tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6817682567561164198.post273189481692193321..comments2024-02-20T09:54:37.105-06:00Comments on Talking About Ritual Magick: Non-Duality, Magick and the QabbalahFrater.Barrabbashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11689013897789072360noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6817682567561164198.post-1392210652667886562012-01-16T17:45:55.084-06:002012-01-16T17:45:55.084-06:00I am on the same wavelength, Ed. It has been my un...I am on the same wavelength, Ed. It has been my understanding that the Nondual is exactly what we are after, when making any attempt to describe the Absolute. It embodies what we, due to the local quality of our manifestation, consider to be paradox. The phenomenal world seems to operate best to us by differentiation (which is a fundamental discovery of linguistics via Derrida & co). When we approach the Ultimate Ground, though, the binary, on/off, either/or dynamic begins to fail, or fails utterly. This notion was introduced to me long ago by Buddhism (particularly Renzai and Soto), Taoism, and an acquaintance with quantum physics. I've wrestled on and off with it for most of life. Of course, once I stop wrestling, it sneaks in to give me an Aha! moment...and I promptly lose it again.<br /><br />I tend to think about it in this way: The linguistic realization that language is about differance (Derrida's spelling) hinges on the same realization that, once one has begun to talk about the Tao, one is no longer talking about the Tao. All languages are based upon some interrelation of Subject, Verb, and Object. The many (which is what language is built upon) precludes the All; the All precludes the many...within our frame of reference, as limited, local, differentiated intelligences. We are pattern-noticers by nature, so for us there can only ever be ground-vs-object, and the world in various states of action-in-relation. In the mystical state, when we have somehow suspended the normal operation of the mind and laid aside our tools, as it were, we sort of relax and release back into the All and have that moment of Satori which brightens our psychic sky like lightning, where object and subject cease to be separate. This is only "paradox" within our local frame of reference, unlike, say, the quantum level (which includes a principle of non-locality), where light can behave like a particle and a wave...because the ultimate reality of light is something we can't touch directly, but only model based upon the equipment (our body-mind) through which our consciousness experiences the world.<br /><br />I dunno, something like that.Quentin Watsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00543373075556474599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6817682567561164198.post-87324813227560295642012-01-15T19:15:09.684-06:002012-01-15T19:15:09.684-06:00Excellent posting on an essential subject. Is the...Excellent posting on an essential subject. Is the ultimate reality an undifferentiated unity, or do differentiations remain? Is it best described as the One or the Many? <br /><br />I like the approach of the contemporary philosopher Ken Wilber, who has argued that only a state that transcends the duality of the One and the Many can truly be called the Absolute. He writes that “pure Oneness is most dualistic, excluding as it does its opposite of Manyness. The single One opposes the plural Many, while the Nondual embraces them both.” <br /><br />Wilber explains that “we mustn’t picture the Absolute as excluding diversity, as being an undifferentiated monistic mush,” for the Absolute “embraces both unity and multiplicity.” Ultimate reality must be totally unconditioned reality, and any state of being that does not include its opposite is conditioned by the fact that it excludes half the picture.<br /><br />It has been suggested (in the Tibetan Dzogchen tradition, for example) that ultimate reality is paradoxically both differentiated and undifferentiated at the same time. The Indian Theosophist writer I.K. Taimni gives us a clue as to how this could be the case. He asks us to consider the example of the clear light of the sun that gets differentiated into the separate and distinct colors of the rainbow when it passes through a prism. He writes that this is an example of the simultaneous co-existence of both a differentiated and an undifferentiated state. On one side of the prism the light is undifferentiated; on the other side it is differentiated.<br /><br />The clear light of the sun can be viewed as a particularly apt image for an absolute reality that is both differentiated and undifferentiated. In Tibetan Buddhism, the ultimate ground is defined as a spacious expanse of Clear Light. This clear light goes through a phase transition into five-colored light, and those five colors then condense into the five basic elements that compose all the worlds of manifestation.Edward Dharmadhatuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05562977803902177381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6817682567561164198.post-54635639022299998672012-01-15T06:32:51.297-06:002012-01-15T06:32:51.297-06:00I was pointing out that pluralism need not exclude...I was pointing out that pluralism need not exclude some ultimate absolute- I didn't say it necessarily entails it. To me a pluralistic perspective is the only way forward nowadays, *whether or not* there is some ultimate monism underneath it all. <br /><br />"If I tell you I'm different because I defend pluralism and differentiation, and you retort that ultimately I'm monist anyway"<br /><br />which I'm not, as you can see<br /><br />'It's sickening'<br /><br />hope you feel better now.The Haunted Shorelinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07199364834724902722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6817682567561164198.post-7506806846561444412012-01-15T04:13:42.023-06:002012-01-15T04:13:42.023-06:00I think there is a difference and I think there...I think there is a difference and I think there's plenty of place and room in this universe for difference to exist. I also believe that there are more numbers than just 1 or 2 or even 3. Also, 0 is not technically a number or value at all. You are both trying to equate pluralism with monism and turn everything into monism yet again, which is exactly my point of dispute and departure. Quit trying to push monism on everything and everyone, quit trying to tell others of differing ideologies that ultimately they are monistic. Not everyone and everything is monistic. If I tell you I'm different because I defend pluralism and differentiation, and you retort that ultimately I'm monist anyway, that is no different than me telling a christian that I'm non-christian or even anti-christian and them saying that I'm ultimately christian in the end anyway. As if that argument wins any discussion. It's sickening.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6817682567561164198.post-61278375607855008152012-01-14T19:21:42.883-06:002012-01-14T19:21:42.883-06:00Another fascinating subject ! And strangely enoug...Another fascinating subject ! And strangely enough, I’ve been pondering on the subject days before I read this publication here. The concepts of Brahman and Atman, especially their relationship, brings the idea of the holon into mind. The definition of holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part. It was first introduced by Arthur Koestler and was popularised by Ken Wilber. A good definition can be found on Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holon_%28philosophy%29. As to the duality or non duality, even this could end up being the same thing. I know it’s a bit difficult to fathom, but some contemplation on pure numbers made me suspect that this could be the case. The metaphysical notion that everything came out of nothing (0=1) and the formula popularized by Crowley (0=2) {probably signifying that one somehow “reflected” or “reproduced” itself but with opposite polarity came out of nothing 0=(+1)+(-1), and that eventually, on some different level, the absolute values of the whole and its “reflection” are what counts |+1|+|-1|=1+1=2}. I realize that there are quite a few logical and/or mathematical “discrepancies” on this train of thought, just a weak attempt to articulate it as much as I can. All I’m trying to convey is that probably there’s no difference between mono- and poly-, and it is just a matter of perspective.Nik64https://www.blogger.com/profile/09143120114409716706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6817682567561164198.post-10112519014332611152012-01-14T17:14:58.144-06:002012-01-14T17:14:58.144-06:00Very interesting article and discussion, thanks.
...Very interesting article and discussion, thanks.<br /><br />Another point about Pluralism is that it does not deny the possibility of Truth- more that it acknowledges that we have to find many approaches to Truth- something like the Indian story of the blind men and the elephant (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant ).<br /><br />This means that what appears to be pluralism from our current perspective is nevertheless consistent with the idea of Absolute Godhead as outlined in the article. In this conception, Absolute Godhead is manifesting in all things- it is simply that which is: it is Reality. <br />http://thehauntedshoreline.wordpress.com/The Haunted Shorelinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07199364834724902722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6817682567561164198.post-26639973748822630802012-01-14T08:52:23.014-06:002012-01-14T08:52:23.014-06:00The problem with monism (one view and one view onl...The problem with monism (one view and one view only) is that those coming from a monistic viewpoint always try to demonize other views as dualism or dualistic, even when there is a multiplicity (more than two) views. Dualism refers to two and two alone, it does not refer to more than two despite how Monists portray it. However, what about those who are not monistic (seeing everything as one color) or dualistic (seeing everything as black and white?)? The dualism of monism and dualism completely neglects pluralism (seeing things in more than two colors but in a multiplicity of colors). Another problem with Monism is it's ultimate aim, a second death. Which is something many, including myself, find to be a fate worse than death. As one commentator put it, speaking of the differences between the Right-Hand and Left-Hand path, "For the RHP practitioner, their summum bonum would be to have their consciousnesses subsumed back into the godhead. This of course would result in the annihilation of their "egos." For the LHP practitioner, the one who goes against the grain, who exits contra naturum, nothing could be more abhorrent than to die a "second death." This is why the LHP practitioner trains their consciousnesses, while living, to survive their physical deaths."<br /><br />My point is, Monism is propagated like crazy as if it's some beautiful, wonderful thing. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Monism is totalitarian, it's spiritual and theological totalitarianism where one view is permitted and all other views are portrayed as dualism and the word pluralism is carefully avoided so as to make those of differing perspectives appear limited and as if viewing the world through a lens of two colors and two colors only, black and white or good and evil. Truth is in pluralism, which helps accommodate for the wide range of diversity found in the universe, far beyond just two categories and infinately beyond just one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6817682567561164198.post-24152596679151892742012-01-11T10:35:29.720-06:002012-01-11T10:35:29.720-06:00Thanks everyone for your comments. They are apprec...Thanks everyone for your comments. They are appreciated. <br /><br />As I stated in my article, forms of mysticism appear to contradict aspects of theology, or should I say, the popular misinterpretation of theology. <br /><br />Western religions in the modern era appear to emphasize the distinction between Deity and individual, and that there would seem to be little ability on the part of the individual to bridge that gap. This is especially true in forms of Protestant Christianity. <br /><br />That being said, the great Christian mystics from all ages have promoted a very non-dual perspective of Deity and individual. Catholicism has always lionized its saints, so it would therefore seem to be appropriate for Catholics to embrace their teachings as well. Other sects seem to emphasize the distance between Deity and individual to the point of greatly debasing the individual.<br /><br />Anyway, the combination of this article and comments has been an excellent review of this overall spiritual perspective, and I will certainly continue my studies and readings in this arena. <br /><br />FBFrater.Barrabbashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11689013897789072360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6817682567561164198.post-52437062068231240912012-01-09T23:08:40.566-06:002012-01-09T23:08:40.566-06:00Jason Miller makes a good point. Christians like R...Jason Miller makes a good point. Christians like Richard Rohr are bringing Christian non-dual thought to the foreground. This coincides with a modern re-awakening of Christian mysticism such as with the practices of Lectio Divina and Centering Prayer...both of which I, as a non-Christian, practice daily. I can't recommend these practices more highly.Christopher DeGraffenreidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327626274549153268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6817682567561164198.post-81057812974438750932012-01-09T22:56:22.957-06:002012-01-09T22:56:22.957-06:00Excellent post Frater B. Much of what you write mi...Excellent post Frater B. Much of what you write mirrors my own perceptions in regards to the essential truth of the Indian view of non-duality. After my own personal non-dual experiences of Deity the concept of Divine dualism, as it concerns Deity as ultimate Ground of Being, seems utterly alien to me. I cannot think in these terms any longer.<br /><br />I use dualistic concepts in my practice but realize that they are ultimately an artifice to help me to personalize the impersonal, giving name and face to the Infinite.Christopher DeGraffenreidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327626274549153268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6817682567561164198.post-90732075821942996112012-01-09T15:06:54.956-06:002012-01-09T15:06:54.956-06:00Great post, and very much in line with my philosop...Great post, and very much in line with my philosophy. Even though I consider myself a neoplatonist, I never took the spiritual hierarchy as having any more *true* reality outside the mind of Godhead than, say, the physical world. Nonetheless, these hierarchies do have a reality of sorts, and it is true that most humans will fall far short of connecting the consciousness of which they are aware to what is truly inside them. This disconnect, or partial disconnect, imho, is the source of all perceived duality. Humans successful in their magical journey will do better, making a fuller connection that is perceived as union with entities representing "higher" levels of consciousness; however, I don't think a complete connection of our conscious awareness to Godhead is possible during our lives, even though Godhead is within us all along, and really *is* us. So, from a human standpoint, duality will always be something to reckon with, real or not.Carolynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09200113863877978708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6817682567561164198.post-40933793425758136212012-01-09T11:29:47.575-06:002012-01-09T11:29:47.575-06:00Check out the writings of Richard Rohr on a modern...Check out the writings of Richard Rohr on a modern Catholic Ptriests thoughts on Non-Duality in the west. He would argue that the realization of Nonduality in the mind WAS the very point of Christianity.Jason Miller,https://www.blogger.com/profile/03034226672257024583noreply@blogger.com