Notifications
Clear all

Energy


 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

Hello All,

I have a question can we analogize the concept of God in 'Thelema' or any other religion for that matter in terms of energy? I realize that this may be a considerable undertaking but am curious if a synthesis is possible that can satisfy even the scientifically skeptic?


Quote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 

If you try to develop this argument, you're going to run into a problem with definition. As your post frames it, you're saying "God" can be "analogize[d] [...] in terms of energy." In other words, you're saying that there's this thing called "God" and that it is like energy in some way. In order to develop this argument -- and to get many intelligent people to pay any real attention to it -- you would have to clearly define what you mean by "God," clearly explain in what ways this "God" is like energy, and then provide evidence that would lead one to think that this "God" actually exists (not just that energy exists, which you're claiming this "God" is like, but evidence that would lead one to think that the "God" itself is actually real).

If, on the other hand, you're trying to claim that "God" is energy -- as one sometimes hears people claim, as if "God" is just another word for "energy" -- then I would submit that the label "God" would be completely irrelevant in that case. We already have a perfectly good word for energy (i.e. the word "energy"), and calling it "God" -- a word with a tremendous amount of misleading baggage -- is unnecessarily obfuscatory.

More broadly, your claim mentions "the concept of God in 'Thelema' or any other religion," which makes a number of very questionable assumptions. First, it's far from clear that Thelema is a religion. And second, it's far from clear that Thelema has a "concept of God" at all, let alone one comparable to those found in "other religions." While Thelemic literature liberally employs imagery drawn from other religions and the images of "gods," other Thelemic literature makes it clear that these aren't literal gods. We can say that Thelema arguably has a "concept of god(s)," but in an entirely different way than most religious systems.

I would suggest that the "considerable undertaking" you're proposing has a number of conceptual problems and needs to be thought through more rigorously.

P.S. I'm assuming, of course, that by "energy" you mean actual, physical, detectable energy -- and not the make-believe kind (the warm, tingly feeling that people can give themselves by imagining light floating around their bodies or so-called "energy centers").


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

First let me thank you for embarking on this flight of fantasy or fancy 🙂

"Los" wrote:
If you try to develop this argument, you're going to run into a problem with definition. As your post frames it, you're saying "God" can be "analogize[d] [...] in terms of energy." In other words, you're saying that there's this thing called "God" and that it is like energy in some way. In order to develop this argument -- and to get many intelligent people to pay any real attention to it -- you would have to clearly define what you mean by "God," clearly explain in what ways this "God" is like energy, and then provide evidence that would lead one to think that this "God" actually exists (not just that energy exists, which you're claiming this "God" is like, but evidence that would lead one to think that the "God" itself is actually real).

To be clear, I'm wondering if the idea of God as physical energy can be rationalized. For the sake of convenience let's use the God of christianity. Is it possible to conceptualize this deity and the mode whereby it influences creation in a scientifically accurate way? As you state, to be taken seriously? Better yet, let's remove taken seriously from the equation for the time being. Is there any possible benefit from conceptualizing the deity as physical energy. i.e. quantum field energy, etc.

"Los" wrote:
If, on the other hand, you're trying to claim that "God" is energy -- as one sometimes hears people claim, as if "God" is just another word for "energy" -- then I would submit that the label "God" would be completely irrelevant in that case. We already have a perfectly good word for energy (i.e. the word "energy"), and calling it "God" -- a word with a tremendous amount of misleading baggage -- is unnecessarily obfuscatory.

I would hope that it is possible to reduce the vast body of religious ideation into phenomena that has influence or influences this physical energy [god]. Unless the problem is that deity is in fact not energy at all or something as of yet which is a component of energy that is unrecognized.

"Los" wrote:
More broadly, your claim mentions "the concept of God in 'Thelema' or any other religion," which makes a number of very questionable assumptions. First, it's far from clear that Thelema is a religion. And second, it's far from clear that Thelema has a "concept of God" at all, let alone one comparable to those found in "other religions." While Thelemic literature liberally employs imagery drawn from other religions and the images of "gods," other Thelemic literature makes it clear that these aren't literal gods. We can say that Thelema arguably has a "concept of god(s)," but in an entirely different way than most religious systems.

I would suggest that the "considerable undertaking" you're proposing has a number of conceptual problems and needs to be thought through more rigorously.

P.S. I'm assuming, of course, that by "energy" you mean actual, physical, detectable energy -- and not the make-believe kind (the warm, tingly feeling that people can give themselves by imagining light floating around their bodies or so-called "energy centers").

This is the thinking through... One of my motivations for this is likened to the modest development of atomic theory. How Democritus imagined what reality was composed of and how his idea evolved over time into what we have today. I'm thinking that there is tremendous benefit to be gained from analogizing deity and the body of moral edicts into a language that can generate a greater functional understanding of 'it' and 'the teaching' which surround it.

I'm no physicists and to say god is energy is akin blasphemy in scientific circles. I'm no linguist so hijacking the idea of god is apparently blasphemous in philosophical circles. If we cancel my lack of qualifications what i'm left with is blasphemy - seem like a good starting point. 🙂


ReplyQuote
Markus
(@markus)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 264
 

I very much doubt God is energy. Rather, the personification of Absolute Spirit. What is Spirit? A useful good that cannot be used up. What is Absolute Spirit? Spirit that has returned to itself and become self-aware. Hegel's Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences gives a highly plausible and logical account.

Cf.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_the_Philosophical_Sciences

Markus


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
Is there any possible benefit from conceptualizing the deity as physical energy. i.e. quantum field energy, etc.

You mean as something that works within some framework under certain set of of rules and laws?
One should probably aim for that which does not depend on the laws, but which rather bends, changes, and transcends them.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
To be clear, I'm wondering if the idea of God as physical energy can be rationalized. For the sake of convenience let's use the God of christianity. Is it possible to conceptualize this deity and the mode whereby it influences creation in a scientifically accurate way?

You're still confusing two things throughout your post: (1) the claim that God is energy and (2) the claim that God is something other than physical energy that somehow influences physical energy or is also manifest in physical energy.

I think you're wanting to claim something like (2), but you keep slipping and calling God "energy" (as if you're talking about claim (1) and saying that God is physical energy).

It's vitally important to keep the two claims separate because it's all too easy for someone to slip logically and conclude that since physical energy exists, and since we're calling God physical energy, therefore God exists. That is obviously a logical error if you're arguing for claim (2).

More important is the point that we can observe and detect physical energy, but we cannot observe or detect some "God" that "influences" physical energy. That being the case, this "God" appears to us to be entirely unmanifest and is therefore indistinguishable from not existing.

What's the difference between a God that doesn't exist and a God that exists but can't be detected in any way whatsoever? There is no difference there. Even if this "god" existed, it would be -- for all intents and purposes -- a completely non-existent deity.

So I think, at best, (2) is proposing a completely superfluous and irrelevant deity, and there's no benefit whatsoever to pretending that some god exists and somehow "influences" the natural, physical stuff that appears to simply do its thing as if there were no gods, spirits, or "absolute spirit" at all.

One of my motivations for this is likened to the modest development of atomic theory. How Democritus imagined what reality was composed of and how his idea evolved over time into what we have today.

But we accept atomic theory because we can detect atoms. And furthermore, it's really only the name we got from Democritus, since he postulated that atoms could not be reduced any further, and we know -- thanks to observation and detection -- that atoms can indeed be divided further.

I don't see any benefit at all from having day dreams about superbeings that somehow "influence" stuff that appears to do what it does without any conscious intervention at all. In fact, I see indulging in such day dreams as -- at best -- distractionary.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  
"Markus" wrote:
I very much doubt God is energy. Rather, the personification of Absolute Spirit. What is Spirit? A useful good that cannot be used up. What is Absolute Spirit? Spirit that has returned to itself and become self-aware. Hegel's Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences gives a highly plausible and logical account.

Cf.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_the_Philosophical_Sciences

Markus

Thanks for the input,

So what you are suggesting then, , is that God is something that transcends energy? An unidentifiable, unscientifically provable  aspect of reality? Is it possible to identify Absolute Spirit in terms that are scientifically fathomable? As an example God in the xian texts is described thus, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being '[...]" Acts 17:28 This could possibly indicate the space/time continuum?

You also mention aiming for a definition of god that is not limited by the constraints of science - this is great - but it still leaves the conceptualization of deity in terms of physical energy a little vague. I don't want to forward an idea of a redressed god that sits in heaven overlooking his creation [yuck] I personally don't believe that is the case.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  
"ayino" wrote:
"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
Is there any possible benefit from conceptualizing the deity as physical energy. i.e. quantum field energy, etc.

You mean as something that works within some framework under certain set of of rules and laws?
One should probably aim for that which does not depend on the laws, but which rather bends, changes, and transcends them.

Well god would seem limited by the rules of the Universe. It could not just randomly break symmetry or system would collapse wouldn't it?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  
"Los" wrote:
"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
To be clear, I'm wondering if the idea of God as physical energy can be rationalized. For the sake of convenience let's use the God of christianity. Is it possible to conceptualize this deity and the mode whereby it influences creation in a scientifically accurate way?

You're still confusing two things throughout your post: (1) the claim that God is energy and (2) the claim that God is something other than physical energy that somehow influences physical energy or is also manifest in physical energy.

I think you're wanting to claim something like (2), but you keep slipping and calling God "energy" (as if you're talking about claim (1) and saying that God is physical energy).

It's vitally important to keep the two claims separate because it's all too easy for someone to slip logically and conclude that since physical energy exists, and since we're calling God physical energy, therefore God exists. That is obviously a logical error if you're arguing for claim (2).

More important is the point that we can observe and detect physical energy, but we cannot observe or detect some "God" that "influences" physical energy. That being the case, this "God" appears to us to be entirely unmanifest and is therefore indistinguishable from not existing.

What's the difference between a God that doesn't exist and a God that exists but can't be detected in any way whatsoever? There is no difference there. Even if this "god" existed, it would be -- for all intents and purposes -- a completely non-existent deity.

So I think, at best, (2) is proposing a completely superfluous and irrelevant deity, and there's no benefit whatsoever to pretending that some god exists and somehow "influences" the natural, physical stuff that appears to simply do its thing as if there were no gods, spirits, or "absolute spirit" at all.

One of my motivations for this is likened to the modest development of atomic theory. How Democritus imagined what reality was composed of and how his idea evolved over time into what we have today.

But we accept atomic theory because we can detect atoms. And furthermore, it's really only the name we got from Democritus, since he postulated that atoms could not be reduced any further, and we know -- thanks to observation and detection -- that atoms can indeed be divided further.

I don't see any benefit at all from having day dreams about superbeings that somehow "influence" stuff that appears to do what it does without any conscious intervention at all. In fact, I see indulging in such day dreams as -- at best -- distractionary.

The origin of this came about after observing a discussion in which one of the participants said they viewed god as energy. He was immediatley pounced upon by numerous atheists and i dropped my two cents in by stating that god could indeed be analogized in terms of energy. I'm always on the lookout for opportunities to educate the uneducated but as it turns out i'm the one in need of some education on the matter.

You stated above about my slipping between two definitions of god - to be clear[er] i want to isolate consciousness in energy and perhaps identify this with god [to make the two one] Perhaps explain god in terms of a composite of rudimentatry consciousness' [like atomic attraction and repulsion] culminating into something supra-rational. I'm not asking you to do this but rather would be testing this idea in relation to yours and others understanding. I have a few holes in my Theory of Everything.

I'm also having difficulty understanding; conceptualizing what the underlying substance of the universe is. My thinking is lead to identify it with chaos or the prima materia. I've got a few underdeveloped ideological fetuses here and they need to hatch muy pronto or its back to the frying pan. lol


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
You also mention aiming for a definition of god that is not limited by the constraints of science - this is great - but it still leaves the conceptualization of deity in terms of physical energy a little vague. I don't want to forward an idea of a redressed god that sits in heaven overlooking his creation [yuck] I personally don't believe that is the case.
"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
Well god would seem limited by the rules of the Universe. It could not just randomly break symmetry or system would collapse wouldn't it?

At the same time you seem to insist some separation between 'God' and the individual, and in the very next sentence you seem to fit both of them in some very vague term of space-time-continuum

"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
I have a few holes in my Theory of Everything.

That hole might be that you are trying to fit dualism in monism.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

At the same time you seem to insist some separation between 'God' and the individual, and in the very next sentence you seem to fit both of them in some very vague term of space-time-continuum

I would think that we are constituent of god at least in the reference given. In 'it' we have our being - an example of the Universe as spirit perhaps?  Just throwing things 'out there' not at anyone in particular.

That hole might be that you are trying to fit dualism in monism.

Perhaps, but...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_monism


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6838
 

"Deus est Homo." Remember that?

In English (both British et Americano): "God is Man."
Also translated: "There is No God but Man."

Is wo/man energy?
Sure.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_monism ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_monism

Fair enough.

So let's get back to your original view for your proposal to regard God, and ultimately what we may constitute of, in terms of energy or shakti
I have nothing against this view, but I don't like how it is being presented!

One could view this energy as some random, centrifugal force that seems to be projecting itself from "Godhead". I don't think this view is far from Spinoza's God ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism )

This is very apparent in some western schools of metaphysical thought, while the eastern schools portray Shakti's manifestation as something much more free and not bound by under any laws or restrictions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lila_(Hinduism)

Speaking in terms of Qabalah, think of Chokmah giving definitions to Binah. While Binah might appear as restricting this influence, while in reality, it is nothing more than illusion or source of illusion.

edit: I probably should not have touched this thread with a 10 ten foot pole. Consider me as a centre of pestilence 😀


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  
"Shiva" wrote:
"Deus est Homo." Remember that?

In English (both British et Americano): "God is Man."
Also translated: "There is No God but Man."

Is wo/man energy?
Sure.

That's puzzling. wo/man is energy?! Are you able to explain this with more examples?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  
"ayino" wrote:
"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_monism ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_monism

Fair enough.

So let's get back to your original view for your proposal to regard God, and ultimately what we may constitute of, in terms of energy or shakti
I have nothing against this view, but I don't like how it is being presented!

One could view this energy as some random, centrifugal force that seems to be projecting itself from "Godhead". I don't think this view is far from Spinoza's God ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism )

This is very apparent in some western schools of metaphysical thought, while the eastern schools portray Shakti's manifestation as something much more free and not bound by under any laws or restrictions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lila_(Hinduism)

Speaking in terms of Qabalah, think of Chokmah giving definitions to Binah. While Binah might appear as restricting this influence, while in reality, it is nothing more than illusion or source of illusion.

edit: I probably should not have touched this thread with a 10 ten foot pole. Consider me as a centre of pestilence 😀

Thanks for the elucidation. It would appear I have another hurdle  - the introduction of gender as a component of energy. Would it be far fetched to view the standard atomic model, electrons, protons and nucleus as representative of this dualistic monism? Or even to  assign the electron and proton with a  gender  with the nucleus being the first or original principle [emanationism]? I have an incomplete picture of the causal world but am burdened with these, for lack of a better word 'intuitive' predispositions. They bubble out in a hodge-podge of pseudo-scientific, philosophic, theologic ribble rabble. If i were to keep my thinking confined to the Judeo/Christian texts [which i am most familiar] then i'm able to make much more sense. Unfortunately, i'm inexorably drawn to share the insights i've experienced... I cannot escape this propensity in character. Ergo, i would like to build upon it, make it more accessible to those who have forgone some of those pearls of great price, so to speak.

p.s. it's too late  you already have the cooties :p


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

Speaking in terms of Qabalah, think of Chokmah giving definitions to Binah. While Binah might appear as restricting this influence, while in reality, it is nothing more than illusion or source of illusion.

Another inaccuracy on my part. I always imagined Chokmah as amorphous and Binah as providing limitation. For example Chokmah is a bowl of alphabet soup and Binah is the spoon which extracts words giving things meaning?


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6838
 
"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
That's puzzling. wo/man is energy?! Are you able to explain this with more examples?

E=Mc 2 {squared}


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  
"Shiva" wrote:
"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
That's puzzling. wo/man is energy?! Are you able to explain this with more examples?

E=Mc 2 {squared}

So woman and man equilibrate [with/at] the squaring of the velocity of light? Throw me a bone here. 🙂

PS.. please don't read into what i'm saying, if i use strange metaphors [heaven help me] its because i love the English language. If i say throw me a bone - it simply means elaborate. I know how minds work, at least in basic sense... 🙂 thx


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  
"ayino" wrote:

One could view this energy as some random, centrifugal force that seems to be projecting itself from "Godhead". I don't think this view is far from Spinoza's God ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism )

This is very good thanks!


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
The origin of this came about after observing a discussion in which one of the participants said they viewed god as energy. He was immediatley pounced upon by numerous atheists and i dropped my two cents in by stating that god could indeed be analogized in terms of energy.

Assuming that these atheists pointed out -- as I did above -- that calling God "energy" tells us nothing (especially since we already have a word for "energy"), then they're right. Your claim that "god could indeed be analogized in terms of energy" doesn't oppose that objection at all.

Anything could be analogized in terms of anything else. It doesn't tell us anything about the real world.

For example, let's say I claim to believe in invisible pixie spirits that look like squid with wings. I further say that they can be analogized as coffee cups. Alright...but so what? No matter how good my analogy is, it doesn't change the fact that there's no such thing as invisible pixie spirits that look like squid with wings.

Maybe this will help. There are two positions in theology called "Pantheism" and "Panentheism."

Pantheism is the belief that the universe is god. This can take two forms: either (1) the claim that the universe is some sort of conscious being that deliberately does things or (2) the claim that "god" is just another label for the universe, one we can use to reflect (or inspire) reverence toward it.

[Arguably Thelemic cosmology might be a form of the second kind of pantheism, calling the universe -- and indeed all possibility -- a "goddess" for illustrative or devotional purposes]

Panentheism is the belief that god is the universe and is also distinguishable from the universe. That is to say, god is a spirit being that extended itself as the material universe. So under a panentheist view, god *is* the universe, but the universe is not the totality of god.

You appear to be trying to argue for a kind of panentheism, but the problem is -- again -- there's no reason to think that any of these positions is actually correct (except, of course, for the second kind of pantheism, which is just switching labels, not claiming that something new called "god" exists).

What is it that you're trying to do? Just come up with some kind of internally-consistent and pleasant idea that reconciles a god with the universe? Or are you trying to determine what is true?

To put it another way, are you just trying to come up with a story, or do you think you have any reason to think that the story you're inventing has any connection with the actual state of things?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  
"Los" wrote:
"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
The origin of this came about after observing a discussion in which one of the participants said they viewed god as energy. He was immediatley pounced upon by numerous atheists and i dropped my two cents in by stating that god could indeed be analogized in terms of energy.

Assuming that these atheists pointed out -- as I did above -- that calling God "energy" tells us nothing (especially since we already have a word for "energy"), then they're right. Your claim that "god could indeed be analogized in terms of energy" doesn't oppose that objection at all.

I understand your reasoning and theirs. I didn't just leave it at, 'God is energy,' but i suggested that there be a translation of god as an entity into energy and the moral teachings as a sort of template of the molecular laws of propitious interactivity as opposed to the randomness that makes up ego directed life although not in those terms.... It made sense at the time additionally i always root for the under dog.

"Los" wrote:
Anything could be analogized in terms of anything else. It doesn't tell us anything about the real world.
"Los" wrote:
For example, let's say I claim to believe in invisible pixie spirits that look like squid with wings. I further say that they can be analogized as coffee cups. Alright...but so what? No matter how good my analogy is, it doesn't change the fact that there's no such thing as invisible pixie spirits that look like squid with wings.

Agreed.

"Los" wrote:
Maybe this will help. There are two positions in theology called "Pantheism" and "Panentheism."

Pantheism is the belief that the universe is god. This can take two forms: either (1) the claim that the universe is some sort of conscious being that deliberately does things or (2) the claim that "god" is just another label for the universe, one we can use to reflect (or inspire) reverence toward it.

[Arguably Thelemic cosmology might be a form of the second kind of pantheism, calling the universe -- and indeed all possibility -- a "goddess" for illustrative or devotional purposes]

Panentheism is the belief that god is the universe and is also distinguishable from the universe. That is to say, god is a spirit being that extended itself as the material universe. So under a panentheist view, god *is* the universe, but the universe is not the totality of god.

You appear to be trying to argue for a kind of panentheism, but the problem is -- again -- there's no reason to think that any of these positions is actually correct (except, of course, for the second kind of pantheism, which is just switching labels, not claiming that something new called "god" exists).

A plus minus, positive negative conception [dualist view] with an originating, possibly emanating unity? The demonstrable truth is binary?! You are right, I would probably consider my understanding to be more panentheistic with the [transcendent part?] representing the question mark, the great unknown. However that unknown could be an integral component of energy a sentient aspect which has inclination or animates energy; gives it a direction in addition to the tedium of routine interactions? lol *shrugs*

"Los" wrote:
What is it that you're trying to do? Just come up with some kind of internally-consistent and pleasant idea that reconciles a god with the universe? Or are you trying to determine what is true?

To put it another way, are you just trying to come up with a story, or do you think you have any reason to think that the story you're inventing has any connection with the actual state of things?

I just want to learn another language so that i might express what i know to be true in terms that can be meaningfully appreciated. I enjoy connecting with people and exchanging ideas. I believe that the truths of various religions should not be disregarded  based on textural appeal or superficiality. There is an entire UNIVERSE of information contained in the simple words in various texts, virtually endless applicability if viewed properly. I think those same truths, those same causal relationships which comprise them, which form the many axioms of religious thought are contained in science just obscured by language.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
i suggested that there be a translation of god as an entity into energy and the moral teachings as a sort of template of the molecular laws of propitious interactivity as opposed to the randomness that makes up ego directed life although not in those terms

I have no idea what that means.

I would probably consider my understanding to be more panentheistic with the [transcendent part?] representing the question mark, the great unknown. However that unknown could be an integral component of energy a sentient aspect which has inclination or animates energy; gives it a direction in addition to the tedium of routine interactions?

This is word-salad gobbledy-gook.

I just want to learn another language

Don't take this the wrong way, but you really ought to start with learning English. You've been babbling a kind of bizarre pseudo-language on this thread and elsewhere that isn't communication so much as it is obfuscation.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6838
 
"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
Throw me a bone here. 🙂

Energy = Mass (x) Speed of Light {squared}
Forget {c} Speed of Light.
Energy = Mass (matter).
Human bodies are weighed in Mass (pounds, stones, kilos).
That Mass is Energy. Mass is very real to us at Malkuth, but in the "little world" of atoms and subatomic gleeps, there is mostly space - just like (in the "big world") the Sun is separated from the planets.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6838
 

"God, self, and the world appeared at the same time - and they disappear at the same time."
- Ramana Maharshi


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

Don't take this the wrong way, but you really ought to start with learning English. You've been babbling a kind of bizarre pseudo-language on this thread and elsewhere that isn't communication so much as it is obfuscation.

  I suppose the problem i'm experiencing is one of perspective. How does one make sense of the phenomenal universe on a sub atomic level? As Shiva pointed out the sub atomic realm can be considered a facsimile of the world in which our senses give us meaning - that is the little world, the sense realm is the big world.  In the little world materiality breaks down into discrete spheres separated by enormous gulfs of empty space -  in the case of the human being there is still an cohesion between these discrete spheres [which comprise the individual]. Possibly this cohesion could be represented very simplistically as weak and strong force in the nomenclature of quantum physics. Although this view seems lacking in a complexity sufficient to explain the various degrees and qualities of communication between these discrete spheres which comprise the human being. For instance how does the phenomena of mind interface in the sub atomic world?  Does it retain the same qualities as in the sense world or is consciousness reduced to something other than what it was?  . This view gives new meaning to the term, 'Spaced out.'  🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  
"Shiva" wrote:
"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
Throw me a bone here. 🙂

Energy = Mass (x) Speed of Light {squared}
Forget {c} Speed of Light.
Energy = Mass (matter).
Human bodies are weighed in Mass (pounds, stones, kilos).
That Mass is Energy. Mass is very real to us at Malkuth, but in the "little world" of atoms and subatomic gleeps, there is mostly space - just like (in the "big world") the Sun is separated from the planets.

This was very helpful. A question however, are you suggesting that there exists a phenomena in the sub atomic realm that is equivalent with the Sun in the sense realm or big world? If so how would you go about explaining that? Also on the tree of life you equate materiality or the big world of sense with Malkuth - how would one view the other sephirot in relation to the sub atomic realm?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  

Los...thank you for the link! Whatever the devil that means? 🙂


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 6838
 
"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
... are you suggesting that there exists a phenomena in the sub atomic realm that is equivalent with the Sun in the sense realm or big world? If so how would you go about explaining that? Also on the tree of life you equate materiality or the big world of sense with Malkuth - how would one view the other sephirot in relation to the sub atomic realm?

I am not a physicist, and I will stop here. I'm sure Wikipedia will help you with the subatomic realm. As for the other Sephira, I'll pass (not respond) on one of those qabalistic adventures - mainly because you seem to have an endless set of questions, and I don't have endless time..

What is this stuff you are spouting about the "sense realm?" The "sense (seeing, touching, smelling, hearing, tasting) realm is Malkuth ... your Malkuth, my Malkuth, everyday Malkuth. The little world is the microscopic realm - we can see things there with a microscope, but we don't hear, taste, etc. and it has little to do with daily life. The big world is the solar system (one atom in the big world). Again, we can see some of it, with a telescope, and (again) it has little to do with daily life. We live in Malkuth - the "middle" world.

If god is energy, he/she/it has (again) little to do with daily life. If you have time to sit around and ask is god energy?, then congratulations, you are among the leisure class who works little - but ponders abstract questions. Your mind is free to wander away from Malkuth.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 

From Buddha's perspective:

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[sup:2lym0cy2][1][/sup:2lym0cy2] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[sup:2lym0cy2][2][/sup:2lym0cy2]

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
Notes

1.
    I.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha.
2.
    I.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana.

Commonly, the idea of a "creator" (ie. a God/dess) is viewed as the fourth unconjecturable, in Buddhism. It is for this that Buddhism has been labeled as non-theistic.

The general meaning behind the sutta is that thinking on those things will not assist one with the cessation from dukkha, will not help one reach nirvana, and therefore arr better off not entertained by thought.

From H.H. the Dalai Lama's perspective:

[flash=200,200:2lym0cy2] http://www.youtube.com/v/eIRmpQbebQk [/flash:2lym0cy2]

From U.G.'s perspective:

[flash=200,200:2lym0cy2] https://www.youtube.com/v/vrfQwJcHj8U [/flash:2lym0cy2]


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  
"Shiva" wrote:
"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
... are you suggesting that there exists a phenomena in the sub atomic realm that is equivalent with the Sun in the sense realm or big world? If so how would you go about explaining that? Also on the tree of life you equate materiality or the big world of sense with Malkuth - how would one view the other sephirot in relation to the sub atomic realm?

I am not a physicist, and I will stop here. I'm sure Wikipedia will help you with the subatomic realm. As for the other Sephira, I'll pass (not respond) on one of those qabalistic adventures - mainly because you seem to have an endless set of questions, and I don't have endless time..

What is this stuff you are spouting about the "sense realm?" The "sense (seeing, touching, smelling, hearing, tasting) realm is Malkuth ... your Malkuth, my Malkuth, everyday Malkuth. The little world is the microscopic realm - we can see things there with a microscope, but we don't hear, taste, etc. and it has little to do with daily life. The big world is the solar system (one atom in the big world). Again, we can see some of it, with a telescope, and (again) it has little to do with daily life. We live in Malkuth - the "middle" world.

If god is energy, he/she/it has (again) little to do with daily life. If you have time to sit around and ask is god energy?, then congratulations, you are among the leisure class who works little - but ponders abstract questions. Your mind is free to wander away from Malkuth.

 

I  appreciate the thoughts you have contributed to this thread. thanks.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  
"Azidonis" wrote:
From Buddha's perspective:

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[sup:1q6urgt9][1][/sup:1q6urgt9] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[sup:1q6urgt9][2][/sup:1q6urgt9]

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
Notes

1.
    I.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha.
2.
    I.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana.

Commonly, the idea of a "creator" (ie. a God/dess) is viewed as the fourth unconjecturable, in Buddhism. It is for this that Buddhism has been labeled as non-theistic.

The general meaning behind the sutta is that thinking on those things will not assist one with the cessation from dukkha, will not help one reach nirvana, and therefore arr better off not entertained by thought.

From H.H. the Dalai Lama's perspective:

[flash=200,200:1q6urgt9] http://www.youtube.com/v/eIRmpQbebQk [/flash:1q6urgt9]

From U.G.'s perspective:

[flash=200,200:1q6urgt9] https://www.youtube.com/v/vrfQwJcHj8U [/flash:1q6urgt9]

I understand this seeming moratorium on exploration may be due to its ability to distract one from the point of the matter - The pit and all of that jazz -  but I was never really smart in that sense. I appreciate Buddha and the sage advice he offers but I'm determined to bridge this gap in human understanding or at the very least bridge my own gap. Thanks


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
I understand this seeming moratorium on exploration may be due to its ability to distract one from the point of the matter - The pit and all of that jazz -  but I was never really smart in that sense. I appreciate Buddha and the sage advice he offers but I'm determined to bridge this gap in human understanding or at the very least bridge my own gap. Thanks

In order to "bridge the gap" the "you" has to go. It is therefore impossible for "you" to "bridge the gap".

Best of luck. 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
I understand this seeming moratorium on exploration may be due to its ability to distract one from the point of the matter - The pit and all of that jazz -  but I was never really smart in that sense. I appreciate Buddha and the sage advice he offers but I'm determined to bridge this gap in human understanding or at the very least bridge my own gap. Thanks

In order to "bridge the gap" the "you" has to go. It is therefore impossible for "you" to "bridge the gap".

Best of luck. 🙂

Indeed. I posted early that my problem was one of perspective. The assertion you've made was one of the first images to impress itself upon my consciousness. I simply lacked words at the time to fit this realization into my schema in a coherent way.  In support of this, i wondered what would happen to consciouness, as ones perspective shifted from the macro to the micro or subatomic realm. It seemed to me that the likely hood of consciousness remaining as it is in malkuth could be a  miscalculation as a  reduction in material complexity [the sub atomic realm] would seem to require a corresponding reduction in the complexity of consciousness. Perhaps this, postulated reduction in the complexity of consciousness, is the loss of self? I can imagine this consciousness  to be a state of awareness without inclination.

Either way it is very interesting thing in itself.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
Indeed. I posted early that my problem was one of perspective. The assertion you've made was one of the first images to impress itself upon my consciousness. I simply lacked words at the time to fit this realization into my schema in a coherent way.

This is part of the problem, either fortunately or unfortunately. Anything you, or I, or anyone else can say about "it", is merely an attempt to fit "it" into a standardized language structure.

In 'layman's terms' (not that they are necessary), even the word "God", when it is used in an attempt to encompass "God in Entirety", falls completely short of the mark. It is like trying to fit all of the water of the universe into a single tea cup.

Of course, we cannot do anything about all of the water in the universe, but we certainly can do something about the tea cup! And if the tea cup is the "ego" - then drop it (or smash it, etc.), and let the water find its natural place within the universe, instead of forcing it into a set model of ideas and configurations (ie. framework).

"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
In support of this, i wondered what would happen to consciouness, as ones perspective shifted from the macro to the micro or subatomic realm.

Are you familiar with the Two Truths Doctrine?

"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
It seemed to me that the likely hood of consciousness remaining as it is in malkuth could be a  miscalculation as a  reduction in material complexity

I'm not sure if you are equating the term "consciousness" with "ego" (?).

"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
[the sub atomic realm] would seem to require a corresponding reduction in the complexity of consciousness.

Again, familiarity with the two truths will help facilitate conversation.

It is more simple, yet more complex.

If you have a ball of yarn, it is very simple to look at the entire ball of yarn and say, "This is a ball of yarn". It is likewise more complex to recognize that the entire ball of yarn is made up of individual strands of material, which is made up of fibers, which is made up of molecules, which is made up of atoms, etc.

At the same time, if you are looking at the atoms, it is simpler to view the atoms in tandem, and see them "build" themselves into a ball of yarn, than to look at the ball of yarn and see its complexities.

It is the difference between approaching from the general perspective to the particular, and back again. Often, one takes an either/or approach, either from general to particular, or from particular to general. When both the general and the particular are one in the same (rendering the terms meaningless), there is no general, no particular, and no set perspective/method/avenue of approach. Therefore no preference exists.

I'm not sure if that analogy will make sense, but it's an attempt to describe it without actually trying to tell you, "It is this way", or, "It is that way", for it will be very different to you, as it is unique to each individual.

Here:

In all this let him be guided only by clear reason, and let him forcibly suppress all other qualities such as Intuition, Aspiration, Emotion, and the like.
During these practices all forms of Magick Art and Meditation are forbidden to him. It is forbidden to hi to seek any refuge from his intellect.
Let then his reason hurl itself again and again against the blank wall of mystery which will confront him.
Thus also following is it said, and we deny it not. At last automatically his reason will take up the practice, sua sponte, and he shall have no rest therefrom.
Then will all phenomena which present themselves to him appear meaningless and disconnected, and his own Ego will break up into a series of impressions having no relation one with the other, or with any other thing.
Let this state then become so acute that it is in truth Insanity, and let this continue until exhaustion.
According to a certain deeper tendency of the individual will be the duration of this state.
It may end in real insanity, which concludes the activities of the Adept during this present life, or by his rebirth into his own body and mind with the simplicity of a little child.
And then shall he find all his faculties unimpaired, yet cleansed in a manner ineffable.
And he shall recall the simplicity of the Task of the Adeptus Minor, and apply himself thereto with fresh energy in a more direct manner.
And in his great weakness it may be that for awhile the new Will and Aspiration are not puissant, yet being undisturbed by those dead weeds of doubt and reason which he hath uprooted, they grow imperceptibly and easily like a flower.
And with the reappearance of the Holy Guardian Angel he may be granted the highest attainments, and be truly fitted for the full experience of the destruction of the Universe. And by the Universe We mean not that petty Universe which the mind of man can conceive, but that which is revealed to his soul in the Samadhi of Atmadarshana.

"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
Perhaps this, postulated reduction in the complexity of consciousness, is the loss of self? I can imagine this consciousness  to be a state of awareness without inclination.

The removal of each "Veil" reveals the previous outlook as an aspect of an illusion. Veils being a term of convenience, some Veils are more familiar to the Western occultist (ie. the Veil of Paroketh, and the Veil of the Abyss), while some are not.

The "loss of the self", as you put it, in one sense describes the Veil of the Abyss (or, the loss of the ego's control over the senses).

But what you are talking about as "a state of awareness without inclination", is past that (on the Tree), which is the realization that there was no self to begin with. Compare this with Crowley's, "the Samadhi of Atmadarshana", or in other words, Shivatmadarshana, the Sight of the Destruction of the Atman.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  
In all this let him be guided only by clear reason, and let him forcibly suppress all other qualities such as Intuition, Aspiration, Emotion, and the like.
During these practices all forms of Magick Art and Meditation are forbidden to him. It is forbidden to hi to seek any refuge from his intellect.
Let then his reason hurl itself again and again against the blank wall of mystery which will confront him.
Thus also following is it said, and we deny it not. At last automatically his reason will take up the practice, sua sponte, and he shall have no rest therefrom.
Then will all phenomena which present themselves to him appear meaningless and disconnected, and his own Ego will break up into a series of impressions having no relation one with the other, or with any other thing.
Let this state then become so acute that it is in truth Insanity, and let this continue until exhaustion.
According to a certain deeper tendency of the individual will be the duration of this state.
It may end in real insanity, which concludes the activities of the Adept during this present life, or by his rebirth into his own body and mind with the simplicity of a little child.
And then shall he find all his faculties unimpaired, yet cleansed in a manner ineffable.
And he shall recall the simplicity of the Task of the Adeptus Minor, and apply himself thereto with fresh energy in a more direct manner.
And in his great weakness it may be that for awhile the new Will and Aspiration are not puissant, yet being undisturbed by those dead weeds of doubt and reason which he hath uprooted, they grow imperceptibly and easily like a flower.
And with the reappearance of the Holy Guardian Angel he may be granted the highest attainments, and be truly fitted for the full experience of the destruction of the Universe. And by the Universe We mean not that petty Universe which the mind of man can conceive, but that which is revealed to his soul in the Samadhi of Atmadarshana.

Acuteness achieved... Loss of interest is imminent in 5... 4... 3... 2 ... 1 ....

🙂


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 2967
 
"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
Acuteness achieved... Loss of interest is imminent in 5... 4... 3... 2 ... 1 ....

🙂

?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 52 years ago
Posts: 0
Topic starter  
"Azidonis" wrote:
"Dimu Nateeve" wrote:
Acuteness achieved... Loss of interest is imminent in 5... 4... 3... 2 ... 1 ....

🙂

?

In the most inexplicable way, shortly after reading your post, I experienced, possibly, what the text considered meaningless. Rather I momentarily experienced a feeling similar to pointlessness - as if the entire effort of the last few pages was an exercise in futility?!!! This isn't the first time i've had these sorts of experiences. For example I was having a discussion on a Buddhist form about the experience of emptiness in Zen and was later reading some  related material by  Xu Yun and emptiness happened.

I wasn't trying to dust you off and I greatly appreciate the information you've shared - mission accomplished. At least for the moment.


ReplyQuote
Share: