|
Post by Charlotte on Feb 13, 2008 10:56:46 GMT -5
Hi Don,
I thought a new thread is better my view of creation and the GP as per your link.
You say God created light from nothing. That would be simple to understand. Before God said "Let there be light", ... "darkness was upon the face of the deep." The deep, or space, then, already existed.
I wrote a few days ago how I came to understand that "there can never be nothing", literally the end thought of that train, which I spoke out loud to myself. Paul mentioned something to that effect as well.
Space
"Afore any world was", when "the earth was without form, and void...", there was space, The "Virgin Mother" of all philosophical systems, the Gnostics and Christians. In ancient Egypt she was the "Cosmic Virgin" Neith or Saitic Isis of Sais. The wise Egyptians built her city in the "fertile delta", her invironment on earth. It can also be her womb. There they celebrated a "festival of glowing lamps" - to mark the triumph over darkness; all lamps were lit, "not only" as Herodotus says, "for Sais, but the whole of Egypt." Isha de Lubicz.
Egypt, being a copy of heaven and the temple of the whole world, according to Hermes, it means that the lamps were lit in Sais for the world. Our nature is also Lower and Upper Egypt, red and white. Most everybody knows the famous inscription on the temple of Neith:
"I, Isis, am all that has been, that is or shall be; no mortal man hath ever me unveiled. The Fruit which I have brought forth is the Sun". Or Son.
She is the "unimaginable beautiful Virgin Mother", and her invironment is space, which she also creates to have "a nursery" for her creation. To understand how she does it, we have to consider the principal of "what is true in the greater is true in the lesser", and vis-a-vis. Space is made feminine because it is the matrix of all births, and also because women are naturally prone to "dreaming" more than men.
The "Cosmic Virgin", therefore, imagined and dreamed in "living" color, it's true, what could be and how wonderful it would be for life to exist. This imagining and dreaming caused her to become "pregnant" and she prepared her pure and beautiful nursery, beings she could only create according to her own nature.
Having "gathered" enough dream stuff through imaging in the "waters of space" flowed from her suddenly, and by "an act of will", the very same tremendous pressure by which a human mother literally and consciously "must will" her child to be born, has absolutely no control over, both mothers, in the greater and lesser, bring forth their fruit. What can't be said has to be imagined.
Projecting it to the greatest: "We are the stuff that dreams are made of and our little life is rounded by a sleep." The greatest sleep being when all creation is withdrawn into the bosom of Brahma, but there is still "something", if not a "thing" we can see, or a new day of Brahma couldn't dawn. Beyond that there is still something because "there can never be nothing." Who can understand?
Charlotte
|
|
|
Post by PMacG on Feb 14, 2008 10:11:51 GMT -5
Hi Charlotte and Don.
Ask even a learned man this question and you'll probably get the wrong answer. Ask him this: 'If you take a vessel or a jar and you completely empty it of every atom as a complete vacuum, is the jar completely empty with nothing in it'? He will answer 'yes of course it is empty, it has nothing in it', but in this he is wrong, because nothing is still something, and it is this nothing in which the source of all that is perceived lies - it is the core stream or code. The nothing that is still something is beyond all description and is empty of all created things (clearness), so it cannot be called by any name, number, or concept so if you wish to call it god or whatever then you have to have the mutual understanding that nothing is still something - it is still within all things but also without anything.
This is the point to which you have to broaden your insight if you are to even to start to comprehend the source that is beyond all knowable things, for it lies in the unknown beyond all time and space or known dimensions. This no-thing is the begetter and the mover of all things time/space and on all dimensions perceived or not. The name of god thereby is redundant and does not fit as you can't not believe in nothing, so then might comprehend that which is not born of conception but is unbegotten. The unbegotten is the begetter of all things and all things come to order through its command.
We can not see it or define it, but we can know it is there because of the influence it has on things we can measure and see, and this knowledge came to physics in a very strange way - Mayonnaise, yes Hellman's is an apt name.
Regards - Paul.
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Feb 14, 2008 10:23:10 GMT -5
The story about how space, the "sanctuary of the sacred mother"came into being is not all that outlandish. The difficult question is: what created the Virgin Mother to create space. In my mind, there is no doubt that "Virgivium Mare" is space itself. "Wisdom has hewn her House", says the universal divine Poet, accordingly she is Wisdom on an infinite scale, Athena, Sophia, and Isis/Neith on a higher octave, above "the wings of Jehovah." I think when we say "to the NTH degree", we think in terms of the phenomenal universe, which Neith wove into existence, the 9th number of perfection, the whole 9 yards we can glean.
There is agreement among the wisest of men and women, that we can say nothing about the "Limitless Light" above Kether, therefore our own light must be exceedingly limited.
So how did this infinite Wisdom, personified by the great Virgin Mother, came to be? What was wise and imagined and brooded over what in timeless eternity, "realizing" it needed a "place", or space nursery, and the more it imagined the more the pressure built, and when all that can be imagined and dreamed about was done, there came a critical "moment", unbeknownst to this wisdom, when the water broke, so to speak, and it gave birth to light or consciousness?
Again, if we take into "account" the words of the divine poet: "The Ring in its repose is Unity and Being, causation and existence are the motion thereof", in that Ring would be that wisdom contained until it "is so full of it" that it presses against the inner wall of the ring and it springs life eternal.
Don, I'm sure you came to your conclusion of "nothing" and "it does not exist" via geometry, and I get the gist of what you say, I thinks, but how can we talk about nothing exists, when we do and search why are we so obsessed with finding "nothing"?
Charlotte
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Feb 15, 2008 10:26:18 GMT -5
Why Paul Smith, you sound like Madam B ;D I understand and agree with what you say: "The nothing that is still something is beyond all description and is empty of all created things (clearness)..." Can we understand this "clearness" as consciousness, pure consciousness, which is beyond description? However, this pure consciousness or nothing, empty of all created things, is "followed" in no time everything, "full" of all created things, which in turn is followed in no time: "I am everything and everyone", and vis-a-vis. Could this your "core stream or code"? I really would like to know how space came into being, and what caused the so called Big Bang? Charlotte
|
|
|
Post by PMacG on Feb 15, 2008 17:35:50 GMT -5
Hi Charlotte. I can try and give a few ideas of visualization only in this.
The source or core code orders the information streams in the EM Matrix to a multi-dimensional verse - indeed as you point out, the no-thing is the core stream that gives the illusion of empty space within all parts of matter. Now as we have thought outside of the box and seen that this space is not empty even if all things that can be observed to exist within it are taken out, but then when we think further outside the box, space itself is a delusion of time, as the only time that really exists is constructed by changes in the matrix in which the past only exists because we have the ability to look back over events that have occurred since time/space began - but what is the reality, do they actual still exist in time space. The answer to that is seemly 'no they don't' as each moment suffers death or change, and the present has some strange properties as it only exists by taking energy from the future and then almost instantly paying it back. If there wasn't dimensions that are not beyond time/space this couldn't happen, as all would only flow from the past, but this isn't how it now appears to operate.
If time/space was not an illusion of ordered change to the sub-atomic field then in time/space we would have the ability in the physical to transcend time/space, but it is only through going back to the core stream that this can be achieved, as physical matter cannot pass back through the gate (of singularity) without transformation back into higher vibrations of energy as the EM functions on 400 octaves. In this we have to look more at the nature of mind, as all movement's in the time/space field have to be transformed into energy to be viewed in mind, so the nature of mind will be the key to answering your question I thinks, as all perceived to exist are seen as holograms created by virtual particles that have strange properties of entering and leaving the field.
We do not see the universality of mind, or its ability to operate on different dimensions that allow what we perceive to be body to be formed by the core stream of information that is flowing between the 2 polarities that exist side by side, as being joined at every point, so every part both exists and doesn't exist. Hence Shroeder's Cat is both alive and dead at the same time, as the 2 polarities are mirror images that talk to each other through the universal binary code but this also might only happen when one part is aware of the other so if the box is closed the cat is dead, and when you look into the box it is alive - weird indeed but so is mind.
In that it works as a whole is the faith, and in this we need not have doubt. In the physical part coming to understand the nature of it own creation is the seed or the tool for the growth of the end product, as in the rest/repose we can withdraw from trying to change what actually is happening as all is in its correct place - this means we can withdraw from worry and tension, as we as the living are already dead, but the dead is always alive.
You can send round the white van now - Paul.
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Feb 16, 2008 10:57:30 GMT -5
Is that the white van to the funny farm? Some people there blurt out some great truths now and then, and genius is always half mad. What you write I couldn't have said better myself by a long shot. "Each moment suffers death or change", is how I saw quantum reality all along, "in the twinkling of an eye" as per the mystery St. Paul bids to behold, but not only because of the wise man. Is "one part aware of the other"? Are we aware of our "other"? We can't see it but we talk to it. Every though needs a non-thought as springboard, so the non-thought must be the "foundation" of a thought. Or is it a sort of in between: that which rests tends to movement and that which moves tends to rest? Ok I'm getting into trouble again... Schrodingers cat is dead when the box is closed, but when we open it or look into it, it is alive. Is it because we are alive in the sense that "even though the world is big and solid it has no existence without an observer." I know there is more to it but I'm getting a headache. A resounding YES that "what is actually happening is all in its correct place". What more do we want? The Hindus said long ago that all is an illusion, but "Fantasia has no boundries", says the Empress to Arteyu, and so on and so forth. Charlotte
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Feb 16, 2008 20:48:39 GMT -5
Hi Paul and Charlotte ...
A most interesting topic and I had done (or thought I had done) a website on this but couldn't find it. I remember distinctly challenging whether the past had ever existed and if it (the past) and all the memories we have of it and all the traces we find of it were not simply planted by our own mind as we simply "think" our way through this reality.
What I am suggesting is that not unlike The Matrix we are simply "dreaming" this entire existence and we may be simply some ugly slug like creature on a Jovian moon or worse still like that final awful moment of a classic Harlan Ellison tale where our hero finally realizes what he has become and closes with the chilling words ... I have no mouth and I must scream ... even now my skin crawls thinking about this story.
However in the beginning was "the word" and "the word" was "god" ...
Karl Hammer (Mark Harlem) suggested that "The Word" was knowledge and I took it one step further and suggested it meant consciousness for did anything really exist ---- or does it matter ---- before we first were able to think ? therefore I remain saying we are The Gods --- we control the game --- and if you believe ---- really honestly believe it --- life is truly bliss for you will want for nothing and truly live happily ever after ... aw yes but to believe without a shred of doubt ... few can accomplish this ...
Best Don Barone
|
|
|
Post by PMacG on Feb 18, 2008 16:24:52 GMT -5
Hi Don.
You should define 'think' as the physical body is constructed beyond 'think' as we can define it, it works of itself without need of thought or care, and thought only arises into our realm of operation as a set of feelings in which our body needs to fulfil itself. If the body has a hunger it firstly has a feeling of being hungry, so we think I'm hungry I must eat. Now we add to this basic set of drives because we do not limit what we desire to eat, so the ancient texts say 'observe what a man desires to fill his mouth with and you will comprehend his nature'. It is this simple set of functions that we observe in mind, and we have a choice as to whether we fulfil these drives or not, when we fully understand this we reach enlightenment. All practices of the ancients give this understanding as their base as the need to fulfil the body is given by an internal dialogue of thought that gives us two opposite options that are called gain or loss. The body functions or 6 levels or centres of drives and the point of observation is the 7th, we 3 lower and 3 upper and this gives us the form of the hexagram, which has a hidden central 7th value.
If we look at wholeness and all the levels of visualization we can reach in mind by various means we are all things from beings of bliss to gross monsters of torment, and so your first para has much validity to it.
Regards - Paul.
|
|
|
Post by BERNHARD on Feb 22, 2008 11:12:36 GMT -5
Dear Don, Charlotte, Paul and Others, i think this item "word" means UNIVERSAL INFORMATION, the matrix or informational glue of all "knowledge", rules of phsyical and chemical relations, and other logical structures and interactions, the intelligent mind which controls the universal flow of energy , which flows and swings inside us all as well !
so far ! Many Greetings as always from Bavaria : Bernie - alive ! ****************************************************
|
|
|
Post by PMacG on Feb 22, 2008 15:20:35 GMT -5
Hi Bernard.
You have described the matter very well indeed. All is collected together like the hairs in a comb, I think that's how the ancients put it as a string theory, only the string's or hairs really have no length at all.
Paul.
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Feb 25, 2008 10:28:30 GMT -5
Hi Bernard. You have described the matter very well indeed. All is collected together like the hairs in a comb, I think that's how the ancients put it as a string theory, only the string's or hairs really have no length at all. Paul. Hi Don, Paul, and great to see you Bernhard No, "the strings or hairs really have no lenght at all." The AE have this right too: "I am sound, and it is sound." "We as the living are already dead..." The physical body is the tomb of the soul, they say, and as "Poetry is at once the centre and circumference of knowledge... and that to which all science must be referred...", and a Poet being "the author to others of the highest wisdom, pleasure, virtue and glory", Shelley knows, I have a poem about us being dead here: Incipit Before lip touches lip, ere the eyes weep, Or hands reach out or feet run here and there, We dream not thus, not dimly are aware, But one with an all-knowing sentient deep, Where life is merged in Being, as the light Of stars in day. Then once a soft enquiring Troubles our quite; we stir with old desiring, And lean to earth, draw in, and lose our sight; Tremble, and know not if with fear or bliss, Feeling Love's wings beat near us in the night, And closing sense and gross responsive limbs, We, yet not we; then mused we test our might, And with a terrible cry the spirit dims, Desperate too late beneath our mother's kiss. Charlotte
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Feb 26, 2008 10:02:01 GMT -5
Did I go over the top again with my poetry? I thought some more of how we come from "nothing", but says the Poet, we are "one with an all-knowing sentient deep". This all-knowing sentient deep might be Bernhard's "metrix or informational glue of all knowledge", which would mean space itself is informed with intelligence, not meaning form here. Madam B would agree: space itself is the great entity. What or who is "the intelligent mind which controls the universal flow of energy, which flows and swings inside all of us"? What is energy? We say it's a "force", can anyone define enrgy? I don't remember who said the following, maybe Plato because he talks of the One, the Good, and the Beautiful: "The illustrious peculiarity of the gods is the cause of the good, which is prior to essence, it unfolds into energy the invisible good of the gods". I had a dream once, in which I saw 7 Pharaohs in the sky holding hands. They were dressed alike and were alike in all "things", and indeed there was an ineffable "illustrious peculiarity" about them. Does this count? Charlotte
|
|
|
Post by PMacG on Feb 26, 2008 11:59:52 GMT -5
Hi Charlotte the poem was grand, so if I say 'no you didn't', does that give me any Browny points on you not saying that 'I've just gone over the top with my maths' ;D No you don't have to say anything I already know the answer to the question Blessings - Paul.
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Feb 27, 2008 9:44:45 GMT -5
Ok Paul, I know you know, and I do understand what you and Bernhard mean, but I stick to my story about how space and the phenomenal universe came about via imagination, and it must follow then that every since it is imagination or illusion, we agree. First of all, I don't accept the Big Bang as science describes it, rather, for me the BB is consciousness "bursting" out of a great slumber from this "sentient deep" of the Poet, like we awaken every morning with "I am". We can fish as much as we want in the greater, but can grasp this great mystery only in terms of ourselves: "It is essential to observe the microcosm and transfer the formula to the infinite", I read not too long ago, and philosophers have been insisting on this since time immemorial. For me, when "it" became conscious the ring in which unity reposed began to move arousing a "space curiosity", something like "wait wait, something is moving, let's see what it is, causing resistance, and every since there is perpetual action and reaction in the whole 9 yards of it. The Virgin Mother of Fern, who gave birth to the "Trinity Creator", among them "the son", is the same as the Virgin Neith of the brilliant Egyptians, mother of the "creator gods". As the Poet writes, she was the first "er any world was", and she is androgynous, and I repeat the statement in the temple of Esna, related by Ms. Griffis-Greenberg: "Lady of Sais...whose two-thirds are masculine and one-third is feminine Unique Goddess, mysterious and great Who came to be in the beginning and caused everything to come to be... The divine mother of Re, who shines on the horizon, The mysterious one who radiates in her brightness. Lesco 1999:61 "Her ability is to create ex nihilo, simply as a radiant light moving over the waters of Nun". Actually, she does not move as a radiant light, but "emanates" her qualities or what she is. Ms. Greenberg continues: "By this light and her will, Neith created the primeordeal mound from which the remainder of creation was formed by her words. Because of this, as creatrix, Neith is referred to in Esna as the Father of the Fathers and Mother of the Mothers, the divinity who came into being in the midst of the primevil waters having appeared out of herself while the land was in twilight and no land had yet come forth and no plant had yet grown..." (Lesco 1999:61 Clearly, this is the Bible's Genesis, save it is masculine, or better, where the Bible picks up with the creation story of our humanity, but our subject line is "Before Genesis". Her "will" and "appeared out of herself" is relevant here, and this account of Esna is identical to my imagining and dreaming beautiful dreams story of how space and our phenomenal universe came into being, so all you gentlemen owe your existance to the feminine who are the original dreamers and imaginers, and here on earth too they dream of true love and give you life. So this item "word" meaning UNIVERSAL INFORMATION is of the "glue" of feminine wisdom, Athena and the Poet's Muse, which holds everything together by mediating, medigating and sustaining life itself. Is there anything else we can do for you "The more beautiful you imagine Fantasia the more beautiful it will be" says the Empress to Atreyu. Charlotte
|
|
|
Post by BERNHARD on Feb 27, 2008 10:57:44 GMT -5
Dear Paul and Charlotte, Don, Dan, and Others, thanks for the reply ! from time to time i follow Your interesting comments and studies, but the the stuff is too complex, not a lightweight, not the matter to dive into simply from aside within some minutes of lecture. not possible. and that's good. cause other activities fix me very much, i miss the time to share your contributions. well, i am sure, You will succeed without my meager comments :-))) btw. i have my problems with the super-string theory. seems to be a too artificial constructed mathematical "tour de force" to unterstand and describe the deeper wisdom and structural realtions, the informational matrix of the sub- quantum "life" to combine it with the matrix of the macro-cosmos or universe incl. multiple universes. ok, i am not an expert but the super-string-theory does not touch me .... well, not a personal catastrophy ! some years ago i became fascinated by the man, its fate and it s outstanding work and theories, meanwhile subject of studies by US-universities. i do speak of Burkhard HEIM , what a dramatic fate, what a strong man, what a "brain", a person assisted by an also strong wife, and some good friends ! Great stuff to read. search by Google will offer also english texts. for example this one at: www.heim-theory.com/Contents/contents.html*************************** Best regards from Bavaria: Bernie
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Feb 28, 2008 10:16:14 GMT -5
So true Bernhard, we would have to sit for month or years and adhere to the method of philosophical inquiry and maybe, just maybe we could find a pretty good answer. I was taught string theory by contrasting the hermetic teachins with modern science, so I see it somewhat different and what else is new ;D I like the theory. Have to read your link after work and report back. I am, and I think we all are so incredibly bussy, work taking up most of the time, but what can one do. I hear the Krokusse and Schneeglöckchen are blooming Charlotte
|
|
|
Post by BERNHARD on Feb 28, 2008 10:26:58 GMT -5
Dear Charlotte, oh yes, the "Krokusse Blühen", no wonder, cause the weather is very warm indeed. and some days ago we had a heat record for february with around 21 degree celcius (plus ! ) Regarding the theory of Burkhardt Heim, which can really explain things, the Einstein Theories can not, including the Sommerfeld constant, Gravity and so on, here is a 2006-article from NewScientist , interesting also to read the further comments by some people. www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925331.200-take-a-leap-into-hyperspace.htmlnoteworthy also, that several germans are working on the Heim Theory, developing software tools to calculate and illustrate the main aspects of the theory. **************** best regards: Bernie
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Mar 2, 2008 11:04:12 GMT -5
I remember you posting about Heim before, Barnhard. I have not read all of it, but about dimensions, I think Paul has the gist of it: "...the present has some strange properties as it only exists by taking energy from the future and then almost instantly paying it back. If there wasn't dimensions that are not beyond time/space this couldn't happen as all would only flow from the past, but this isn't how it now appears to operate." I watched a program on the "plastic" brain yesterday, "plastic" being a term of the ancients, and "they" said fundamentally the same things. As you suggested, I read "further comments by people", and I am in total agreement with this interpretation by K.J. Coyle: "I believe quantum theory gives the particle aspect far too much importance and the wave aspect far too little - this on the pure and simple premise that EMS energy of any kind is plainly and obviously CONDUCTED THROUGH A MEDIUM - it is not a ballistic phenomenon. Clearly, Aetheric theory needed to be further developed - not discarded as it was and whether we call it Aether, ZPF of (or?) Spacetime Matrix - there is no escaping the observable fact that so-called "empty" Space has definite sunstance and structure - otherwise it could not possible conduct wave energies of any sort as it does. Only ballistic entities might be capable of crossing it; and it may have been this "ballistic assumption" kind of thinking that encouraged the evolution ofquatum (?) theory in the first place." This an excerpt from New Scientist, January 2006, so my question is, did scientist at that time still think that space is "empty"? Other than the subatomic realm? As far as I have seen, space substance goes from the highly attenuated, pure, still, and permiating everything, to a thick milky "soup", which "ballistic events", such as an airplane flying through it, part, propagating waves as far as space is affected to either side, front push and back trail, and then flows together again. Absolutely any movement of any thing, from a planet to me moving in the minutest on this chair, even a breath, causes this "soup" to part, "suffering death and change" of how it was a second before and reconstituting itself anew. Do I have this right? I've seen the former pure and still substance in my minds eye, and the milky soup with my physical eyes. Philosophical tradition has it that all things are formed in the Aether, obviously invisible in our dimension but very real in another. Heim has a "six-dimensional wordl", and I have yet to read a better, to me beautifully simple explanation than this one by an unnamed Vendantic scholar I quoted before, related by Madam B: "The "real seven-fold classification is of great theoretical ans scientific importance. - The real classification has all the requisites of a scientific classification. It has seven distinct principles states of Pragna or consciousness. It bridges the gulf between the objective and subjective, and indicates the mysterious circuit through which ideation passes. The seven principles are allied to seven states of matter, and to seven forms of force. These principles are harmoniously arranged between two poles, which define the limits of human consciousness." Ballistic events above and below. Charlotte
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Mar 13, 2008 9:08:20 GMT -5
Coming out of this 'nothing' we ended up in 's the thing, so now I have to begin from square one again and don't know where, or what to talk about since a million people are already saying what needs to be said. I'm sure it was easier for God, or the writers of the Bible, to create light from nothing than for me to find the next Genesis, but 'tis a start Charlotte
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Mar 18, 2008 9:21:50 GMT -5
That was a stupid question I asked in post 17 The subject of Genesis, any genesis, from the greatest to the smallest, was hanging quietly over my head the past week, that is to say, I rested and reflected in the lesser what the universe does in the greater, and found again confirmation that for everything we want to know there is a parallel in our daily lives. Don's and Paul's "nothingness" - "never existed", and "the last entry in the Hawkwind log" of "the supreme and mystic darkness of nothing - the incomprehensible infinity of untold nothing", took all the wind out of my sails and I floated, my daily life and work filling in. But just like the conscious universe goes to sleep at "the end of the day" it wakes up again with a qualitatative understanding, for further experience, or as Jerry says: "sometimes your cards aint worth a damn if you don't lay 'em down", but the deck is the same old deck, only new combinations are at play, and so we people the nothing once again with new illusions, or "confirming patterns", as Hermes has it. As far as I can tell, we have to - do something, we can't just go around in this dimension saying, there was nothing, is nothing and what's the use. You might say I missed the point of "the abundance of nothing", but I say it is equal to the T the abundance of everything. In keeping with the times, I feel I'm being delt more cards, wouldn't you know, of Bacon's "New Atlantis", a new order of the ages, being played out on the world stage, it's not as simple as the NWO of the evil elite of the world. Charlotte
|
|