How would you describe Creator to someone who asks, but is an atheist? One who has never heard the concept before.
This was how I did it:
The best way I can even attempt to describe it is: the Creator IS
It cannot be defined. It has no personality. It is timelessness.
I'd say Creator is the term used to embody the magicalness of being. In the same image, mankind as an effect of being creates and shapes the Earth.
I think Creator reflects timefulness more than timelessness, it is a time dependant ego of that which is timeless. Anything you can call Creator is your other-self, a focus of will potentiated.
(05-21-2018, 03:00 PM)Elros Wrote: [ -> ]I'd say Creator is the term used to embody the magicalness of being. In the same image, mankind as an effect of being creates and shapes the Earth.
I think Creator reflects timefulness more than timelessness, it is a time dependant ego of that which is timeless. Anything you can call Creator is your other-self, a focus of will potentiated.
That's a good description. Though if I had explained it to him like that, I would have lost him. Then he would have gotten defensive saying that gods and magic aren't real.
Even I don't understand what "focus of will potentiated" means. He would be totally lost there.
But a focus to me implies that it is not potentiated. Focus would have to be activated. What you said there "focus of will potentiated" doesn't really make sense.
Shouldn't it be "potentiated will is focused and becomes activated"?
Anyway, this would just confuse him.
The uncreated original source of everything.
(05-21-2018, 05:51 PM)loostudent Wrote: [ -> ]The uncreated original source of everything.
I think we're moving infinitely closer to a basic understanding of Creator.
When I said "Creator IS" he said:
Quote:What I am getting out of your extraordinarily vague description is that even you don't know what it is, yet you believe in it. If something can't be described in a way that another person can understand then it is not real and therefore can be dismissed as being a figment of someone's imagination.
That's what I dislike about the whole "new age" trend and pseudoscience in general. Everything is intentionally left vague, thereby leaving it up to people's imaginations as to what they interpret it as being.
I'm not trying to convince him, but he asked what it was to me. That was his response.
It makes me wonder, why does one believe in something they don't know what it is?
For me, it's the only way I can make sense of the Universe. I see too much connectedness between all things to dismiss it.
I would say creator is the creation. we on third density are its low part. however, when we use the word ''creator'' we're usually referring to the highest parts which are more intelligent and oversee the lower parts.
That's just my understanding.
(05-21-2018, 04:58 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote: [ -> ] (05-21-2018, 03:00 PM)Elros Wrote: [ -> ]I'd say Creator is the term used to embody the magicalness of being. In the same image, mankind as an effect of being creates and shapes the Earth.
I think Creator reflects timefulness more than timelessness, it is a time dependant ego of that which is timeless. Anything you can call Creator is your other-self, a focus of will potentiated.
That's a good description. Though if I had explained it to him like that, I would have lost him. Then he would have gotten defensive saying that gods and magic aren't real.
Even I don't understand what "focus of will potentiated" means. He would be totally lost there.
But a focus to me implies that it is not potentiated. Focus would have to be activated. What you said there "focus of will potentiated" doesn't really make sense.
Shouldn't it be "potentiated will is focused and becomes activated"?
Anyway, this would just confuse him.
The second part was more a reply to you, what I meant was this :
Quote:The first distortion, free will, finds focus. This is the second distortion known to you as Logos, the Creative Principle or Love.
Logoshood is Creatorhood I believe, selfhood/other-selfhood.
Creator is All That Is and All That Is Not
But is there nothing that is not?
Does non-existence not exist?
Is non-existence real?
Is that which is not possible?
(05-22-2018, 08:44 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote: [ -> ]But is there nothing that is not?
Does non-existence not exist?
Is non-existence real?
Is that which is not possible?
Non-existence is a dual thought, it's like an experience that can be infinitely-stretching contrasting what you see as existence, that by the weight of the existence of itself. Non-existence then is at most non-awareness of what it is and existence is understood by what is aware of being, self-awareness of existing (spirit complex).
There's infinitely like there's no here and I mean the infinite part, yet here is here in that infinite nowhere. You can find seeing it isn't there, but how can you erase that it has been seen to be.
Duality is a lot like you can really define anywhere as nowhere, because your only mean to define it as somewhere is by making it relative to another somewhere that is relative to it and how can you do that but by having always something more to make it relative to? Bingo, you got infinity. To have a somewhere you need infinite space, to have a somewhen you need infinite time. Anywhen is nowhen for everywhen is plain both of those, there's just time and time is the thought of everywhenness as an anywhen made nowhen if stepped outside itself.
The Infinite that became conscious.
Well, if you created something, then you are the creator. If you haven't, then you aren't. If you wanted to, and you've been unable to, then you're the negative expression of the creator.
It's a really interesting question you had to answer Indigo
I would say the Source since I think we often look for a source on Gaia, of things as apparently materialized as a river, a brook..
Yes, I agree, God IS. “I Am.” Ehyeh, “I am” or “I am becoming”.
One translation of the exchange between Moses and the Burning Bush is: “Ehyeh asher Ehyeh” or “I am becoming that which I am becoming”.
The Creator is knowing Itself. It is becoming more than It is.
God is because He is. That’s the Great Mystery.
(05-24-2018, 08:54 AM)Nau7ik Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I agree, God IS. “I Am.” Ehyeh, “I am” or “I am becoming”.
One translation of the exchange between Moses and the Burning Bush is: “Ehyeh asher Ehyeh” or “I am becoming that which I am becoming”.
The Creator is knowing Itself. It is becoming more than It is.
God is because He is. That’s the Great Mystery.
Is God beyond the Limitless Light, or does God crystalize out of the Limitless Light?
And is Limitless Light the same as Intelligent Infinity?
I am assuming infinite levels between God and Creator (One Infinite Creator).
Is the next Octave the Limitless Light?
(05-24-2018, 09:39 AM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote: [ -> ] (05-24-2018, 08:54 AM)Nau7ik Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I agree, God IS. “I Am.” Ehyeh, “I am” or “I am becoming”.
One translation of the exchange between Moses and the Burning Bush is: “Ehyeh asher Ehyeh” or “I am becoming that which I am becoming”.
The Creator is knowing Itself. It is becoming more than It is.
God is because He is. That’s the Great Mystery.
Is God beyond the Limitless Light, or does God crystalize out of the Limitless Light?
And is Limitless Light the same as Intelligent Infinity?
I am assuming infinite levels between God and Creator (One Infinite Creator).
Is the next Octave the Limitless Light?
I would say Ain Soph (limitless light) is intelligent infinity, or at the very least intelligent infinity in a kinetic form!
According to kaballah - I just bought a kaballah book - they say that there is a positive and a negative expression of god.
A positive expression eventually isolates itself through "tzim tzum" - self contraction that created the ain soph/kether split.
After this split, it realizes its loss, immediately desiring to orient its polarized ambiguity, if that makes sense!
Hope this helps.
I would also love to know whether god exists "as this", or as something "other than this." Is god positive, negative, or ambiguous? I feel like atheists negate god religiously. But I also feel that nobody more religiously declares the non-existence than hardcore buddhist non-theists! So I would also like to discover whether I can believe in a positive god without giving up my non-theism! Can you help?
(05-24-2018, 11:58 PM)Heart4 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-24-2018, 09:39 AM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote: [ -> ] (05-24-2018, 08:54 AM)Nau7ik Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I agree, God IS. “I Am.” Ehyeh, “I am” or “I am becoming”.
One translation of the exchange between Moses and the Burning Bush is: “Ehyeh asher Ehyeh” or “I am becoming that which I am becoming”.
The Creator is knowing Itself. It is becoming more than It is.
God is because He is. That’s the Great Mystery.
Is God beyond the Limitless Light, or does God crystalize out of the Limitless Light?
And is Limitless Light the same as Intelligent Infinity?
I am assuming infinite levels between God and Creator (One Infinite Creator).
Is the next Octave the Limitless Light?
I would say Ain Soph (limitless light) is intelligent infinity, or at the very least intelligent infinity in a kinetic form!
According to kaballah - I just bought a kaballah book - they say that there is a positive and a negative expression of god.
A positive expression eventually isolates itself through "tzim tzum" - self contraction that created the ain soph/kether split.
After this split, it realizes its loss, immediately desiring to orient its polarized ambiguity, if that makes sense!
Hope this helps.
I would also love to know whether god exists "as this", or as something "other than this." Is god positive, negative, or ambiguous? I feel like atheists negate god religiously. But I also feel that nobody more religiously declares the non-existence than hardcore buddhist non-theists! So I would also like to discover whether I can believe in a positive god without giving up my non-theism! Can you help?
The answer is both and neither. I just had a conversation over private message with another user here about this exact topic. One can’t say that God exists or that He doesn’t exist. Above Kether, the Crown, are the three negative veils of existence: negative existence, or the Creator as He truly is. Existence is dependent on manifestation. If we go backwards from Kether, we enter the Great Unmanifest. Manifestation is dependent on Ain Soph, but Ain Soph is not dependent on manifestation.
The Buddha was asked to describe whether an Arahat ceases to exist upon Liberation and the answer given was that one cannot qualify it with words. One cannot say that he exists or doesn’t exist. It is a mode of existence that is wholly other than what we know or can conceive of. I use this example because complete and perfect enlightenment in the East is equivalent to Union with God, the mystical experience of Kether.
The Buddha recommends that we go all the way and see for ourselves, and I am perfectly content with that answer
Tzim tzum is an interesting concept. Ain Soph contracts within Itself and concentrates a point in Ain Soph Aur (the Limitless Light), this becomes Kether. There is nothing but the Creator. Nothing. No-thing. Therefore there cannot be anything
other than the Creator. The Creation is not outside of the Creator. So, in the expression of positive and negative existence, the Great Unmanifest is negative existence, manifestation (the commencement of the Emanations starting with Kether of Atziluth and ending at Malkuth of Assiah) is positive existence. Dion Fortune in her
Mystical Qabalah said that Kether is the Malkuth of the Unmanifest. It’s a seed thought.
(05-25-2018, 08:41 AM)Nau7ik Wrote: [ -> ]The answer is both and neither. I just had a conversation over private message with another user here about this exact topic. One can’t say that God exists or that He doesn’t exist. Above Kether, the Crown, are the three negative veils of existence: negative existence, or the Creator as He truly is. Existence is dependent on manifestation. If we go backwards from Kether, we enter the Great Unmanifest. Manifestation is dependent on Ain Soph, but Ain Soph is not dependent on manifestation.
The Buddha was asked to describe whether an Arahat ceases to exist upon Liberation and the answer given was that one cannot qualify it with words. One cannot say that he exists or doesn’t exist. It is a mode of existence that is wholly other than what we know or can conceive of. I use this example because complete and perfect enlightenment in the East is equivalent to Union with God, the mystical experience of Kether.
The Buddha recommends that we go all the way and see for ourselves, and I am perfectly content with that answer
Tzim tzum is an interesting concept. Ain Soph contracts within Itself and concentrates a point in Ain Soph Aur (the Limitless Light), this becomes Kether. There is nothing but the Creator. Nothing. No-thing. Therefore there cannot be anything other than the Creator. The Creation is not outside of the Creator. So, in the expression of positive and negative existence, the Great Unmanifest is negative existence, manifestation (the commencement of the Emanations starting with Kether of Atziluth and ending at Malkuth of Assiah) is positive existence. Dion Fortune in her Mystical Qabalah said that Kether is the Malkuth of the Unmanifest. It’s a seed thought.
Ah, so we have different levels of infinity.
God (aka Kether) is infinite.
It crystalizes from the Ain Soph Aur Limitless Light, which is infinite beyond comprehension.
So is Ain Soph Aur a symbol? Or is the Limitless Light beyond even the capability of a symbol to encapsulate or describe?
I realize each of the Sephirah are a symbol. I wonder too if the Ain Soph Aur is also a symbol.
I have to experience it myself, because these concepts cannot be put into words.
(05-25-2018, 01:11 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote: [ -> ]Ah, so we have different levels of infinity.
God (aka Kether) is infinite.
It crystalizes from the Ain Soph Aur Limitless Light, which is infinite beyond comprehension.
So is Ain Soph Aur a symbol? Or is the Limitless Light beyond even the capability of a symbol to encapsulate or describe?
I realize each of the Sephirah are a symbol. I wonder too if the Ain Soph Aur is also a symbol.
I have to experience it myself, because these concepts cannot be put into words.
There are magical symbols for each of the Sephiroth but there are no symbols for the veils. The veils themselves are symbolic representations of that which the present human mind cannot conceive. But like Dion Fortune said, they serve to present an image to the mind, therefore serving its purpose.
So Kether is given the symbol of the swastika, the First Swirlings upon the world of Assiah, the material realm. The magical image for Kether is an ancient bearded king seen in profile. It’s an interesting symbol to contemplate. One side is revealed, the other side is hidden. Just like the dark side of the moon.
Ain Soph is intelligent infinity, I believe. I think Heart4 made an accurate observation. Because as Ra said, Infinity became aware of itself. This pure Infinity is Ayin. Infinity becoming aware of Itself, or intelligent infinity, is Ain Soph, the Limitless. I’m not sure how Ain Soph Aur fits with the Ra Material though. The act of free will upon Love manifesting Light, which is the crystallizing of a point within the ocean of Limitless Light, which would be the commencing of the Emanations, the manifestation of Kether, “Let there be light!”
I’m reading a book on Kabbalah I found at my local metaphysical store,
The Essential Kabbalah: the Heart of Jewish Mysticism by Daniel C. Matt. I recommend this to those interested in the mystical / philosophical Qabalah. It’s an excellent book to contemplate the passages. It’s of a definite mystical quality. One needs to sit with it, contemplate, meditate, and he does an excellent job at conveying these qabalistic concepts and principles, specifically with the negative veils: Ayin, Ain Soph, Ain Soph Aur. I’ll share a passage,
Quote:AYIN
Ayin, Nothingness, is more existent than all the being of the world. But since it is simple, and every simple thing is complex compared with its simplicity, it is called Ayin.
The inner power is called Ayin because thought does not grasp it, nor reflection. Concerning this, Job said, “Wisdom comes into being out of ayin.”
The Name of Nothingness
The depth of primordial being is called Boundless. Because of its concealment from all creatures above and below, it is also called Nothingness. If one asks, “What is it?” the answer is, “Nothing,” meaning: No one can know anything about it—except the belief that it exists. It’s existence cannot be grasped by anyone other than it. Therefore its name is “I am becoming.”
(05-21-2018, 01:12 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote: [ -> ]How would you describe Creator to someone who asks, but is an atheist? One who has never heard the concept before.
The uncaused causer, the unmoved mover, the unchanging and infinitely intelligent background behind all that appears to change.
If an atheist can grasp the concept of infinite parallel universes (Everett many worlds hypothesis), they should be able to grasp that there HAS to, by the same token, be infinite intelligence (if all combinations of matter and energy are represented by such an infinite spectrum of possibilities).
Thus, you can make a secular argument for infinite intelligence, by simply appealing to modern quantum theory. Just as you can appeal to the many worlds hypothesis to justify, materialistically, why we exist on Earth in the perfect conditions necessary for life (proximity to the sun and other seemingly fortuitous factors).
At the end of the day, all evidence can be seen either way. That is the whole crux of the Law of Confusion (the freedom to choose to believe it is all chaotic nonsense or the freedom to believe there is intelligence in all things). The only thing we can know for sure is our consciousness; everything else is inferred and not directly known. Materialism is actually more of a leap of faith than idealism or panpsychism is. But my advice is let sleeping dogs lie. They'll wake up when done napping.