Unchanging, Transcendant. Living in a human body I experience this Now and so can any one with a working nervous system. I spent many years thinking about Enlightenment, then one day I decided I wanted to live it. That is what I am practicing Now. Moment by moment it is a choice for identification with the relative changing or identification with the Absolute stillness of the Ascendant. As humans we can choose right now to live in a heaven or a hell of our own creation. We can live a life supported by the Sattvic currents of creation or live a life of downward spiral into denser and denser and deeeennnnnnnssssseerrr realms. There always will be and there never was a time when the brilliant light of the Self did not shine forth.
With much appreciation,
Ishtar
With much appreciation,
Ishtar
Ishtar, that's only a human perception plus interpretation. It doesn't mean that this Something is like this and that's it. If we say that It is perhaps 700.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 years old, then the hours or days or even years you perceive of It in your meditation certainly seems like Eternal, Absolute, Unchanging, Transcendent.
Besides from these perceptions you also have to take into account what it offers you in communication. And you have to use your thinking to make sense of it. Our thinking is a way of knowing that becomes adequate from adjusting it to reality, if adjusted properly there's no need to discard it. Unless we deal with phenomenons that are outside its realm, but what I have started to talk about seems possible to handle.
Plus a personal question: Were you enlightened when you wrote your post? Is this state parallel to your constructing sentences? Are your thinking/speaking and your enlightenment on the same track? Why you speak of heaven or hell?
Dense and subtle are two aspects of the same thing. Both are necessary, or they wouldn't exist. The trick is not disregarding one of them, but bringing them in harmony.
Besides from these perceptions you also have to take into account what it offers you in communication. And you have to use your thinking to make sense of it. Our thinking is a way of knowing that becomes adequate from adjusting it to reality, if adjusted properly there's no need to discard it. Unless we deal with phenomenons that are outside its realm, but what I have started to talk about seems possible to handle.
Plus a personal question: Were you enlightened when you wrote your post? Is this state parallel to your constructing sentences? Are your thinking/speaking and your enlightenment on the same track? Why you speak of heaven or hell?
Dense and subtle are two aspects of the same thing. Both are necessary, or they wouldn't exist. The trick is not disregarding one of them, but bringing them in harmony.
| QUOTE |
| Ishtar, that's only a human perception plus interpretation. |
Numinoso-
With all due respect, that applies equally to your and anyone else's ideas of creationism.
Where knowable facts end, belief begins.
It's more than belief, it's logical.
And for me it's also experience, but I understand that my experience is irrelevant for others.
So let's stay on the logical level.
And for me it's also experience, but I understand that my experience is irrelevant for others.
So let's stay on the logical level.
Numinoso,
We are on the same wave length.
John
We are on the same wave length.
John
| QUOTE |
| It's more than belief, it's logical. And for me it's also experience, but I understand that my experience is irrelevant for others. So let's stay on the logical level. |
Well, I'm not a great fan of logic...there ARE things that transcend it. How about, "It's more than logic - it's belief"?
Yes, experience is pretty much a solitary thing, and words, especially on electronic forums, usually fail to convey the essence. But I wouldn't trade my experiences for all the logic in the world.
Logic can be twisted to suit any occasion or any viewpoint - if you've studied logic, you know this. And BTW - starting your sentences as you did with the qualifiers "I believe" and "I guess" just seems to prove that this is a matter of perception, not logic.
Just my $0.02...
Howdy, SufiPhil  ;D
Hey, Num
I just noticed the whole point of this thread, explaining 'first cause'. Â My explanation is that the transition from total vacuity to 'something' is an impossible logical step. Â you might as well be satisfied to say "in the beginning, shit happened". Â My explanation is, that 'first cause' is ultimately an appeal to identifying "subjective" which is kind of a circular pursuit, but that we all have a logicless sense of "subjective" because we are It! Â Geez, I'm starting to sound like Joek Â
8)
Hey, Num
I just noticed the whole point of this thread, explaining 'first cause'. Â My explanation is that the transition from total vacuity to 'something' is an impossible logical step. Â you might as well be satisfied to say "in the beginning, shit happened". Â My explanation is, that 'first cause' is ultimately an appeal to identifying "subjective" which is kind of a circular pursuit, but that we all have a logicless sense of "subjective" because we are It! Â Geez, I'm starting to sound like Joek Â
8)
SifuPhil, where are the sentences I started with 'I guess' and 'I believe'? And I'm not talking of logic that is for stupids, I'm talking of high logic. And high logic is adjusted to experience, the higher, the more adequately.
Dan, in a certain way it's impossible to logically explain the step from nothing to something. But it obviously has happened. What I'm asking is: What is more likely? That the first thing was shit or a moment of spontaneity, creativity, and surprise?
And I don't understand what first cause has to do with subjectivity. In a certain way, everything is subjectivity, even your oh so objective ideas.
Dan, in a certain way it's impossible to logically explain the step from nothing to something. But it obviously has happened. What I'm asking is: What is more likely? That the first thing was shit or a moment of spontaneity, creativity, and surprise?
And I don't understand what first cause has to do with subjectivity. In a certain way, everything is subjectivity, even your oh so objective ideas.
| QUOTE |
| in a certain way it's impossible to logically explain the step from nothing to something. |
of course it's logically impossible, because where could the something appear? Â It would have to appear 'somewhere', and that would itself be something!
| QUOTE |
| But it obviously has happened. |
we don't know that the nothing->something transition happened, all we know is that there is something.
| QUOTE |
| And I don't understand what first cause has to do with subjectivity. In a certain way, everything is subjectivity, even your oh so objective ideas. |
you yourself are resorting to 'subjective' explanation by invoking spontaneity, creativity and surprise as 'first causes'
| QUOTE |
| SifuPhil, where are the sentences I started with 'I guess' and 'I believe'? And I'm not talking of logic that is for stupids, I'm talking of high logic. And high logic is adjusted to experience, the higher, the more adequately. |
Well, the first one is...
| QUOTE |
| I guess it started with a first glimpse, not with a fully-fledged omniscient God that jumped out of nowhere. |
My apologies on the second one - I was quoting from memory - the one I was thinking of was...
| QUOTE |
| I would say that in the beginning there was nothing. |
"I would say" being interpreted in my mind as "I believe".
Thanks for the "high" vs. "low" logic answer.
why all this talk about getting something from nothing? Â Â Is this necessary, or are there scenarios in which such questions don't even arise. Â For example, Einstein said that he believed in Spinoza's God. Â What is Spinoza's God? Â Spinoza defines God as 'That whose essence necessarily involves existence'. Â Â And there you have it; in Spinoza's worldview, there is no getting something from nothing, since God's essence necessarily involves existence.
Or perhaps a better definition would be that God is that whose essence necessarily involves Being. Â
Should we appreciate the beauty of such an answer? Â
Of course! Â
Should we remain satisfied with such an answer?
Of course not!
There are better answers just waiting to be found and realized. Â Realize them, now.
Btw,
Ishtar,
I should've said this a long time ago, but your post is a brilliant little gem. Thank you for sharing it with us.
Or perhaps a better definition would be that God is that whose essence necessarily involves Being. Â
Should we appreciate the beauty of such an answer? Â
Of course! Â
Should we remain satisfied with such an answer?
Of course not!
There are better answers just waiting to be found and realized. Â Realize them, now.
Btw,
Ishtar,
I should've said this a long time ago, but your post is a brilliant little gem. Thank you for sharing it with us.
Sifu, sorry for the 'I guess'. It was a literary device used for making me sound less apodictic. I should have used 'It seems' or 'It is plausible' instead. Basically, I'm pretty convinced about these things because they were triggered by experience, but when telling them to others I have problems. That's why I'm trying it here and then, this one being another attempt. (Thanks to all for the feedback, it helps me in improving.)
Dan, the somewhere is only a concept of ours. Because this consciousness can exist without space. However, I could also answer that the 'somewhere' didn't exist before and came into being just right then. This is also the answer when using your argument with time instead of space.
Then, we don't have direct evidence of the nothing=>something transition, but we can trace back the something in time. One of the characteristics of consciousness is that it enhances in time, so if you trace it back you'll conclude that it was smaller the further you go into the past. It's inevitable that you reach a point when it was nothing.
As I told you and can prove to you, everything is subjective. Even objectivity. That doesn't make in invalid. Because there are also intersubjective agreements, and there's also the phenomenon of evidence which makes us subjects notice how close we are to reality. Then, these qualities I was talking of are not 'first causes', I guess. (This time it's really a guess, I would have to analyse it more profoundly, but I rather take the easy way.) They are more like aspects or characteristics. They are certainly not a cause that caused something like things that cause an effect. Perhaps they were like an attractor, if you know what that is. (Comes from chaos theory.)
Shawn, that's okay. But before there was God there also was no existence. No time, nothing. And the essence of that powerful first step into something is exactly what I want to bring into this world.
Dan, the somewhere is only a concept of ours. Because this consciousness can exist without space. However, I could also answer that the 'somewhere' didn't exist before and came into being just right then. This is also the answer when using your argument with time instead of space.
Then, we don't have direct evidence of the nothing=>something transition, but we can trace back the something in time. One of the characteristics of consciousness is that it enhances in time, so if you trace it back you'll conclude that it was smaller the further you go into the past. It's inevitable that you reach a point when it was nothing.
| QUOTE |
| you yourself are resorting to 'subjective' explanation by invoking spontaneity, creativity and surprise as 'first causes' |
As I told you and can prove to you, everything is subjective. Even objectivity. That doesn't make in invalid. Because there are also intersubjective agreements, and there's also the phenomenon of evidence which makes us subjects notice how close we are to reality. Then, these qualities I was talking of are not 'first causes', I guess. (This time it's really a guess, I would have to analyse it more profoundly, but I rather take the easy way.) They are more like aspects or characteristics. They are certainly not a cause that caused something like things that cause an effect. Perhaps they were like an attractor, if you know what that is. (Comes from chaos theory.)
Shawn, that's okay. But before there was God there also was no existence. No time, nothing. And the essence of that powerful first step into something is exactly what I want to bring into this world.
There's all sorts of talk about "before" here, which tends to make all the usual assumptions about time. But if time has a beginning, it makes no sense to talk of what came before. An original idea I came across recently was the universe giving birth to itself via a time loop; I know this sounds wild, but it made sense at the time of reading (the book was 'Time Travel in Einstein's Universe' by J. Richard Gott). Less controversial for the beginning of the universe is Hawking's 'no-boundary boundary condition', in which time is pictured as lines of longitude on a globe - trace back, and you do reach a southernmost point, but the trajectory is smooth, without discontinuity.
However, as for the 'first cause', what's wrong with contingency? It seems to be at the root of many phenomena, certainly in the realms of quantum and chaos theories. There might be a metaverse with universes spontaneously self-generating due to some kind of random sub-quantum events that occur, I hesitate to say, continuously. Some of these collapse, others expand like ours with time becoming an intrinsic property that only has meaning inside.
These are only musings, but at least give an indication of possibilities other than those involving super-beings with some kind of agenda.
However, as for the 'first cause', what's wrong with contingency? It seems to be at the root of many phenomena, certainly in the realms of quantum and chaos theories. There might be a metaverse with universes spontaneously self-generating due to some kind of random sub-quantum events that occur, I hesitate to say, continuously. Some of these collapse, others expand like ours with time becoming an intrinsic property that only has meaning inside.
These are only musings, but at least give an indication of possibilities other than those involving super-beings with some kind of agenda.
ID, interesting remarks.
Why not? It was a moment that had no past, but only presence and future. Time started to flow. I see no problem in that.
Seems problematic. Would require a pulsating universe. But the universe can never be totally pulsating because there will always be materia at the rim that is so fast that it doesn't fall back. With every pulsation a part of the materia will be gone, until you don't have nothing remaining for the next time loop.
That's similar to above. Time bent over into itself via a second dimension. Same problems as above.
The problem is you don't have a time and space frame where you can apply your formulas. First time has to be created out of nothing, and you won't be able to produce a formula that can do it.
The problem then is how this metaverse came into being.
Who says this being has an agenda? That's a misconception of people who want to save the world. (I don't say that's wrong, either, but sometimes they proceed very clumsily.) That super-being is so big and so old that it doesn't really care what's going on in some remote corner of one of its many universes in a time span that is ridiculous compared to how old it is.
It only responds if it notices that there's intelligence down here, and then the possibilities that arise from our communication are enormous. (That's a funny sentence, because the required intelligence is not only rational, and many people with a high IQ would be too stupid.)
| QUOTE |
| But if time has a beginning, it makes no sense to talk of what came before. |
Why not? It was a moment that had no past, but only presence and future. Time started to flow. I see no problem in that.
| QUOTE |
| An original idea I came across recently was the universe giving birth to itself via a time loop; I know this sounds wild, but it made sense at the time of reading |
Seems problematic. Would require a pulsating universe. But the universe can never be totally pulsating because there will always be materia at the rim that is so fast that it doesn't fall back. With every pulsation a part of the materia will be gone, until you don't have nothing remaining for the next time loop.
| QUOTE |
| Less controversial for the beginning of the universe is Hawking's 'no-boundary boundary condition', in which time is pictured as lines of longitude on a globe - trace back, and you do reach a southernmost point, but the trajectory is smooth, without discontinuity. |
That's similar to above. Time bent over into itself via a second dimension. Same problems as above.
| QUOTE |
| However, as for the 'first cause', what's wrong with contingency? It seems to be at the root of many phenomena, certainly in the realms of quantum and chaos theories. |
The problem is you don't have a time and space frame where you can apply your formulas. First time has to be created out of nothing, and you won't be able to produce a formula that can do it.
| QUOTE |
| There might be a metaverse with universes spontaneously self-generating due to some kind of random sub-quantum events that occur, I hesitate to say, continuously. Some of these collapse, others expand like ours with time becoming an intrinsic property that only has meaning inside. |
The problem then is how this metaverse came into being.
| QUOTE |
| These are only musings, but at least give an indication of possibilities other than those involving super-beings with some kind of agenda. |
Who says this being has an agenda? That's a misconception of people who want to save the world. (I don't say that's wrong, either, but sometimes they proceed very clumsily.) That super-being is so big and so old that it doesn't really care what's going on in some remote corner of one of its many universes in a time span that is ridiculous compared to how old it is.
It only responds if it notices that there's intelligence down here, and then the possibilities that arise from our communication are enormous. (That's a funny sentence, because the required intelligence is not only rational, and many people with a high IQ would be too stupid.)
Num
you keep saying nothing->something as if this were self-evident, I am saying that this is pure belief
8)
you keep saying nothing->something as if this were self-evident, I am saying that this is pure belief
8)
The Big Bang is also pure belief. And so is the law of entropy. All these are ideas concluded from experience, hence they are beliefs. (You can never know for sure whether your mind's constructs are like reality, so you can only choose whether to believe them or not.)
On that philosophical basis I have chosen to believe what I said in this thread because it's a product of experience and logic. If you want to argue about it in a productive manner you have to use your experience and logic to make your points. Just stating my beliefs are just beliefs says nothing because your beliefs are just beliefs also.
On that philosophical basis I have chosen to believe what I said in this thread because it's a product of experience and logic. If you want to argue about it in a productive manner you have to use your experience and logic to make your points. Just stating my beliefs are just beliefs says nothing because your beliefs are just beliefs also.
OK, logic. Â nothing -> something is logically unsound because true nothing is not capable of accomadating the appearance of something. Â The appearance of something implies somewhere to appear, and that somewhere is just another something. Â the logic is circular, this is not a belief it is just logic
Also, I called you on your subjectivization of the 'first cause' motivation, where you are really talking about the appearance of structure in a void mind (not the true nothing -> something!)
8)
Also, I called you on your subjectivization of the 'first cause' motivation, where you are really talking about the appearance of structure in a void mind (not the true nothing -> something!)
8)
Dan, the true nothing doesn't need to accomodate the something, because it disappears. If you really need a somewhere in your concept of this you can also say it appears right then when the nothing disappears, but I already told you that the phenomen of space arises later and is not necessary for housing the consciousness of this beginning. (Only time is necessary.)
About the subjectivization you see in me when I talk about these things... I would say this is just your projection or interpretion. You know nothing about the perceptions I had which brought me to this knowledge. And I have no way of transmitting them to you. All I can tell you is that the First One showed me this, and I know very well the difference between this and my mind.
But that's no argument I will use, it's just my personal story. The arguments are based on our experience as humans (for example, what time is), and our logic.
About the subjectivization you see in me when I talk about these things... I would say this is just your projection or interpretion. You know nothing about the perceptions I had which brought me to this knowledge. And I have no way of transmitting them to you. All I can tell you is that the First One showed me this, and I know very well the difference between this and my mind.
But that's no argument I will use, it's just my personal story. The arguments are based on our experience as humans (for example, what time is), and our logic.
| QUOTE |
| , the true nothing doesn't need to accomodate the something, because it disappears. |
so the true nothing is an 'it' and can disappear? sounds like a 'something' to me ???
and please tell more about this 'First One', sounds intriguing ;D
8)
Dan, you are blinded by semantics. What you say applies to the word 'nothing' but not to the phenomenon that it refers to.
The First One is already described a bit here and a bit there. You understand that I can't say everything. (In case you haven't noticed, it's another word for IT.)
The First One is already described a bit here and a bit there. You understand that I can't say everything. (In case you haven't noticed, it's another word for IT.)
numinoso, you have not convinced me that your argument is necessarily so, only a possibility. So is mine, so are others also possibilities. We may never be able to know, but that, of course, should not dissuade the attempt. Although I belong to the atheist camp, I have always conceded that there are two logically (OK, loaded word!) possible 'Gods' - God, the lighter of the touch-paper, and God as the universe. Your version somehow achieves a resonance between both of these (unless I have misunderstood your argument), and so is an interesting and original take.
Sure, every idea is just a thinking possibility in the end. We never know how appropriate it is, and the thing-in-itself is transcendent to any of them.
The only difference between an atheist and me is that for me the thing-in-itself is conscious and for him it's a machine. Basically. (I'm not talking about what is outside of our universe at this point, but it neither really matters. Atheists can also assume other universes without changing their position.)
Have you read the 'physics and consciousness' post? Isn't it astounding where quantum mechanics head to? And this is certainly not the only argument about consciousness being more than just a brain mechanism.
The only difference between an atheist and me is that for me the thing-in-itself is conscious and for him it's a machine. Basically. (I'm not talking about what is outside of our universe at this point, but it neither really matters. Atheists can also assume other universes without changing their position.)
Have you read the 'physics and consciousness' post? Isn't it astounding where quantum mechanics head to? And this is certainly not the only argument about consciousness being more than just a brain mechanism.
How about this (just a thought, rather than an actual belief): Who says there was nothing before time? There could be a something from which time came that is not bound by time. One example of this is God (in the widest sense). Another is chaos (no cause required - no cause and effect in chaos until cause and effect is randomly created - along with time and the universe).
The problem with this is that only things that are totally static could be existing outside of time. As soon as there is any change you can apply the concept of time. And it doesn't matter whether this change is subject to cause and effect or chaotic. It might be useless for measuring time like a clock due to its random nature, but there still is a 'before' and an 'after' to each instant.
I don't understand why God shouldn't be touched by time. It can easily be shown that any thing that would be completely unmoved by time can't get in contact with the flow of time without losing its motionlessness.
And it makes not much sense that there should have been a something before the beginning of time that was timeless because of being static, and which was not nothing. What should that be? The most likely canditate for an absolute static phenomenon is the nothing.
I don't understand why God shouldn't be touched by time. It can easily be shown that any thing that would be completely unmoved by time can't get in contact with the flow of time without losing its motionlessness.
And it makes not much sense that there should have been a something before the beginning of time that was timeless because of being static, and which was not nothing. What should that be? The most likely canditate for an absolute static phenomenon is the nothing.
" I am the alpha and omega"
Altho many might be turned off by any inference to anything that sounds spiritual because it defies the approach of logic or better said anything that can reproduce similar effects and beliefs within the subjectve/objective environment, anything that is pushed away lessens the totality of creation.
The basis of creation that the logical mind is attached to also has a big part in aversion to what it can't explain.
So taking what it can't explain it falls for anything that can be reasoned even if it doesn't answer the questions or fully support the answer.
The subtle aspects of creation can be experienced. Consciousness is born of the infinite and can experience the infinite. The paradox is always the same and the effort of the logical mind to try and define the infinite always leads to compromise, To the labeling of any idea or reason that cannot engage the totality of consciousness as being relevant, or irrelevant.
One can only point the way, never take any single idea and say this is it.
There was never a beginning and there will never be any end. Consciousness is, was and always will be.
The idea of beginnings and endings is a dimesnional tool fit to the foundations of 3 dimensional realities. The mind is not locked into the 3 dimensional any more than it is locked into a body. But the ego will always try to make it so.
Altho many might be turned off by any inference to anything that sounds spiritual because it defies the approach of logic or better said anything that can reproduce similar effects and beliefs within the subjectve/objective environment, anything that is pushed away lessens the totality of creation.
The basis of creation that the logical mind is attached to also has a big part in aversion to what it can't explain.
So taking what it can't explain it falls for anything that can be reasoned even if it doesn't answer the questions or fully support the answer.
The subtle aspects of creation can be experienced. Consciousness is born of the infinite and can experience the infinite. The paradox is always the same and the effort of the logical mind to try and define the infinite always leads to compromise, To the labeling of any idea or reason that cannot engage the totality of consciousness as being relevant, or irrelevant.
One can only point the way, never take any single idea and say this is it.
There was never a beginning and there will never be any end. Consciousness is, was and always will be.
The idea of beginnings and endings is a dimesnional tool fit to the foundations of 3 dimensional realities. The mind is not locked into the 3 dimensional any more than it is locked into a body. But the ego will always try to make it so.
Saying it has no beginning also is a logical statement. It is understandable that you don't perceive a beginning when you perceive IT in its unlimited version. But it's also limited to say it's unlimited. What if it had a beginning similar to what I described?
There is a question the scholastics have invented: Can God create a rock that is so heavy that he's not able to lift it? It was meant to prove that God can't be omnipotent. Because if he could, he wouldn't be able to lift it, and if he can't, he can't. (A more direct version would be to ask: Can God commit suicide?)
We're always using our mind to understand what surrounds us, also when it comes to speaking about God. Limited, unlimited, that all are mind's concepts. The quest is not to isolate the mind from God, but to let it grow towards him, to grasp him better and understand him more.
That's not saying that the mind is the best tool we have in experiencing him. The heart is more close to him, so it has an advantage in knowing. But the mind should catch up, not be left behind.
My opinion is that God had a beginning, but doesn't have an end. And he's so old and so big that from our viewpoint he looks like eternal and infinite. And it's interesting why he delivers us with such contradictional information.
There is a question the scholastics have invented: Can God create a rock that is so heavy that he's not able to lift it? It was meant to prove that God can't be omnipotent. Because if he could, he wouldn't be able to lift it, and if he can't, he can't. (A more direct version would be to ask: Can God commit suicide?)
We're always using our mind to understand what surrounds us, also when it comes to speaking about God. Limited, unlimited, that all are mind's concepts. The quest is not to isolate the mind from God, but to let it grow towards him, to grasp him better and understand him more.
That's not saying that the mind is the best tool we have in experiencing him. The heart is more close to him, so it has an advantage in knowing. But the mind should catch up, not be left behind.
My opinion is that God had a beginning, but doesn't have an end. And he's so old and so big that from our viewpoint he looks like eternal and infinite. And it's interesting why he delivers us with such contradictional information.
N: Saying it has no beginning also is a logical statement. It is understandable that you don't perceive a beginning when you perceive IT in its unlimited version. But it's also limited to say it's unlimited. What if it had a beginning similar to what I described?
J: It had both, from the infinite perspectives or possibilities. God has no beginning or an end and also has a beginning and an end.
N: There is a question the scholastics have invented: Can God create a rock that is so heavy that he's not able to lift it? It was meant to prove that God can't be omnipotent. Because if he could, he wouldn't be able to lift it, and if he can't, he can't. (A more direct version would be to ask: Can God commit suicide?)
J: God is not limited to the limited or unlimited, scholastics like to think in a logical linear fashion rather than multidimensionally and laterally, or both at the same time. God can be anything and create anything. God can be weak and God can be strong. God is. Wherever you go in mind or body god is there, in all thoughts united or opposed the definitions are limited only by perceptions based in forms. Only when you return to the formless can you realize all forms as the same God.
N: We're always using our mind to understand what surrounds us, also when it comes to speaking about God. Limited, unlimited, that all are mind's concepts. The quest is not to isolate the mind from God, but to let it grow towards him, to grasp him better and understand him more.
J: Then the logical approach to something that doesn't work would be to stop doing it. Stop thinking.
A man walks into the doctores office and raises his hand and says, "Hey doc, it hurts when I do this." The doc says, " Don't do that."
N:That's not saying that the mind is the best tool we have in experiencing him. The heart is more close to him, so it has an advantage in knowing. But the mind should catch up, not be left behind.
J:Then the best way would be to let the heart guide you but how would you differentiate the heart and the head when the head thinks it knows what the heart is?
N: My opinion is that God had a beginning, but doesn't have an end. And he's so old and so big that from our viewpoint he looks like eternal and infinite. And it's interesting why he delivers us with such contradictional information.
J: I had an opinion once.
J: It had both, from the infinite perspectives or possibilities. God has no beginning or an end and also has a beginning and an end.
N: There is a question the scholastics have invented: Can God create a rock that is so heavy that he's not able to lift it? It was meant to prove that God can't be omnipotent. Because if he could, he wouldn't be able to lift it, and if he can't, he can't. (A more direct version would be to ask: Can God commit suicide?)
J: God is not limited to the limited or unlimited, scholastics like to think in a logical linear fashion rather than multidimensionally and laterally, or both at the same time. God can be anything and create anything. God can be weak and God can be strong. God is. Wherever you go in mind or body god is there, in all thoughts united or opposed the definitions are limited only by perceptions based in forms. Only when you return to the formless can you realize all forms as the same God.
N: We're always using our mind to understand what surrounds us, also when it comes to speaking about God. Limited, unlimited, that all are mind's concepts. The quest is not to isolate the mind from God, but to let it grow towards him, to grasp him better and understand him more.
J: Then the logical approach to something that doesn't work would be to stop doing it. Stop thinking.
A man walks into the doctores office and raises his hand and says, "Hey doc, it hurts when I do this." The doc says, " Don't do that."
N:That's not saying that the mind is the best tool we have in experiencing him. The heart is more close to him, so it has an advantage in knowing. But the mind should catch up, not be left behind.
J:Then the best way would be to let the heart guide you but how would you differentiate the heart and the head when the head thinks it knows what the heart is?
N: My opinion is that God had a beginning, but doesn't have an end. And he's so old and so big that from our viewpoint he looks like eternal and infinite. And it's interesting why he delivers us with such contradictional information.
J: I had an opinion once.
You're being limited by your perception of time. In chaos there is no before and after to each instant because instants are not linked. Cause and effect creates time as we perceive it. Time is the seperation of the cause from the effect.
I don't know, all I can say is that it sure was a great feeling when he showed me how he started to exist. He even showed me how his first steps where, but I couldn't understand what it is, only a little. Perhaps it would be futile to figure it out. They might not have been steps, I know. But it was something like he appeared - he disappeared - he reappeared and knew it is a mistake to disappear. Upon that he realized that there is something he doesn't know, the nothing, which should be avoided. And then he found out that time is like moving on, doing new things, similar to the very first step.
But it was more difficult. It had something to do with the 5th step being the knowledge of eternal life. Perhaps it was all my projection because the numbers are also like this. First the 1. Then 2=4=8=...(Because you realize that 2=1x2, upon which you conclude 2x2 and 2x2x2...) Then 3 which brings 2x3 and 3x3 and 2x2x3... Then 4 as repeating 2. And then 5 which is in between 4 and 6, like 3 is in between 2 and 4. Upon this you realize that 7 is between 6 and 8, and so on. (I think it's funny that the electrones only come in orbits up to 7.) Meaning when you understand the structure of the first 5 numbers you understand all of them until infinite because the 7 gets interpolated in a similar way, and likewise all the other prime numbers. But if you understand only the first 4 of them you can't figure out how it continues. You'll understand this easier if you investigate the overtones.)
Perhaps numbers don't have any meaning for God, I don't know. But for some reason he showed me this. Could also be that it was not God himself but my Higher Self. On the other hand, the Higher Self is a part of God, so perhaps it applies to both.
The more important thing with this experience was the feelings, first the enormous spontaneity of creating yourself, then the error that has to be avoided, then the realization how you can continue infinitely. (Plus the things I have forgotten.) I think there was some reason that I learned this before I experienced God in his chaotic form. If I would have experienced the chaos first I wouldn't have given so much importance to these realizations.
(The Eternal Riddle: He knew how to exist forever, but he didn't know how.)
But it was more difficult. It had something to do with the 5th step being the knowledge of eternal life. Perhaps it was all my projection because the numbers are also like this. First the 1. Then 2=4=8=...(Because you realize that 2=1x2, upon which you conclude 2x2 and 2x2x2...) Then 3 which brings 2x3 and 3x3 and 2x2x3... Then 4 as repeating 2. And then 5 which is in between 4 and 6, like 3 is in between 2 and 4. Upon this you realize that 7 is between 6 and 8, and so on. (I think it's funny that the electrones only come in orbits up to 7.) Meaning when you understand the structure of the first 5 numbers you understand all of them until infinite because the 7 gets interpolated in a similar way, and likewise all the other prime numbers. But if you understand only the first 4 of them you can't figure out how it continues. You'll understand this easier if you investigate the overtones.)
Perhaps numbers don't have any meaning for God, I don't know. But for some reason he showed me this. Could also be that it was not God himself but my Higher Self. On the other hand, the Higher Self is a part of God, so perhaps it applies to both.
The more important thing with this experience was the feelings, first the enormous spontaneity of creating yourself, then the error that has to be avoided, then the realization how you can continue infinitely. (Plus the things I have forgotten.) I think there was some reason that I learned this before I experienced God in his chaotic form. If I would have experienced the chaos first I wouldn't have given so much importance to these realizations.
(The Eternal Riddle: He knew how to exist forever, but he didn't know how.)
Num
I find your description of Him fascinating. Can you describe the context of this meeting and some of the important lessons learned?
8)
I find your description of Him fascinating. Can you describe the context of this meeting and some of the important lessons learned?
8)
The context was iboten acid, the active ingredient of amanita muscaria, which influences the GABA receptors which are the brain's most important inhibiting synapses. That means it slooooows you down, thus very subtle currents come to the surface, very slow ones, and outside powers can communicate you.
I had about three occasions when this was strong, the first one was an experience of falling into an abyss, like Carlos Castaneda described, were I fell between two extremes in both of which I stayed for an eternity until I began to fall again to the other side. One of these extremes was like life, the other death. But that's just a description, more adequate would be that one was cohesion, the other dispersion. You can also say the tonal and the nagual. CC described he had a number of elastic bounces between them when he jumped into the abyss, so I guess it was basically the same experience, only that I was in bed, not in the mountains.
The other two experiences were both about the First One coming in and showing me some things, the most important of them being this beginning of time stuff. The problem was that I knew it's so important, and I didn't want to lose it, so I tried to write it down, which made my mind wander away and associate crazy things, which makes it difficult to discern the original message.
The problem with iboten acid is that you get very amnesiac. I had lapses of memory that were incredible. I did things which I only noticed afterwards from changes in my surrounding obviously effected by me. On the first occasion I broke my right foot, and couldn't walk for weeks, but I don't have the slightest notion how it happened.
The most important lessons learned were that consciousness is much more powerful than you can normally imagine. And that drugs give you a glimpse of what you achieve to perceive later on a voluntary basis once you're in control of yourself. That's why I later abstained from taking these things, because they give you a boost that lasts for some hours, but the weeks thereafter you're down. And a similar boost doesn't occur everytime you take them, so the few occasions that were really great were some kind of a fortune. I also think only few will get similar experiences after taking the same ingredients. That's why it's better to wait and celebrate these perceptions later on a regular basis without them.
I had about three occasions when this was strong, the first one was an experience of falling into an abyss, like Carlos Castaneda described, were I fell between two extremes in both of which I stayed for an eternity until I began to fall again to the other side. One of these extremes was like life, the other death. But that's just a description, more adequate would be that one was cohesion, the other dispersion. You can also say the tonal and the nagual. CC described he had a number of elastic bounces between them when he jumped into the abyss, so I guess it was basically the same experience, only that I was in bed, not in the mountains.
The other two experiences were both about the First One coming in and showing me some things, the most important of them being this beginning of time stuff. The problem was that I knew it's so important, and I didn't want to lose it, so I tried to write it down, which made my mind wander away and associate crazy things, which makes it difficult to discern the original message.
The problem with iboten acid is that you get very amnesiac. I had lapses of memory that were incredible. I did things which I only noticed afterwards from changes in my surrounding obviously effected by me. On the first occasion I broke my right foot, and couldn't walk for weeks, but I don't have the slightest notion how it happened.
The most important lessons learned were that consciousness is much more powerful than you can normally imagine. And that drugs give you a glimpse of what you achieve to perceive later on a voluntary basis once you're in control of yourself. That's why I later abstained from taking these things, because they give you a boost that lasts for some hours, but the weeks thereafter you're down. And a similar boost doesn't occur everytime you take them, so the few occasions that were really great were some kind of a fortune. I also think only few will get similar experiences after taking the same ingredients. That's why it's better to wait and celebrate these perceptions later on a regular basis without them.
can you describe the perception of and communication with Him, and why couldn't He explain why He should stay?
8)
8)
Numinoso,
How real.
One of mine for comparison.
He came in. he was about eight feet tall. I was enthralled and powerless. We were on my front porch. He pointed out to the garden saying: "This is her world, walk softly. You have no right to intervene." He raised his hand, it was also my hand. he pointed to the muscle in between the thumb and forefinger. He said: You reside here. Stay in the middle." He then closed the two fingers in a pincer movement. Saying "When this happens, then you will act."
It took me a week to unravel all that was contained in that simple disclosure.
I knew I had been spoken to by something far greater than I could ordinarily manifest. I was both humbled and thrilled that I had this experience. I was using an entheogen, which I rarely do, because it takes so much energy and there is a timing thing that tells me.
Thanks for being so honest, it is a wonderful atribute of yours.
John
How real.
One of mine for comparison.
He came in. he was about eight feet tall. I was enthralled and powerless. We were on my front porch. He pointed out to the garden saying: "This is her world, walk softly. You have no right to intervene." He raised his hand, it was also my hand. he pointed to the muscle in between the thumb and forefinger. He said: You reside here. Stay in the middle." He then closed the two fingers in a pincer movement. Saying "When this happens, then you will act."
It took me a week to unravel all that was contained in that simple disclosure.
I knew I had been spoken to by something far greater than I could ordinarily manifest. I was both humbled and thrilled that I had this experience. I was using an entheogen, which I rarely do, because it takes so much energy and there is a timing thing that tells me.
Thanks for being so honest, it is a wonderful atribute of yours.
John
Dan, I described the perception of him as far as I could. It was not visual, only the feeling connected that I learned about him earlier. So I knew it was him. And the communication was with meaning, without words.
I don't understand the second question. What should he've explained? And why shouldn't he have stayed? He's still here, as you can see.
John, it's interesting to see how others experience this. May I remind you that in the beginning he appeared to me as the Devil. (Later he became more and more abstract, without any symmetric or thingly features anymore.) The main difference between the Devil and a human face is that the Devil is red and has two horns. (And he's smiling and friendly, while humans are mean and ugly, most of them.) As you know, red means transformation, also a slower and older kind of energy as compared to what we humans usually have. And the two horns refer to the same two-fold nature of ours as shown by our two hemispheres. (I think they also refer to a more profound dualness of everything existing, but I have no idea what he means since there were no further hints so far. Could be cohesion and dispersion, or the active and the passive, or something else.) I also want to remark that there are many devils, and all of them are parts of him. Somehow they're all identical, but each of them has his unique personality. Not all of them are red, some are white and don't look like devils at all, but still belong to the same category. Even Zeus is one of them (he's nasty), or the creator of this universe (kind of stupid), and there are many goblins and other kinds of creatures. I had a unique experience when I was travelling on a train, and Manfred was with me, and we met lots, really lots of devils who were standing distributed all over the landscape, and sometimes Manfred saw a really interesting one and moved over to connect with him and look at him very closely. And all of them were friendly, never did I met a devil who would be mean. Some of them are very sly, and when you have the wrong intentions you get tricked and have a bad experience, but that's all for didactic purpose. If you're honest and clean and intelligent they will love you and show you lots of things. (There are some beings among them who are problematic, for example Zeus who entered my body and wanted to possess me, or some others. But they are few.) And many are outright benevolent and helpful, it's a pity that Christians have malignified everything that is not God and Angels, but the story is far more complicated since the creator of this universe (who is the God of the Christians) doesn't like the devils because they're so much older and wiser than him. Actually the story of the fallen angel Lucifer applies to him. He's egoistic, and influenced the Christians to turn away from the Ancient European Religion which was about the knowledge of the devils and other spirits. (In the Middle Ages red haired women - the Celtics - were said to worship the devil, which they did, but the devil was good to them.)
I don't understand the second question. What should he've explained? And why shouldn't he have stayed? He's still here, as you can see.
John, it's interesting to see how others experience this. May I remind you that in the beginning he appeared to me as the Devil. (Later he became more and more abstract, without any symmetric or thingly features anymore.) The main difference between the Devil and a human face is that the Devil is red and has two horns. (And he's smiling and friendly, while humans are mean and ugly, most of them.) As you know, red means transformation, also a slower and older kind of energy as compared to what we humans usually have. And the two horns refer to the same two-fold nature of ours as shown by our two hemispheres. (I think they also refer to a more profound dualness of everything existing, but I have no idea what he means since there were no further hints so far. Could be cohesion and dispersion, or the active and the passive, or something else.) I also want to remark that there are many devils, and all of them are parts of him. Somehow they're all identical, but each of them has his unique personality. Not all of them are red, some are white and don't look like devils at all, but still belong to the same category. Even Zeus is one of them (he's nasty), or the creator of this universe (kind of stupid), and there are many goblins and other kinds of creatures. I had a unique experience when I was travelling on a train, and Manfred was with me, and we met lots, really lots of devils who were standing distributed all over the landscape, and sometimes Manfred saw a really interesting one and moved over to connect with him and look at him very closely. And all of them were friendly, never did I met a devil who would be mean. Some of them are very sly, and when you have the wrong intentions you get tricked and have a bad experience, but that's all for didactic purpose. If you're honest and clean and intelligent they will love you and show you lots of things. (There are some beings among them who are problematic, for example Zeus who entered my body and wanted to possess me, or some others. But they are few.) And many are outright benevolent and helpful, it's a pity that Christians have malignified everything that is not God and Angels, but the story is far more complicated since the creator of this universe (who is the God of the Christians) doesn't like the devils because they're so much older and wiser than him. Actually the story of the fallen angel Lucifer applies to him. He's egoistic, and influenced the Christians to turn away from the Ancient European Religion which was about the knowledge of the devils and other spirits. (In the Middle Ages red haired women - the Celtics - were said to worship the devil, which they did, but the devil was good to them.)
that is the answer I was looking for. And all that talk of devils is very interesting, sounds good. In the Beginning, Devil was the cure because division was Life. At the end, Devil becomes the cancer because division is Death. You might say Goddess, who has also been since the beginning, is hard to please.
and can you tell more of Manfred?
8)
and can you tell more of Manfred?
8)
Manfred is a person I only know from visions. In the beginning he introduced himself as a man who was born 50.000 years ago and continues existing in a star. He showed me many things, of the most interesting sorts. But John says he's only my Higher Self.
It was him who introduced me to the devils. And he did much more to me, but it's hard to tell because the main thing always was the feeling he gave me. Like a benefactor, the greatest person I ever met. He called himself 'the devil's youngest son', but that was half in joke.
About the devils I want to add that some of them had a pointed chin, like a pointed beard, but not of hair. That could be a sign for the two polarities (the horns) being integrated into one.
If you view this abstractly it's like a triangle with one corner on the ground and two in the air. The meaning would be of a transcendental duality, mirrowed on this earth as unity.
Another thing would be a triangle with the basis on the ground, and one corner in the air, a common spiritual symbol. The meaning of this would be an earthbound duality (the two brain hemispheres) pointing towards a transcendental unity.
(A side remark to the Jewish symbol of the two interlocked triangles, one pointing up, the other down. That's the human looking up, and God looking down.)
Another side remark to a Mexican woman who told me about Manfred before I met him. (Which makes me conclude that I interpreted 'my' Manfred as identical with hers, and naming him after that, whereas in reality they probably have nothing in common.) She told me that he taught her a gesture with which you can draw energy from the cosmos. It consists of stretching the four fingers, keeping them together, touching the tips of the forefingers, holding the thumbs apart, and touching the tips of the thumbs, so that a triangle opens between them. Then you hold this triangle in front of your body at the place where you want to put that energy. You slowly inhale and draw the energy in. Then you stroke the insides of that triangle over that body part, bringing the hands apart. (Came to my mind because of that talk about triangles.)
It was him who introduced me to the devils. And he did much more to me, but it's hard to tell because the main thing always was the feeling he gave me. Like a benefactor, the greatest person I ever met. He called himself 'the devil's youngest son', but that was half in joke.
About the devils I want to add that some of them had a pointed chin, like a pointed beard, but not of hair. That could be a sign for the two polarities (the horns) being integrated into one.
If you view this abstractly it's like a triangle with one corner on the ground and two in the air. The meaning would be of a transcendental duality, mirrowed on this earth as unity.
Another thing would be a triangle with the basis on the ground, and one corner in the air, a common spiritual symbol. The meaning of this would be an earthbound duality (the two brain hemispheres) pointing towards a transcendental unity.
(A side remark to the Jewish symbol of the two interlocked triangles, one pointing up, the other down. That's the human looking up, and God looking down.)
Another side remark to a Mexican woman who told me about Manfred before I met him. (Which makes me conclude that I interpreted 'my' Manfred as identical with hers, and naming him after that, whereas in reality they probably have nothing in common.) She told me that he taught her a gesture with which you can draw energy from the cosmos. It consists of stretching the four fingers, keeping them together, touching the tips of the forefingers, holding the thumbs apart, and touching the tips of the thumbs, so that a triangle opens between them. Then you hold this triangle in front of your body at the place where you want to put that energy. You slowly inhale and draw the energy in. Then you stroke the insides of that triangle over that body part, bringing the hands apart. (Came to my mind because of that talk about triangles.)
| QUOTE |
| But John says he's only my Higher Self. |
it seems to me that this is not a necessary conclusion. Manfred may well not be contained in your psyche, just like I am not. Can you tell more of what you believe Manfred taught/showed you?
8)
Eriq,
Just a little adjustment. These are visions from the arena of the higher self that need decoding.
This is the first time you really put these into story form rather than relating them piecemeal.
They are, in the main, very reminiscent of Gnostic teachings. That God does not see this world, that it is ruled over by a creature named Abraxas, Sophia is suspended halfway between heavan and earth to assist in the return of her son Abraxas. There are manifold worlds, etc. I t sounds like you have tapped into this visionary field.
Jeseus of Nazareth was an Essene, a branch of the Gnostics. This is really worth an explore for you, I believe.
John
Just a little adjustment. These are visions from the arena of the higher self that need decoding.
This is the first time you really put these into story form rather than relating them piecemeal.
They are, in the main, very reminiscent of Gnostic teachings. That God does not see this world, that it is ruled over by a creature named Abraxas, Sophia is suspended halfway between heavan and earth to assist in the return of her son Abraxas. There are manifold worlds, etc. I t sounds like you have tapped into this visionary field.
Jeseus of Nazareth was an Essene, a branch of the Gnostics. This is really worth an explore for you, I believe.
John
Dan, the Higher Self is greater than the psyche already with C.G. Jung, who defined it. He said it's the totality of our being, but he also included things outside our bodies, like crystals, for example. In the view of John it seems to even go beyond that. He says it's like the nagual, and as far as I can see, there's no clear distinction between the nagual of an individual and the nagual at large. Joe would say that God is in all of us, in His totality.
The interesting question then would not be what Manfred really is (since he's God in his appearance for me) but his connections. For example, has there been a man born 50.000 years ago who had experiences which Manfred uses, or was this just a story. Or, is he connected with the Manfred of this Mexican woman in any way. (He obviously knows her, since he knows everything about my life, but does she know him?)
It's difficult to tell more of what he showed me. Most of the things had to do with my personal life, would be quite lengthy to tell, and pretty ununderstandable for outsiders. The last thing (some months ago) was that he was there for some days. (It's like that, there are months without any sign of him, and then he shows up again.) Then one interesting thing happened: First he became so powerful that I thought he's identical with the Devil, or let's say, with the Source. Until then I had always thought he's an individual, a human. But here he showed himself that advanced that I was really proud about him, and couldn't believe that a human is that one with God. And the next thing (or perhaps it was before) was that he began to unify with me, like he would completely give himself to me, like a father. (Like more than that.)
So from that I would conclude he's my link to the Spirit, to God, or how you call it. He also responds to commands of my ego, but has his free will and does things with me. (Perhaps in the end Manfred is on the same level as the devils or other spirits, only that he's with me always. Meaning that they also would respond to commands of my ego, although I rather prefer to let them act by their free will and only communicate with them in the way free beings communicate.)
The interesting question then would not be what Manfred really is (since he's God in his appearance for me) but his connections. For example, has there been a man born 50.000 years ago who had experiences which Manfred uses, or was this just a story. Or, is he connected with the Manfred of this Mexican woman in any way. (He obviously knows her, since he knows everything about my life, but does she know him?)
It's difficult to tell more of what he showed me. Most of the things had to do with my personal life, would be quite lengthy to tell, and pretty ununderstandable for outsiders. The last thing (some months ago) was that he was there for some days. (It's like that, there are months without any sign of him, and then he shows up again.) Then one interesting thing happened: First he became so powerful that I thought he's identical with the Devil, or let's say, with the Source. Until then I had always thought he's an individual, a human. But here he showed himself that advanced that I was really proud about him, and couldn't believe that a human is that one with God. And the next thing (or perhaps it was before) was that he began to unify with me, like he would completely give himself to me, like a father. (Like more than that.)
So from that I would conclude he's my link to the Spirit, to God, or how you call it. He also responds to commands of my ego, but has his free will and does things with me. (Perhaps in the end Manfred is on the same level as the devils or other spirits, only that he's with me always. Meaning that they also would respond to commands of my ego, although I rather prefer to let them act by their free will and only communicate with them in the way free beings communicate.)
well that's pretty interesting stuff
how did Manfred manifest when he showed up? Was it in some sort of 'second attention'?
8)
how did Manfred manifest when he showed up? Was it in some sort of 'second attention'?
8)
Some understandings:
The psyche is nothing more than the contents of the conscious and unconscious minds combined.
The conscious mind is jealously guarded by its master, the ego. Â The unconscious mind is chaotic and not yet harnessed. Â That is what I am attempting to do. This does not mean I am attempting to control the unconscious, but align it with the conscious world so the two can form a partnership. This partnership will allow us to excape the domination of the ego and its ruthless logical nature. To go to the other side is to be dominated by one of the contents of the unconscious.
That, for instance would be to link up with God. This would be to ignore the equipment and apparatus that we were born with to form this partnership. To kill the ego is wrong, the ego must be decontaminated so that it can act properly in the physical world. If the yogis recognized this, India would now be a Paradise. God does not reside on the physical plane, we do (our ego does). This is indeed a balancing act but it is the road to our next evolutionary step.
The unconscious is the warehouse and storeroom of who we are not and who we can become. Â it is filled with information and energy forms that try to penetrate consciousness. Â
The border between the two is the battleground.
Energy from the unconscious drives the ego without its knowledge. Â These are the archons of the Gnostics and the achetypes of Jung.
Many things coexist in the unconconscious. Â This is exceptionally confusing. Â God coexisting with the Devil in the same house.
The pressure is for things to come out of the unconscious and into the conscious world. Â This is the confusion. Â There is no telling what will come out next unless we construct that harmonious viaduct of communication.
The ego does not want any other entity to stick its nose under the tent. Â Most people for this reason are afraid of the contents of the unknown unconscious.
The main instrument of the ego and conscious is reason
The main instrument of the unconscious is visions and imagination.
Eriq,
The devil is red because it represents new integrations.
It is considered dangerous by the ego.
The Mexican woman is the intermediary and is feelings.
The pointed beard would represent the synthesis of the two hemispheres, pointing down to the ground-to be grounded.
I would take the information from Manfred to indicate this beginning alliance was started 50,000 years ago in human kind.
The unconscious contents is contained in our DNA
The psyche is nothing more than the contents of the conscious and unconscious minds combined.
The conscious mind is jealously guarded by its master, the ego. Â The unconscious mind is chaotic and not yet harnessed. Â That is what I am attempting to do. This does not mean I am attempting to control the unconscious, but align it with the conscious world so the two can form a partnership. This partnership will allow us to excape the domination of the ego and its ruthless logical nature. To go to the other side is to be dominated by one of the contents of the unconscious.
That, for instance would be to link up with God. This would be to ignore the equipment and apparatus that we were born with to form this partnership. To kill the ego is wrong, the ego must be decontaminated so that it can act properly in the physical world. If the yogis recognized this, India would now be a Paradise. God does not reside on the physical plane, we do (our ego does). This is indeed a balancing act but it is the road to our next evolutionary step.
The unconscious is the warehouse and storeroom of who we are not and who we can become. Â it is filled with information and energy forms that try to penetrate consciousness. Â
The border between the two is the battleground.
Energy from the unconscious drives the ego without its knowledge. Â These are the archons of the Gnostics and the achetypes of Jung.
Many things coexist in the unconconscious. Â This is exceptionally confusing. Â God coexisting with the Devil in the same house.
The pressure is for things to come out of the unconscious and into the conscious world. Â This is the confusion. Â There is no telling what will come out next unless we construct that harmonious viaduct of communication.
The ego does not want any other entity to stick its nose under the tent. Â Most people for this reason are afraid of the contents of the unknown unconscious.
The main instrument of the ego and conscious is reason
The main instrument of the unconscious is visions and imagination.
Eriq,
The devil is red because it represents new integrations.
It is considered dangerous by the ego.
The Mexican woman is the intermediary and is feelings.
The pointed beard would represent the synthesis of the two hemispheres, pointing down to the ground-to be grounded.
I would take the information from Manfred to indicate this beginning alliance was started 50,000 years ago in human kind.
The unconscious contents is contained in our DNA
One additional comment. Notice, except for Numinoso' reference to the two hemispheres, none of the discussion is about the brain. The brain is the physical counterpart to the instrumentation of developing this information arising in the mind and putting it into consciousness in the physical world.
The brain from this perspective is a subset () of the whole: the mind.
Shawn, any comments?
The brain from this perspective is a subset () of the whole: the mind.
Shawn, any comments?
| QUOTE |
The brain from this perspective is a subset () of the whole: the mind. Shawn, any comments? |
hello John,
I'm not sure how you define 'mind' above. Â If it's in the sense of 'Universal' or 'Absolute' Mind, then I agree that our brains, and everything else for that matter, are a subset. Â But this amounts to saying Atman = Brahman; i.e., Consciousness (or Self) is the Supreme Reality. Â If you mean what most people mean by 'mind', that is, an individual's mind, then I wouldn't agree. Â To be more precise, I think most or all of our phenomenal content (of consciousness) can be explained by brain activity. That is, I'm strongly inclined towards identity of mind and brain, though I keep my mind open to other possibilities.
hello Numinoso,
an interesting thing you said above:
| QUOTE |
The most important lessons learned were that consciousness is much more powerful than you can normally imagine. And that drugs give you a glimpse of what you achieve to perceive later on a voluntary basis once you're in control of yourself. That's why I later abstained from taking these things, because they give you a boost that lasts for some hours, but the weeks thereafter you're down. And a similar boost doesn't occur everytime you take them, so the few occasions that were really great were some kind of a fortune. |
I agree with you. Â I've never personally taken iboten acid (I place a veil over what I have self-experimented with, at least for the time being), but agree that the initial experiences are rarely, if ever, equaled or surpassed by later experiences. Â Someone on this board, and I'm not sure who it is, said 'Once you get the message, hang up', which I certainly sympathize with. Â The problem, of course, is that while you're engaged in such experiences, you never believe you've gotten 'the message', but only 'a message', and that you should retry or surpass the experience to see if you can get more of the message. Â This rarely, if ever, works though, because our brains adapt and de-sensitize, which presents a formidable problem. Â
Ancient peoples (for lack of a better word!) regarded mind-altering substances with reverence and respect (for the divinity the substances grant temporarily). Â That is really the way we 'ought' (yes, I'm being moral here) to approach these substances, and is the only way I've personally approached them (for the most part).
Dan, sure all that was second attention. You could call it dreaming awake. These visions were so powerful that I had them, no matter what I was doing, eyes open or closed. Sometimes even while I was talking with others. (Although that was quite disturbing.)
John, I wrote the post in the other thread before I read this. Yes, perhaps Manfred is a collective entity, contained in our DNA. Could also explain some things.
If that was so then 200.000 years ago also something must have happened because there was the Papua who said he's of this age. He was what you might call the typical patriarchal guru. A father who enslaves his children. Kind of spiritual, knowing lots of things. Not very intelligent, but greedy, possessive, possessed. Appearing in white light, like benevolent, but in reality very ugly. No wonder that I had this great battle with him, and in the end I killed him.
Manfred, on the other hand, is a scientist in comparison. Always curious, always exploring, and very intelligent. When I met him he was with the Papua on a 'ship' in the sky the latter had built. He was like his primary companion, but influenced by the wrongdoings of this monster. Because of that he also was a bit too dominant, kind of enslaving, and somehow possessive. But it seems that now as the Papua is gone these bad habits are gone also.
Do you think it has some meaning that stuff about Papua New Guinea? And Manfred said he's Austrian. Did he just want to please me? (I'm Austrian, too.) Or is there any connection to these geographic areas, or are they to be interpreted like you interprete countries in dreams?
(There were a few more persons connected to them two, among them Moses and Jesus. Jesus was one of the smaller ones on that 'ship', and Moses seemed to be perhaps the biggest after the Papua and Manfred, but still very small compared to them.)
John, I wrote the post in the other thread before I read this. Yes, perhaps Manfred is a collective entity, contained in our DNA. Could also explain some things.
If that was so then 200.000 years ago also something must have happened because there was the Papua who said he's of this age. He was what you might call the typical patriarchal guru. A father who enslaves his children. Kind of spiritual, knowing lots of things. Not very intelligent, but greedy, possessive, possessed. Appearing in white light, like benevolent, but in reality very ugly. No wonder that I had this great battle with him, and in the end I killed him.
Manfred, on the other hand, is a scientist in comparison. Always curious, always exploring, and very intelligent. When I met him he was with the Papua on a 'ship' in the sky the latter had built. He was like his primary companion, but influenced by the wrongdoings of this monster. Because of that he also was a bit too dominant, kind of enslaving, and somehow possessive. But it seems that now as the Papua is gone these bad habits are gone also.
Do you think it has some meaning that stuff about Papua New Guinea? And Manfred said he's Austrian. Did he just want to please me? (I'm Austrian, too.) Or is there any connection to these geographic areas, or are they to be interpreted like you interprete countries in dreams?
(There were a few more persons connected to them two, among them Moses and Jesus. Jesus was one of the smaller ones on that 'ship', and Moses seemed to be perhaps the biggest after the Papua and Manfred, but still very small compared to them.)
Shawn,
I see the organization of the psyche from a different perspective than science. That is why I have an advantage. I have two perspectives. The logic and linearity of the well disiplined left brain, word oriented, algerbraic, focused attention and masculine.
The other gives me a reflective resonance from the view point of the right side. Up until now, this side has been chaotic and mysterious.
It is diffused, feminine, symbol oriented and very visual. It is the land of the visionary and has been up til now, the operating ground of th mystic, shaman, and priest for the most part.
It has enormous content and is the main access portal to the mind. It has access to personal contents, archetypes that rule this world and keep it operational, collective contents that we all share and that reside outside the psyche. Images of 'God' reside here as well as the 'devil'. It contains who we are to become.
For these reasons, I differentiate and seperate out the mind from the brain. The brain has access to these contents due to its image processing abilities. That is the key point. We have an image retrieval system that can cause images to appear of these normally invisible contents. The images are manufactured in our own laboratory and influenced by our own experiences. These images must be decoded as they are filtered through our personal memories in the main. This is what opens the door. I am investigating and training this processor. If we are going to move ahead in our understanding of just how this world does operate, we necessarily also have to understand this half of the brain-mind. Science has been too regimented and timid to stretch over to this side to embrace it. This side has a different set of rules that it operates under. I only wish some one with some courage, sitting in the right position, would just make an examination of this world with an open mind and no preconceived notions. Most of our great discoveries came from this side, not the left reasoning side.
I see the organization of the psyche from a different perspective than science. That is why I have an advantage. I have two perspectives. The logic and linearity of the well disiplined left brain, word oriented, algerbraic, focused attention and masculine.
The other gives me a reflective resonance from the view point of the right side. Up until now, this side has been chaotic and mysterious.
It is diffused, feminine, symbol oriented and very visual. It is the land of the visionary and has been up til now, the operating ground of th mystic, shaman, and priest for the most part.
It has enormous content and is the main access portal to the mind. It has access to personal contents, archetypes that rule this world and keep it operational, collective contents that we all share and that reside outside the psyche. Images of 'God' reside here as well as the 'devil'. It contains who we are to become.
For these reasons, I differentiate and seperate out the mind from the brain. The brain has access to these contents due to its image processing abilities. That is the key point. We have an image retrieval system that can cause images to appear of these normally invisible contents. The images are manufactured in our own laboratory and influenced by our own experiences. These images must be decoded as they are filtered through our personal memories in the main. This is what opens the door. I am investigating and training this processor. If we are going to move ahead in our understanding of just how this world does operate, we necessarily also have to understand this half of the brain-mind. Science has been too regimented and timid to stretch over to this side to embrace it. This side has a different set of rules that it operates under. I only wish some one with some courage, sitting in the right position, would just make an examination of this world with an open mind and no preconceived notions. Most of our great discoveries came from this side, not the left reasoning side.
Numinoso,
I suspect that when you were in your difficult days unconscious contents spilled over freely over the border that the ego normally erects to keep these images out. Â The ego likes a nice orderly world. Â Your image processing equipment had free range to the this area of the world not normally encountered. Â I posted the above response to Shawn first to better answer your question.
I beleve you were exposed to metaphoric images that showed you past experiences of your/our lineage.
Papua=the native phase of our development.
Devil= theGnostic phase and this is certainly the dynamic that the Roman Empire distorted the idea that Christians brought foward. Â Along with the image of a patriarchal, stern God of retribution that would kill and burn forever in the fires of hell. Â This was obviously a 'god' to keep the superstitious in line.
Moses and his followers I believe had a religion that contained th instructions for the emergence of the ego, a departure from tribal and collective living.
Jesus- the instructions for the next step over and above the ego phase that has not been acheived as yet since the religion along with instructions were hijacked by the Romans. Manfred seems to be your local version of this set of instructions
Your visions coincided with the visions that were the genesis of these religious movements. Â We all have access to these visions. Â It is only up to us to understand and employ these available capabilities contained within.
John
I suspect that when you were in your difficult days unconscious contents spilled over freely over the border that the ego normally erects to keep these images out. Â The ego likes a nice orderly world. Â Your image processing equipment had free range to the this area of the world not normally encountered. Â I posted the above response to Shawn first to better answer your question.
I beleve you were exposed to metaphoric images that showed you past experiences of your/our lineage.
Papua=the native phase of our development.
Devil= theGnostic phase and this is certainly the dynamic that the Roman Empire distorted the idea that Christians brought foward. Â Along with the image of a patriarchal, stern God of retribution that would kill and burn forever in the fires of hell. Â This was obviously a 'god' to keep the superstitious in line.
Moses and his followers I believe had a religion that contained th instructions for the emergence of the ego, a departure from tribal and collective living.
Jesus- the instructions for the next step over and above the ego phase that has not been acheived as yet since the religion along with instructions were hijacked by the Romans. Manfred seems to be your local version of this set of instructions
Your visions coincided with the visions that were the genesis of these religious movements. Â We all have access to these visions. Â It is only up to us to understand and employ these available capabilities contained within.
John
I see what you're saying, John. Â My tendency to equate mind with brain I think simply reflects a certain pragmatism and operationalism that's part of my nature. Â That is, if the identity, or something like it, exists, then we are in the very fortunate position of being able to expand our consciousness and Being by tweaking and manipulating our brains in the right manner.
In the near future, we will be able to do these things, of expanding our consciousness by tweaking our brains, far beyond what we can do nowadays with the aid of meditation, entheogens, and electrical/magnetic stimulation. Â Understanding the relation between our brains (or neural activity) and conscious states will unlock the doors of perception in a manner that is completely inconceivable for us today to imagine the consequences of. Â I firmly believe that our notions of time (the past, present, and future), space, and individuality will be so drastically modified as to render our current notions nonexistent, invalid, and/or irrelevant.
I'm just being the pragmatist, John. Â Experience can be decomposed into Perception and Action. Â By equating mind with brain, I place emphasis on the Action component; i.e., of our responsibility to realize what I've laid out in the previous paragraph. Â Or at the very least, I regard it as my responsibility and as an inevitability of sorts, with me being but an instrument.
Â
In the near future, we will be able to do these things, of expanding our consciousness by tweaking our brains, far beyond what we can do nowadays with the aid of meditation, entheogens, and electrical/magnetic stimulation. Â Understanding the relation between our brains (or neural activity) and conscious states will unlock the doors of perception in a manner that is completely inconceivable for us today to imagine the consequences of. Â I firmly believe that our notions of time (the past, present, and future), space, and individuality will be so drastically modified as to render our current notions nonexistent, invalid, and/or irrelevant.
I'm just being the pragmatist, John. Â Experience can be decomposed into Perception and Action. Â By equating mind with brain, I place emphasis on the Action component; i.e., of our responsibility to realize what I've laid out in the previous paragraph. Â Or at the very least, I regard it as my responsibility and as an inevitability of sorts, with me being but an instrument.
Â
Shawn,
I too am a pragmatist and could only accept those things into my life that I could understand.
However, and here is the big difference for me, I found an intelligence on the other side that imaging retreived for me, that dwarfed my own ego parameters and intelligence level. I am partnering with that intelligence and aiming it at deciphering the shape of the psyche and initially undistorting my own psyche.
I am not an unusual case, a freak or savant, as I have been using these techniques on helping others as well to retrieve who they truly are. This is the first step as the next phase can not be built on distorted framework.
I am perfectly happy that you are working at this as well and only want to share my 'discovery' in the hopes that we can mutually benefit.
John
I too am a pragmatist and could only accept those things into my life that I could understand.
However, and here is the big difference for me, I found an intelligence on the other side that imaging retreived for me, that dwarfed my own ego parameters and intelligence level. I am partnering with that intelligence and aiming it at deciphering the shape of the psyche and initially undistorting my own psyche.
I am not an unusual case, a freak or savant, as I have been using these techniques on helping others as well to retrieve who they truly are. This is the first step as the next phase can not be built on distorted framework.
I am perfectly happy that you are working at this as well and only want to share my 'discovery' in the hopes that we can mutually benefit.
John
| QUOTE |
| Â I am investigating and training this processor. Â |
out of curiousity, John, how are you investigating and training your visual right side? Â Is it mental visualization of a special sort?
This 'intelligence on the other side', can you please tell us more about this or point us in a direction?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.