Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
During our life-times we may cross our paths with many energetic lineages with more and less intensity and effect in our lives and, for several reasons, decide to leave such lineages. Even if we leave the nagual(s) bodily, we are still within a nagual's "energetic influence". That means, the energy of the nagual's lineage may still influence us even if we are, for all practical purposes, out of it.
So the way to sever that connection that might burden us more than helping us, the key is "Intending to give up the lineage (or nagual's lineage)."
It can be enormously painful to sever such a connection and many times a mistake, but we must seek our own path of heart and some lesser paths might distract our overall energetic self from the path that is right for us.
This should be done as a extreme measure, since not all lineages are burdening. Some (I would like to think that most of them) are a lesser path towards a greater path.
I know some people here could use such a step in their lives.
Sidenote: This is why Carlos Castaneda, for instance, left Don Juan Matus and eventually returned to him. As a scared, anxious tonal he left, but his energy-nagual body was hooked.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Leaving and arriving...interesting concepts. Are you free to leave? Free to arrive? At first it helps to arrive, then it helps to leave, finally neither.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
In the instance of terminating a nagual connection it is, as stated, both an extreme measure as well as a painful measure. There is the arrival when the connection is created - and departure when the connection is terminated. There is both, as opposed to neither. And in my opinion, one is free to leave, as one was free to make the connection in the first place. When the connection becomes a hindrance, there is no choice but to terminate it.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Once we stop participating in the idea of a connection, its neither. One is alone with everything.
"In the instance of terminating a nagual connection it is, as stated, both an extreme measure as well as a painful measure." Gonzo
What makes you say this?
One was not free to make the connection, which is why they made it in the first place. If one was free, there would have been no reason to make it.
Then, eventually, one can finally get enough personal power "accumulated" just a word mind you, to leave. Then they appear to be leaving. Its just an appearance, as was the approaching, all in intent. It is important to release this idea as well, for leaving is just as much an act "of a self" as was arriving.
Stop the world. That's what DJ encouraged Carlos to do. Stop all of it.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Once we stop participating in the idea of a connection, its neither. One is alone with everything.
One is alone with everything regardless, however, there is always the choice whether to connect or not with another being. It is not an "idea of connection" - it is a matter of a palpable energetic link.
"In the instance of terminating a nagual connection it is, as stated,
both an extreme measure as well as a painful measure." Gonzo
What makes you say this?
Personal experience.
One was not free to make the connection, which is why they made it in
the first place. If one was free, there would have been no reason to
make it.
The connection was made quite consciously and with purpose. The reasons to make it also, were well known.
Then, eventually, one can finally get enough personal power
"accumulated" just a word mind you, to leave. Then they appear to be
leaving. Its just an appearance, as was the approaching, all in intent.
It is important to release this idea as well, for leaving is just as
much an act "of a self" as was arriving.
The act of leaving (terminating the energetic connection) is not an appearance but a conscious act. The implication that "we are all one" does not mean we each lack uniquely identifiable essence.
Stop the world. That's what DJ encouraged Carlos to do. Stop all of it.
I believe this statement needs to be understood. What is to be stopped is interpretation. Truly stopping the world would terminate this superb experience of manifesting in human form.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo wrote:
Once we stop participating in the idea of a connection, its neither. One is alone with everything.
One is alone with everything regardless, however, there is always the choice whether to connect or not with another being. It is not an "idea of connection" - it is a matter of a palpable energetic link.
So you are just flat out assuming that energetic links are absolutes? That consciousness cannot operate outside these perimeters?
"In the instance of terminating a nagual connection it is, as stated,
both an extreme measure as well as a painful measure." Gonzo
What makes you say this?
Personal experience.
Well, I have personal experience in this too, and it was not extreme or painful. Which is why I asked.
One was not free to make the connection, which is why they made it in
the first place. If one was free, there would have been no reason to
make it.
The connection was made quite consciously and with purpose. The reasons to make it also, were well known.
I'm sure there was purpose. Reasons may have been well known. Still, this tells nothing of freedom.
Then, eventually, one can finally get enough personal power
"accumulated" just a word mind you, to leave. Then they appear to be
leaving. Its just an appearance, as was the approaching, all in intent.
It is important to release this idea as well, for leaving is just as
much an act "of a self" as was arriving.
The act of leaving (terminating the energetic connection) is not an appearance but a conscious act. The implication that "we are all one" does not mean we each lack uniquely identifiable essence.
Who identifies the essence? Where is the essence located?
Stop the world. That's what DJ encouraged Carlos to do. Stop all of it.
I believe this statement needs to be understood. What is to be stopped is interpretation. Truly stopping the world would terminate this superb experience of manifesting in human form.
Yes the statement needs to be understood. Why do you say that stopping the world would terminate the experience of form, lol? Phenomena need not be terminated. I would say stopping the world terminates the seemingly all-inclusive perception that form and energy are absolutes. That there is nothing beyond the experience of energy and form.
What do you think the definitive journey is? The way CC wrote about it, it alludes to an experience of existence so different from the one known here, doesn't it? Of course to say here and there is misleading as there is no here or there. These words merely describe shifts of awareness.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:
Once we stop participating in the idea of a connection, its neither. One is alone with everything.
One is alone with everything regardless, however, there is always the choice whether to connect or not with another being. It is not an "idea of connection" - it is a matter of a palpable energetic link.
So you are just flat out assuming that energetic links are absolutes? That consciousness cannot operate outside these perimeters?
Absolutes? I suppose so...they exist and, as I said, are palpable. How this relates to consciousness being limited I have no idea.
Tiff wrote: In the instance of terminating a nagual connection it is, as stated, both an extreme measure as well as a painful measure.
What makes you say this?
Personal experience.
Well, I have personal experience in this too, and it was not extreme or painful. Which is why I asked.
c'est la vie
Tiff wrote: One was not free to make the connection, which is why they made it in the first place. If one was free, there would have been no reason to make it.
The connection was made quite consciously and with purpose. The reasons to make it also, were well known.
I'm sure there was purpose. Reasons may have been well known. Still, this tells nothing of freedom.
There was no comment about freedom.
Tiff wrote: Then, eventually, one can finally get enough personal power "accumulated" just a word mind you, to leave. Then they appear to be leaving. Its just an appearance, as was the approaching, all in intent. It is important to release this idea as well, for leaving is just as much an act "of a self" as was arriving.
The act of leaving (terminating the energetic connection) is not an appearance but a conscious act. The implication that "we are all one" does not mean we each lack uniquely identifiable essence.
Who identifies the essence? Where is the essence located?
"Cogito ergo sum" - that which thinks is the essence, located wherever one thinks.
Tiff wrote:Stop the world. That's what DJ encouraged Carlos to do. Stop all of it.
I believe this statement needs to be understood. What is to be stopped is interpretation. Truly stopping the world would terminate this superb experience of manifesting in human form.
Yes the statement needs to be understood. Why do you say that stopping the world would terminate the experience of form, lol? Phenomena need not be terminated. I would say stopping the world terminates the seemingly all-inclusive perception that form and energy are absolutes. That there is nothing beyond the experience of energy and form.
I didn't say stopping the world would terminate the experience of form. What I said was, imo, what the statement means is to "stop interpretation" of phenomena.
Tiff wrote: What do you think the definitive journey is? The way CC wrote about it, it alludes to an experience of existence so different from the one known here, doesn't it? Of course to say here and there is misleading as there is no here or there. These words merely describe shifts of awareness.
I think the definitive journey is one of reincarnation, that we are each unique beings of energy, that each time we choose to manifest in human form it is another opportunity for learning, that eventually we will leave the wheel of death and rebirth, that perhaps various teachings are relevant for various lifetimes, this one perhaps concerned with the teachings of don Juan, among others, at least for me personally.
In regard "here" and "there", you appear to be a proponent of the theory of non-dualism, with which I disagree, and would simply ask, "If there is something which is perceived, that implies there is a perceiver", which would describe dualism: i.e., a "here" and a "there", both of which are required to define one another.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
"There was no comment about freedom."
My original statement you responded to talked specifically about freedom. In fact, that was the whole point of the statement.
"Cogito ergo sum" - that which thinks is the essence, located wherever one thinks."
Who is that? What does thinking look like so as to be located?
"I didn't say stopping the world would terminate the experience of form. What I said was, imo, what the statement means is to "stop interpretation" of phenomena."
You were saying that it would be impossible to stay in human form and stop the world in any way outside of stopping interpretation. And if you ask me, just thinking its about stopping interpretation is not going far enough. That statement does not have the impetus to truly plummet the depths of what is occurring in this experience of phenomena.
In regard "here" and "there", you appear to be a proponent of the theory of non-dualism, with which I disagree, and would simply ask, "If there is something which is perceived, that implies there is a perceiver", which would describe dualism: i.e., a "here" and a "there", both of which are required to define one another.
There is no here and there is no there, that's only an interpretation. How did the perceiver begin? Where are his origins? Did first the perceive "become" and then the phenomena for him to perceive arose? And where did it arise from? How did all this dualism begin?
Absolutes limit because there are no absolutes. So its the "idea" of absolutes really.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Heh....I was wondering if we would run out of format....
Gonzo wrote:"There was no comment about freedom."
Tiff wrote:My original statement you responded to talked specifically about freedom. In fact, that was the whole point of the statement.
My bad. You did write "...Are you free to leave? Free to arrive? ..." This was never a question in regard my own connection. I initiated it, and in due time, I will terminate it, if I choose to do so.
Gonzo wrote:"Cogito ergo sum" - that which thinks is the essence, located wherever one thinks."
Tiff wrote:Who is that? What does thinking look like so as to be located?
I'd guess you'ld be best off asking yourself those questions.
Gonzo wrote:"I didn't say stopping the world would terminate the experience of form. What I said was, imo, what the statement means is to "stop interpretation" of phenomena."
Tiff wrote:You were saying that it would be impossible to stay in human form and stop the world in any way outside of stopping interpretation. And if you ask me, just thinking its about stopping interpretation is not going far enough. That statement does not have the impetus to truly plummet the depths of what is occurring in this experience of phenomena.
Maybe I can clarify. don Juan advised to stop the world. I don't believe he meant that literally, since truly stopping the world would essentially mean its destruction. In my opinion, what he meant was for us not to get between objects and the names of objects; i.e., stop interpretation of the world.
Gonzo wrote:In regard "here" and "there", you appear to be a proponent of the theory of non-dualism, with which I disagree, and would simply ask, "If there is something which is perceived, that implies there is a perceiver", which would describe dualism: i.e., a "here" and a "there", both of which are required to define one another.
Tiff wrote:There is no here and there is no there, that's only an interpretation. How did the perceiver begin? Where are his origins? Did first the perceive "become" and then the phenomena for him to perceive arose? And where did it arise from? How did all this dualism begin?
Damned if I know.
Tiff wrote:Absolutes limit because there are no absolutes. So its the "idea" of absolutes really.
OK -sort of Absolutes limit absolutely?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
My bad. You did write "...Are you free to leave? Free to arrive? ..." This was never a question in regard my own connection. I initiated it, and in due time, I will terminate it, if I choose to do so.
Yes yes, but it is the perception that is being questioned...is such a perception free? A perception that perceives forms with essences "inside" them?
Gonzo wrote:"Cogito ergo sum" - that which thinks is the essence, located wherever one thinks."
Tiff wrote:Who is that? What does thinking look like so as to be located?
I'd guess you'ld be best off asking yourself those questions.
Well...this is a discussion we are entered into and so the questions are to examine the perspectives being made to support a view. I don't need to ask myself because I already have. Though, if you are not interested in such questioning, that's cool.
Gonzo wrote:"I didn't say stopping the world would terminate the experience of form. What I said was, imo, what the statement means is to "stop interpretation" of phenomena."
Tiff wrote:You were saying that it would be impossible to stay in human form and stop the world in any way outside of stopping interpretation. And if you ask me, just thinking its about stopping interpretation is not going far enough. That statement does not have the impetus to truly plummet the depths of what is occurring in this experience of phenomena.
Maybe I can clarify. don Juan advised to stop the world. I don't believe he meant that literally, since truly stopping the world would essentially mean its destruction. In my opinion, what he meant was for us not to get between objects and the names of objects; i.e., stop interpretation of the world.
Right, I'm not talking about literally. But not simply stopping interpretation either. I feel it's a more exerted effort than that. Because interpretation is sort of a natural occurrence. Its not like we should be able to look at a rock and not know it as a rock. Of course we know its a rock. That is an interpretation and it doesn't necessarily have to be stopped...so what does?
Gonzo wrote:In regard "here" and "there", you appear to be a proponent of the theory of non-dualism, with which I disagree, and would simply ask, "If there is something which is perceived, that implies there is a perceiver", which would describe dualism: i.e., a "here" and a "there", both of which are required to define one another.
Tiff wrote:There is no here and there is no there, that's only an interpretation. How did the perceiver begin? Where are his origins? Did first the perceive "become" and then the phenomena for him to perceive arose? And where did it arise from? How did all this dualism begin?
Damned if I know.
Right, so how can you be so sure about dualism then? That dualism is an absolute you seem to think...that nothing can be perceived beyond it. This is really a zen discussion topic...or at least, it has turned into one.
Reformated format
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:...it is the perception that is being questioned...is such a perception free? A perception that perceives forms with essences "inside" them?
The perception was what it was - a perception. Was it free? I have no way of knowing. What was perceived was two things: first, I had reached the end of my rope in terms of ever freeing myself of the psychological place I found myself: second, I had somehow managed to encounter someone who could be of assistance.
Tiff wrote:...this is a discussion we are entered into and so the questions are to examine the perspectives being made to support a view. I don't need to ask myself because I already have. Though, if you are not interested in such questioning, that's cool.
You questioned who was making connections (etc) - my response "the one thinking". Perhaps this could be the topic of another thread in which I would enjoy continuing the discussion. I chose not to continue in this thread on the basis it was irrelevant to the current topic.
In re don Juan's comment to "stop the world":
Tiff wrote:Right, I'm not talking about literally. But not simply stopping interpretation either. I feel it's a more exerted effort than that. Because interpretation is sort of a natural occurrence. Its not like we should be able to look at a rock and not know it as a rock. Of course we know its a rock. That is an interpretation and it doesn't necessarily have to be stopped...so what does?
First, nothing NEED be stopped, however, the energetic essence of phenomena perhaps may not be rightly perceived if not. There are several instances in the teachings of don Juan where he had Castaneda stare fixedly at various objects, and in due time, what Carlos thought he was looking at was not what he originally perceived. In at least one instance one of those objects was a "rock".
In re dualism v non-dualism:
Tiff wrote:...how can you be so sure about dualism then? That dualism is an absolute you seem to think...that nothing can be perceived beyond it. This is really a zen discussion topic...or at least, it has turned into one.
I cannot be sure, nor absolute, about dualism. I said merely I disagree with the theory of non-dualism. My reason for preferring the theory of dualism is as stated, that it appears the perceiver and the perceived are two distinct entities. This in no way ignores the apparant fact that all phenomena are expressions of the same basic element: energy - and that it is possible to perceive that energy in a primal way despite its manifestation. That does not mean we are all the same...it DOES mean we are all made of the same stuff.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
The perception was what it was - a perception. Was it free? I have no way of knowing. What was perceived was two things: first, I had reached the end of my rope in terms of ever freeing myself of the psychological place I found myself: second, I had somehow managed to encounter someone who could be of assistance.
It seems to me you are focused on freedom in the American sense...democracy, freedom of speech, freedom to think as you wish, etc. Such freedoms are not the freedom I am talking about. And before you say no that is not the freedom you are focused on, just know that the freedom I refer to has nothing to do with any social arrangement. And what you discuss above is a social arrangement and also I feel you perceive it has energetic implications to your life personally.
First, nothing NEED be stopped, however, the energetic essence of
phenomena perhaps may not be rightly perceived if not. There are
several instances in the teachings of don Juan where he had Castaneda
stare fixedly at various objects, and in due time, what Carlos thought
he was looking at was not what he originally perceived. In at least one
instance one of those objects was a "rock".
Energetic essence. So for you that is the end of the road? At the "bottom" of everything is energy? There is nothing "beyond" that? That's what I was saying earlier about form and energy being where most everyone gets stuck. They perceive that there is something beyond form...energy. And when they arrive at this comprehension they rest upon their conclusions. Still discontent but feeling the discontentment is not due to an erroneous assumption, but some other unchangeable factor of existence. And I'm saying it is changeable! There is more to see and experience beyond energy.
I cannot be sure, nor absolute, about dualism. I said merely I disagree
with the theory of non-dualism. My reason for preferring the theory of
dualism is as stated, that it appears the perceiver and the perceived
are two distinct entities. This in no way ignores the apparant fact
that all phenomena are expressions of the same basic element: energy -
and that it is possible to perceive that energy in a primal way despite
its manifestation. That does not mean we are all the same...it DOES
mean we are all made of the same stuff.
You indicated previously you believed in a "Oneness", so if there is unity, why would duality be a starting point? This syntax I use here is not what I prefer to use, but I do think its important to reference this "Oneness" that is widely accepted, and somehow the duality that is also widely accepted simultaneously both as absolutes. Yet they are in complete contradiction of one another. Its much like evolution of species meets the garden of Eden creationism theory...everyone is just "ok" with the contradiction. Nothing wrong with being ok with it if one fully understands why one is ok with it, lol. But to be ok with it just because you can't see how to come to terms with it...that warrants more exploration, I think. Or maybe you think you've come to terms with it, but do not feel contentment upon that conclusion. That's another indication of needing more exploration.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
"That does not mean we are all the same...it DOES mean we are all made of the same stuff."
To put this questioning to you more directly...
At what point do you perceive this "same stuff" was able to create energetic essences that were not all the same? If at the very base of reality is a sameness, such as you consider to be the case, how can a sameness know anything outside of being same? You see energy as the basic same component, so how can a basic unified component create anything outside of its unity?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
I for one am impressed with your depth Tiff..you show a huge dimension of awareness. I am glad to see you on the forefront of this forum's main subject matter. I, would like you to see you join us without the parallelpeception tag but that is your choosing. The Lujan connection here has never been one that is generally accepted. I would love to see you join us in the inner circle as you would not see the past experience at PP here I would hope and project.
-wolf
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
"I, would like you to see you join us without the parallelpeception tag but that is your choosing."
Actually it's not my choosing. I tried previously to sign-up for a general account...when I do this it says my email is already connected to an account and does not let me proceed. Maybe someone has information on that?
Personally I never let it bother me. Like Gonzo and fool also have tags. I just know that means when they opened their account they did it through that forum. To me it does not mean it represents the forum. I am banned from PP so no I am not representing it, lol. I suppose one could look at it like I am if they want to. The words I express here, especially in this thread, come from Mahayana Buddhism not PP, if that helps to clarify for anyone. What I refer to comes from a 2nd century AD text called The Fundamentals of the Middle Way.
As far as connections go, I fall in the category of neither, as expressed to Gonzo. That being said, I feel connected to everyone and am enjoying participating here.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:It seems to me you are focused on freedom in the American sense...democracy, freedom of speech, freedom to think as you wish, etc. Such freedoms are not the freedom I am talking about. And before you say no that is not the freedom you are focused on, just know that the freedom I refer to has nothing to do with any social arrangement. And what you discuss above is a social arrangement and also I feel you perceive it has energetic implications to your life personally.
What is the freedom to which you refer?
Tiff wrote:Energetic essence. So for you that is the end of the road? At the "bottom" of everything is energy? There is nothing "beyond" that? That's what I was saying earlier about form and energy being where most everyone gets stuck. They perceive that there is something beyond form...energy. And when they arrive at this comprehension they rest upon their conclusions. Still discontent but feeling the discontentment is not due to an erroneous assumption, but some other unchangeable factor of existence. And I'm saying it is changeable! There is more to see and experience beyond energy.
I'm content with the notion of energy. You claim there is a changeable factor of existence and that there is more to see and experience beyond energy. For example?
Tiff wrote:You indicated previously you believed in a "Oneness", so if there is unity, why would duality be a starting point?
er, the whole is comprised of individual parts?
Tiff wrote:This syntax I use here is not what I prefer to use,
Ah....I presume you are Chinese, and unfortunately, I don't speak Chinese.
Tiff wrote:...but I do think its important to reference this "Oneness" that is widely accepted, and somehow the duality that is also widely accepted simultaneously both as absolutes.
Not absolutes...theories.
Tiff wrote:Yet they are in complete contradiction of one another. Its much like evolution of species meets the garden of Eden creationism theory...everyone is just "ok" with the contradiction. Nothing wrong with being ok with it if one fully understands why one is ok with it, lol. But to be ok with it just because you can't see how to come to terms with it...that warrants more exploration, I think. Or maybe you think you've come to terms with it, but do not feel contentment upon that conclusion. That's another indication of needing more exploration.
I'm OK with the notion for the same reason I'm OK with various other theories concerning the purpose of human existence - they make sense to me. I find them to be reasonable theories.
In regard contentment, I once defined enlightenment as "genuine contentment".
In my opinion, there is no way to obtain an absolute and satisfactory explanation for the question or essence of being. The best I can do, so far, is to accept those theories that I personally find most plausible, most logical, most satisfying to my way of thinking. I cannot prove any of them and don't expect to be able to.
Tiff wrote:At what point do you perceive this "same stuff" was able to create energetic essences that were not all the same? If at the very base of reality is a sameness, such as you consider to be the case, how can a sameness know anything outside of being same? You see energy as the basic same component, so how can a basic unified component create anything outside of its unity?
The sameness comes only from the matter used in the creation of things. That is, it appears everything in existence is comprised of the same stuff (atoms), however, each arrangement of stuff is unique. The thing difficult to grasp is the notion of energy which seems only to be described by its effect, rather like defining wind in terms of its effect. Is energy the same as electricity? or magnetism? What is it that departs from the body at death? How is it we manage to communicate? What are your notions?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
What is the freedom to which you refer?
Freedom from distinguishing "self" from "others".
"I'm content with the notion of energy. You claim there is a changeable factor of existence and that there is more to see and experience beyond energy. For example?"
I'm inviting you to consider and thus you would experience yourself. We can't arrive at it by talking about it, but by talking about it and exploring it in a genuine way, one will arrive at it if that's what one desires to do. But your mind has to be open, right now you are skeptical and asking for proof, ok, via this discussion I will endeavor to provide that. But the key word here is experience.
Tiff wrote:You indicated previously you believed in a "Oneness", so if there is unity, why would duality be a starting point?
er, the whole is comprised of individual parts?
If they are individual, how can they be "One". A bunch of individual parts would be all individual (unrelated). So you are essentially trying to say they are related yet they aren't. How could that be? Where is the unifying factor of "individual parts"?
Tiff wrote:This syntax I use here is not what I prefer to use,
Ah....I presume you are Chinese, and unfortunately, I don't speak Chinese.
Actually, I meant the syntax of "oneness" and "unity" well-worn phrases. I am American, living in China.
Tiff wrote:...but I do think its important to reference this "Oneness" that is widely accepted, and somehow the duality that is also widely accepted simultaneously both as absolutes.
Not absolutes...theories.
But theories that are so accepted they function like conclusions (absolutes) and exploration outside them is virtually absent.
In my opinion, there is no way to obtain an absolute and satisfactory explanation for the question or essence of being. The best I can do, so far, is to accept those theories that I personally find most plausible, most logical, most satisfying to my way of thinking. I cannot prove any of them and don't expect to be able to.
Ah, essence of being, there lies what should be questioned. That can be questioned and answered. Which is what we are doing.
So if you already suspect you cannot prove essence, why accept any theories about it? But that does not mean you should rest upon the idea you cannot get answers to essence period. It only means you have thus far been approaching the questioning ineffectively.
The sameness comes only from the matter used in the creation of things. That is, it appears everything in existence is comprised of the same stuff (atoms), however, each arrangement of stuff is unique. The thing difficult to grasp is the notion of energy which seems only to be described by its effect, rather like defining wind in terms of its effect. Is energy the same as electricity? or magnetism? What is it that departs from the body at death? How is it we manage to communicate? What are your notions?
If essence were just sameness, nothing would change, sameness would be frozen, immobile, unable to diversify out of its intrinsic sameness. If essence was diversity, nothing would interact with anything else with nothing in common, again frozen, immobile. So where is essence?
If one object has nothing in common with another, what could they
possibly exchange between each other? And if there is a common factor
between both objects, one would have to say the common factor is the
base sameness, and if it is the base sameness, then how did the
diversity ever come about from the origination of sameness? What created
diversity from sameness? The sameness from the diversity?
Where is the essence? Where is the First Cause?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Summer Dawne wrote:I think that we should all take oaths of silence and work on developing mystical auras..
Good idea.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Gonzo, if you like, we can continue our discussion here http://sorcery.yuku.com/topic/2212/master/1/?page=4
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Philosopher wrote:Summer Dawne wrote:I think that we should all take oaths of silence and work on developing mystical auras..
Good idea.
What we are doing, to paraphrase a bit of Zen, is "locking lips and covering each other with slobber". No one is forcing you to read.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Tiff wrote:Gonzo, if you like, we can continue our discussion here http://sorcery.yuku.com/topic/2212/master/1/?page=4
Done.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Tsk, tsk, SD....I thought this place was for sorcerers, seers, and Naguals interested in magic.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2019
Summer Dawne wrote:.
SD please refrain from leaving edited posts in that fashion.
|
