Quote:
Originally Posted by Maguru  Anagogy, I love your post and am looking forward to more. I would love to know how you came by all this information? |
I could say I channeled it, but at the end of the day, that doesn't add or subtract to it's validity or falseness. So I call it inspiration brought forth from personal meditation. I've always intended to know truth, and have been guided to circumstances, books, ideas, and experiences that I feel have helped facilitate that. However, I don't claim to know anything. Like Socrates said, if I claim to be a wise man, it surely means that I don't know. I don't care what the answers to existence end up being, I just want to learn them regardless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maguru I have no problems understanding anything you have said. I looked for questions and, unusually for me, I can't find any. I would just like to add that I feel the light is also subject to darkness in the same relative manner so, although darkness dssappears, it is always there when the light goes out. I would think they are both real and mutually dependent. |
Darkness is the absence of light. Light is the absence of darkness. While both statements appear to be accurate, you don't walk into a room and turn on the "dark switch". Coldness is the absence of warmth. Lies are the absence of truth. It may appear to be a matter of semantics, but the main point is: one exists as "substance" the other exists as "lack of substance". I'm maintaining that the world of lack is a thoughtform made possible by the
idea of nothingness. Nothingness can only ever exist as an idea which can be represented. It has no reality above and beyond that. All expressions of duality which involve "lack of substance" are reflections of that original false idea.
Dualities cannot mutually exist in full strength at the same place and time, for they are opposites. They exist because we "chose" to conceptualize an opposite to existence. In reality, there isn't any. This gave a "beginning" to beginnings and, ironically enough, endings too. Not to mention form, limitation, and sensory perception.
Now why was an opposite conceptualized? I could say that god/consciousness is a very curious force, but it would be more accurate to say, that the infinity of realities contained in the field of existence also included paradoxical realities, or relative worlds. Duality implies separation. So relative worlds involve a battle between opposites: light/dark, good/evil, love/hate. Before this (and I must note that all temporal references are folly which makes this all the more confusing), there was only oneness and there were no paradoxes to resolve. The non-relative world, or absolute reality is formless -- a place of pure existence/potentiality. Now, existence/consciousness is always being cycled through the relative frame, but the consciousness in the relative frame cannot see the roots connecting it to the larger whole, until it transcends duality. Such is the plight of relative consciousness, which only perceives portions of reality at a time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maguru I also believe nothingness and potential are the same thing, as nothingness, as you say, cannot exist. It has to be something even if it is total darkness or total brightness. What are your feelings on potentiality? |
From the absolute reality standpoint, where there are no opposites, the difference between potentiality and actuality is moot, but rather than a void, it is better thought of as a kind of plenum of actuality, rather than a vacuum of nothingness. Or, in Abraham speak, a kind of delicious awareness of ALL possibilities -- an awareness so complete that these possibilities already exist and always have.
Please question me further, if none of this makes sense.