Bring4th

I believe this question has been pondered well throughout history.

Hindu philosophy, such as Kashmir Shaivism and various other sects, sees Consciousness or Brahman/Parmshiva as the ultimate reality.

Buddhist perspective sees consciousness as a skandha and ultimately illusory. Beyond consciousness is the vast emptiness, or sunyata.

A Kabbalist or a Hasidic Panentheist would argue that beyond the Infinite is Ayin, or Nothing. Ayin(Nothing)/Yesh(Something) is a cornerstone of their philosophy. A hasidic guru may go further and transcend the Infinite/Finite duality by perceiving Atzmus Unity. He would then convert the Ayin nullification of existence into Yesh existence of Atzmus Unity, making God the True Being and everything else illusory.

The Buddhist view sees the ultimate as a voidness. The Hindu view would see the ultimate more as a plenum or fullness. The Kabbalist would see the ultimate perhaps as Nothing. The Hasidic guru would see all of creation nullified to Unity.

So I ask, do you see the Infinite as a Void or a Plenum? Perhaps voidness is the state of the plenum. Voidness seems more like a psychological internalized experience of the Infinite, while fullness seems more like an abstraction.

Does the concept of unity allow these seemingly opposite concepts to be transcended and reconciled? Any thoughts?

Ah Infinity !

It's "more" than both at the same time.  Within infinity there exists the set of ALL possibilities.  But what is weird with infinity is that it is also "more" than that.  Impossible to imagine or comprehend while incarnated here now.  More than everything/anything possible...
 

(01-23-2017, 06:38 PM)Henosis Wrote: [ -> ]Does the concept of unity allow these seemingly opposite concepts to be transcended and reconciled? Any thoughts?

It has to, in the sense that the concept of unity is not so much a concept as it is a housing unit for every other possible concept, which includes both concepts of a void (nothing) and a plenum (something) . 

Here is my 2 cents on the paradox. Infinity is void of thought while being full of feeling. The original feeling that we all seek engages us to behave in ways that infinity could not have, in and of itself conceived of, because thought itself is non existent. Infinity must also be devoid of experience or the concept of self duplication would not have arose. Conversely, the first experience of infinity was also the conception of experience, prior to its own manifestation.

So my solution is this (which in order for us to understand must be framed within a coherent structure) The mind of the physical void had an idea, and that idea was to experience something. And that something had a substance to it.

Ra pointed to the heart of things and not the intelligence of things. The only reason (as far as I know) that Ra used scientific terms was because Don was scientifically minded. The heart of Ra is exemplified by their attitude. The greatest teacher lies not in what they have to share with the world, but rather in how they conduct themselves. That's how archetypal legends last for thousands of years, by way of their conduct.

In my humble opinion is beyond any concept. It's unknowable. Any try to describe it's just a coarse analogy.

Peace, love and light.

(01-23-2017, 06:38 PM)Henosis Wrote: [ -> ]I believe this question has been pondered well throughout history.

Hindu philosophy, such as Kashmir Shaivism and various other sects, sees Consciousness or Brahman/Parmshiva as the ultimate reality.

Buddhist perspective sees consciousness as a skandha and ultimately illusory. Beyond consciousness is the vast emptiness, or sunyata.

A Kabbalist or a Hasidic Panentheist would argue that beyond the Infinite is Ayin, or Nothing. Ayin(Nothing)/Yesh(Something) is a cornerstone of their philosophy. A hasidic guru may go further and transcend the Infinite/Finite duality by perceiving Atzmus Unity. He would then convert the Ayin nullification of existence into Yesh existence of Atzmus Unity, making God the True Being and everything else illusory.

The Buddhist view sees the ultimate as a voidness. The Hindu view would see the ultimate more as a plenum or fullness. The Kabbalist would see the ultimate perhaps as Nothing. The Hasidic guru would see all of creation nullified to Unity.

So I ask, do you see the Infinite as a Void or a Plenum? Perhaps voidness is the state of the plenum. Voidness seems more like a psychological internalized experience of the Infinite, while fullness seems more like an abstraction.

Does the concept of unity allow these seemingly opposite concepts to be transcended and reconciled? Any thoughts?

From my perspective, the ultimate reality is more akin to a plenum than a void. My understanding is that the void can only exist in appearance alone. So to the extent that the plenum is 'resisted' (by an act of will by intelligent infinity, which equals a 'resistance to truth' because the plenum is pure truth and to 'choose' to experience anything other than that is to play in the realm of illusion) the void appears to exist. The void then appears to 'contain' the plenum, much like a brilliantly luminescent star appears to 'sit' within the void of space. The space appears to 'contain' it from the parameters of the illusion. Metaphysically speaking, the darkness of the void, which is representative of falsity or illusion, which appears to contain the light (which is truth) is the symbolic manifestation of consciousness within the illusion. Within the illusion the darkness seems vast, and the truth, though brilliant, appears much like a star -- magnificent, but dwarfed by the immensity of the space, or darkness, surrounding it. But again, this is simply the way it looks from within the parameters of the illusion. When the star of spirit is radiating, the focus is turned 'outwards' towards the 'untruth' (or distorted/truth/light) out of which the created super-structure is patternized from.

When the illusion is broken out of, or transcended, it is absolutely the reverse. All there is is Light -- infinite light, and a small black hole in the middle of the light, out of which the illusion is shaped, completely and absolutely dwarfed by the light surrounding it. You see, because the ultimate reality is, in fact, a plenum of being, creation is actually the reverse of how one would expect it to be. To bring this down into the realm of metaphor, creation is not a drawing on a chalk board, rather, it is an erasure of portions of a chalk board that is already completely filled up to infinity. All possible things you could write on that infinite chalkboard are already written there, and the illusion is made by erasing or cloaking a portion of the chalkboard, making the void in the knowledge show up by virtue of the contrast between the darkness and the light, the falsity, and the truth.

In kabbalah, of which I am a student of, this is known as 'tzimzum', or the 'withdrawal' or sometimes 'contraction' of the light of Ein Sof in order to make room for the creation to be. And as an aside on Kabbalah, there is a common misconception that 'Ayin'/'Ein' is equivalent to 'nothingness' or 'nonexistence'. It is not a state of nothingness/nonexistence, it is a state of 'no-thing-ness' (and this is a point that more than a few learned Jewish scholars have corrected me on (because I thought it connoted nothing too), though of course there are always alternative opinions -- its not a dogmatic and unquestionable metaphysical ideology). What Ayin/Ein really is is a place where 'nothing can be grasped by the mind', thus it is no thing-ness, or a lack of 'things' or 'objects'.

If intelligent infinity releases its will, its focus on the illusion, the entire structure collapses back into the same infinite consciousness is was prior to the structure being created. Blindingly brilliant, but mentally ungraspable Light.

In hinduism there is an expression "neti neti". It means "neither this nor that".
Similar mystical approach can be found in western apophatic teology or via negativa.
(Non)definition of Transcendence is also known in taoism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology

This is really not easy to grasp nor find mutual agreement about because to me it's a bit both and neither.

Best I could explain my intuitive sense of this, is that the Plenum is the Void's inner potential, it's internalization/distortion where the Void is made into it's dualized counterpart. One might say that then the Void is not truly void and should not be called as such, yet in my opinion it remains a Void because it is void of any true quality except that of infinite potential. It contains the potential of the idea of space, but it does not in truth contain space. It contains the potential of the idea of time, but it does not in truth contain time. These things are attributes of the Plenum which is resistance to the Void. So the Plenum is found through resistance to the Void, it is the corner stone of seeking where Light is and Infinity becomes. We could say Light then is the Void perceiving it's potential made manifest through the Plenum, which generates an infinite Light.

So the Void "contains" Light but this Light is abstract potential than only is something through illusion. The Plenum is this abstract potential falsely made manfiest, where it falsely stretches, falsely expands, falsely separates. So in the idea of a Plenum, there is distance in-between each of us. In the idea of a Void, we are right in the middle of each other in a fully spaceless/timeless manner.

So bacily the Plenum is a concept of illusion, outside any form of illusion there is no tangible quality that could be considered a plenum and so this plenum finds root in something other. What makes it truly hard to conceptualize is the changeless relationship between both, in middle of which stands Spirit, which is neither Void nor Plenum yet is both.

So rather than those term, I'd use Spirit which is a Void than can manifest a Plenum within Itself through an act of Will. Maybe Void is not the best word for the potential of Will but then again, neither is Plenum in my eyes as they both dualize truth into an aspect of itself that lacks another to make actual sense.

---

Actually I just found this quote which illustrates well my idea and made me think about it in a slightly different manner.

Quote:82.10 Questioner: Why does this partaking in the original thought have a gradient radially outward? That’s the way I understand your statement.

Ra: I am Ra. This is the plan of the One Infinite Creator. The One Original Thought is the harvest of all previous, if you would use this term, experience of the Creator by the Creator. As It decides to know Itself It generates Itself into that plenum, full of the glory and the power of the One Infinite Creator which is manifested to your perceptions as space or outer space. Each generation of this knowing begets a knowing which has the capacity, through free will, to choose methods of knowing Itself. Therefore, gradually, step by step, the Creator becomes that which may know Itself, and the portions of the Creator partake less purely in the power of the original word or thought. This is for the purpose of refinement of the one original thought. The Creator does not properly create as much as It experiences Itself.

So the closer one is to the Void (total lack of distortions), the more one will grow closer to the root of the Original Thought. The Original Thought then is the Plenum, and it's root is the Void.

An easier way to illustrate it. The Plenum is illusion, the lack of illusion is the Void. So the Plenum really is the Void made unlike Itself. In the middle is Spirit (The Creator) which experiences both. The experience of the Void creates a drive for the Original Thought which never starts nor ends just as the Void never had started nor ended. Infinite experience of an absence of space and time, leads to a drive to experience space and time, because even in it's absence lied the potential. In the Void there is absence of knowledge of Oneness, so Oneness is sought. In the Void there is absence of many-ness, so many-ness becomes sought as each separate individualization ever existed in potential.

Bascily, the only truth is Spirit or beingness. The Void is it's truer state and the Plenum is it's state of resitance to Itself where illusions become possible within that Plenum. So in my view, the dynamic of Void and Plenum and their relationship is the entire basis of seeking which manifests Infinity, the Eternal Dance.

Some Ra quotes (shortened and emphasis in bold font added):

Quote:6.25 Questioner: Do any of them come here at this time in spacecraft? In the past, say, thirty years?

Ra: I am Ra /.../ At present there are seven which are operating with craft in your density. Their purposes are very simple: to allow those entities of your planet to become aware of infinity which is often best expressed to the uninformed as the mysterious or unknown.

Quote:13.13 Questioner: Was the galaxy that we are in created by the infinite intelligence or was it created by a portion of the individualized infinite intelligence?

Ra: I am Ra /.../ It shall be understood that any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the One Creator which is infinity. Thus all begins and ends in mystery.

Quote:27.7 Questioner: Now I think I have extracted an important point from this in that in intelligent infinity we have work without polarity, or a potential difference does not have to exist. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. There is no difference, potential or kinetic, in unity. The basic rhythms of intelligent infinity are totally without distortion of any kind. The rhythms are clothed in mystery, for they are being itself. From this undistorted unity, however, appears a potential in relation to intelligent energy.

In this way you may observe the term to be somewhat two-sided, one use of the term, that being as the undistorted unity, being without any kinetic or potential side. The other application of this term, which we use undifferentiatedly for lack of other term in the sense of the vast potential tapped into by foci or focuses of energy, we call intelligent energy.

Quote:28.1 Questioner: /.../ I have the concept that intelligent infinity expands outward from all locations everywhere /.../ This is Larson’s idea of the progression of what he calls space/time. Is this concept correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This concept is incorrect as is any concept of the one intelligent infinity. This concept is correct in the context of one particular Logos, or Love, or focus of this Creator which has chosen Its, shall we say, natural laws and ways of expressing them mathematically and otherwise.

The one undifferentiated intelligent infinity, unpolarized, full and whole, is the macrocosm of the mystery-clad being. We are messengers of the Law of One. Unity, at this approximation of understanding, cannot be specified by any physics but only be activated or potentiated intelligent infinity due to the catalyst of free will. This may be difficult to accept. However, the understandings we have to share begin and end in mystery.

Quote:28.16 Questioner: Are you saying then there are an infinite number of octaves of densities one through eight?

Ra: I am Ra. We wish to establish that we are truly humble messengers of the Law of One. We can speak to you of our experiences and our understandings and teach/learn in limited ways. However, we cannot speak in firm knowledge of all the creations. We know only that they are infinite. We assume an infinite number of octaves.

However, it has been impressed upon us by our own teachers that there is a mystery-clad unity of creation in which all consciousness periodically coalesces and again begins. Thus we can only say we assume an infinite progression though we understand it to be cyclical in nature and, as we have said, clad in mystery.

I think infinity is full. It is not empty like a void or plenum. Infinity is both potential and kinetic.

(01-28-2017, 06:56 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote: [ -> ]I think infinity is full. It is not empty like a void or plenum. Infinity is both potential and kinetic.

Void= Empty
Plenum= Full

"82.6 Questioner: That’s what I thought you might say. Am I correct in assuming that at the beginning of this octave, out of what I would call a void of space, the seeds of an infinite number of galactic systems such as the Milky Way Galaxy appeared and grew in spiral fashion simultaneously?

Ra: I am Ra. There are duple areas of potential confusion. Firstly, let us say that the basic concept is reasonably well-stated. Now we address the confusion. The nature of true simultaneity is such that, indeed, all is simultaneous. However, in your modes of perception you would perhaps more properly view the seeding of the creation as that of growth from the center or core outward. The second confusion lies in the term, ‘void’. We would substitute the noun, ‘plenum’."

Don was asking if the creation comes out of a void. Ra states it comes forth from a plenum.

(01-28-2017, 07:46 PM)anagogy Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-28-2017, 06:56 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote: [ -> ]I think infinity is full. It is not empty like a void or plenum. Infinity is both potential and kinetic.

Void= Empty
Plenum= Full

"82.6 Questioner: That’s what I thought you might say. Am I correct in assuming that at the beginning of this octave, out of what I would call a void of space, the seeds of an infinite number of galactic systems such as the Milky Way Galaxy appeared and grew in spiral fashion simultaneously?

Ra: I am Ra. There are duple areas of potential confusion. Firstly, let us say that the basic concept is reasonably well-stated. Now we address the confusion. The nature of true simultaneity is such that, indeed, all is simultaneous. However, in your modes of perception you would perhaps more properly view the seeding of the creation as that of growth from the center or core outward. The second confusion lies in the term, ‘void’. We would substitute the noun, ‘plenum’."

Don was asking if the creation comes out of a void. Ra states it comes forth from a plenum.

"plenum (nothingness that has the potential for being)"

not fullness

http://divinecosmos.com/start-here/books...tudy-guide

(01-28-2017, 08:28 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote: [ -> ]"plenum (nothingness that has the potential for being)"

not fullness

http://divinecosmos.com/start-here/books...tudy-guide

Well, I can't speak for that study guide.

I was just going by the dictionary definition.

"a space completely filled with matter, or the whole of space so regarded."



My understanding is that a plenum is the opposite of a void. But if you see it differently, its all good.

From "The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way:"

Quote:Examination of the Tathagata [v. 11]

"Empty" should not be asserted.
"Nonempty" should not be asserted.
Neither both nor neither should be asserted.
They are only used nominally.

(01-28-2017, 06:56 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote: [ -> ]I think infinity is full. It is not empty like a void or plenum. Infinity is both potential and kinetic.

From my understanding, from the perspective of the creation or the kinetic, or the lower unity, infinity appears to be a plenum or fullness. From the perspective of intelligent infinity or the potential, or the higher unity, nothing exists and everything exists in a state of potential.

From an ontological viewpoint, there is only unity. The unity has a potential and a kinetic and can be summarized as follows...

Unity
Intelligent Infinity (Potential)
Logos (The Creator which potentiates intelligent infinity and radiates intelligent love/light)
Intelligent Energy (Kinetic)

Unity is nondual and at the point of unity is beyond the distinction of existent/nonexistent, or potential/kinetic. The potential/kinetic distinction only appears from the perspective of the kinetic. From the perspective of the potential, there is only Unity.

Where is the One from which Oneness emanates? Is the One perfect unity? At the point of unity, is there true existence? Or is it void of existence when pure unity is met?

The mystery clad being is truly mysterious.

Another way to put it.

Void = female principle, need, experiencer
Plenum = male principle, answer, what is experienced

The first distortion/one original thought/free will is resistance (act of will) of the Void (experiencer) to it's true state (void of qualities to perceive itself through) and what is seen in this resistance/Plenum is the Void as unlike Itself, Infinity.

I think it's fine to define the Void as empty or nothingness, so long these are understood as a living principle.