|
Post by maximus on Nov 21, 2010 23:16:07 GMT
In other words:
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Nov 22, 2010 0:21:20 GMT
And so this means-what? What is meant by 'existence'? Do you mean what we can perceive with the five senses? Are the perceptions garnered through the physical senses your only criterion for 'existence? That seems rather egotistical and LIMITING, don't you think?
The whole of esoteric philosophy is predicated on the Reality BEHIND the very LOWEST form of reality: the one perceived through the five senses, which is referred to in Qabalah as the "Malkuth of Assiah". One must TRAIN oneself towards "higher perceptions" hence the injunction in Liber Al vel Legis: "Be not animal; Refine thy rapture!"
If you have NOT done any of this sort of "work' then it is NO WONDER that YOUR perception of reality is completely and utterly LIMITED to the "physical"., and that any sort of conversation involving much more rarefied ideas and the perception of and communication with, OTHER realities sounds like the purest sort of gibberish!
Of course, one could say the SAME of quantum physics, which sounds like gibberish, and is all based purely on THEORY, seeing how what it is they talk about cannot be perceived by the five senses! But, "e pur si muove!" [Yet, it still moves!]
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Nov 22, 2010 18:37:44 GMT
Existence (or reality) is a self-sufficient primary. It is not a product of a supernatural dimension, or of anything else. There is nothing antecedent to existence, nothing apart from it—and no alternative to it. Existence exists—and only existence exists. Its existence and its nature are irreducible and unalterable. This conversation is weird, you compare existence to reality? That is a realy akward comparisment. What im gonna say is not totaly correct but it makes aim in a good direction. Reality is what you make of your existence. Study philosophy much?
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Nov 22, 2010 18:46:09 GMT
And so this means-what? What is meant by 'existence'? Do you mean what we can perceive with the five senses? Are the perceptions garnered through the physical senses your only criterion for 'existence? That seems rather egotistical and LIMITING, don't you think? Reality is that which exists. Existence and reality are irreducible primaries. I'm well aware of what Liber Al says. Depending on your age, I was likely doing the Work when you were a child. I may have a different understanding than you, in fact, I can see that I do. These are inner processes, there is a reason they are called the Inner Planes. That's a clue X four. Quantum Physics has a basis in Mathematics, in other words, verifiable and falsifiable scientific principle. The Inner Planes are subjective - we perceive them similarly because of the make-up of the human brain and it's ability to process information, no more, no less. You are making a common mistake among occultists, which is in mistaking the symbol for that which it symbolizes - projecting an inner process with an outer reality.
|
|
Augur
Member
Travelling salesman. Roamin' profit.
Posts: 184
|
Post by Augur on Nov 22, 2010 20:11:59 GMT
It's relevant because these are philosophical ideas, by definition, and therefore you're currently discussing philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Nov 23, 2010 3:34:03 GMT
And so this means-what? What is meant by 'existence'? Do you mean what we can perceive with the five senses? Are the perceptions garnered through the physical senses your only criterion for 'existence? That seems rather egotistical and LIMITING, don't you think? Reality is that which exists. Existence and reality are irreducible primaries. The Inner Planes certainly "exist"; if they did not, they would not have a name. in fact, the Inner Planes, being beyond time and space, have a much greater right to the term 'existence' since they are not "temporary phenomena" like the things that exist in time and space, all of which are ephemeral I'm well aware of what Liber Al says. Being "well aware of what it says" and "actually having meditated on the Book in order to arrive at some understanding of what it MEANS" are two different things. Depending on your age, I was likely doing the Work when you were a child. Let's just say I left childhood behind a LONG WHILE BACK, and I am no johnny-come-lately to the Work, either. I may have a different understanding than you, in fact, I can see that I do. These are inner processes, there is a reason they are called the Inner Planes. That's a clue X four. But what about when the "Inner Processes" manifest results on the Outer Planes? I would say that if work on the Inner Planes produces no tangible result in the Outer, then one is most likely only "entertaining oneself with an extended fantasy" on the Astral Plane. Quantum Physics has a basis in Mathematics, in other words, verifiable and falsifiable scientific principle. The Inner Planes are subjective - we perceive them similarly because of the make-up of the human brain and it's ability to process information, no more, no less. How else would we be able to do it? The fact of the experience being 'different yet the same' for everyone is true of EVERY FACET OF EXPERIENCE. As Crowley said in his foreword to Liber Al: "Each one of us has thus a universe of his own, but it is the same universe for each one as soon as it includes all possible experience. This implies the extension of consciousness to include all other consciousness" Thus the Inner Planes may have to be experienced "subjectively' but they certainly can and do affect the Outer Planes "objectively". You are making a common mistake among occultists, which is in mistaking the symbol for that which it symbolizes - projecting an inner process with an outer reality. Sorry , I don't follow you. You will have to make yourself clearer. Examples, maybe?
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Nov 23, 2010 18:27:46 GMT
Well if there is one thing I learned in my studies of bioscience is that anything that is proven can be disaproved, nothing is true, everything is permitted. If I tommorow start to think that gravity is a joke, then well you will see me flying. Reality, as in the world you see in you eyes is nothing but a mutual dream. Yeah well thats sortof filosofy, but that is not relevant, quantum fisics are based on filosofy lined true science, formulas and texts dont make evidence my friend When pulling certain rules trough maths some rules wich are common to you become falsefied, when in space other rules count, on the sun other rules count, everywhere are other rules and they are shapeable. Quantumfiscs are therefor so irrelevant to this topic as reality is. And yeah maths and fisics are true and stuff but the first rule in quantumfisics is "proven" but as easely "disaproved". Like uhm: 2+3=5 wrong 3+2=5 Stupid example but some might understand the ideal. Well that rule is that energy has or hasnt a purpose. It has not, never was never will be. The only way these things are provable ( and you have to search farther and deeper within yourself and leave common sense behind). That is that we give energy purpose, therefor we create reality. ( or alter reality for the sceptics ) Well sure this includes alot of filosofy if you want to call it so. But if you realy know what quantum fisics are, then you know they are no more then filosofies themselves. Sorry, but this is rather incoherent.
|
|
Augur
Member
Travelling salesman. Roamin' profit.
Posts: 184
|
Post by Augur on Nov 23, 2010 20:51:47 GMT
Sorry, but this is rather incoherent. Yep, and the chronic mis-spellings aren't due to English being a second language. The incoherency seems to be deliberate. Why? I've no idea. Too much time on someone's hands maybe?
|
|
|
Post by Azaziel on Nov 24, 2010 9:02:51 GMT
Sorry, but this is rather incoherent. Yep, and the chronic mis-spellings aren't due to English being a second language. The incoherency seems to be deliberate. Why? I've no idea. Too much time on someone's hands maybe? I agree
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Nov 24, 2010 16:03:00 GMT
Take note of common themes. Pattern recognition if you will pardon the dry humor.
I hear that the Freemasons are really the descendents of the Knights Templar. I heard this and like the idea so any evidence or commentary to the contrary will be discarded or the speaker attacked. Of course all the above is true because I feel that it is. I prayed on this and then I meditated on it. A little goblin that delivered my pizza confirmed it by saying "sign here please sir" which is exactly what I was thinking at the time. The Knights Templar are the true masters of all esoteric orders in the world and they allow so many of them to be out there just to confuse the profane.
|
|
|
Post by asiinja on Nov 24, 2010 19:31:22 GMT
Jeez why am I even discussing this with you guys. Could someone please close my topic? I already got the answer somewhere else. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by jayman on Nov 24, 2010 20:06:32 GMT
Jeez why am I even discussing this with you guys. Could someone please close my topic? I already got the answer somewhere else. Thanks! The answer you got elsewhere was incorrect. The answer given here was. That is, the modern Masonic Knights Templar group have ZERO to do with the medival order of the same name.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Nov 24, 2010 20:14:50 GMT
What I suspect you mean asiinja is you got the answer you wanted to find.
I used to say to the Masonic detractors,
"If you go out to the woodshed looking for wood, you most likely will find some wood."
|
|
|
Post by vajranagini on Nov 25, 2010 4:17:28 GMT
The Orders of Builders are MUCH OLDER that the Knights Templar. No doubt they date back to ANCIENT times, as in Egypt and Assyria, etc. After all the buildres would be working on temples of initiation, and would of course have to know what was going to take place in those temples in order to fulfil some requirement (sometimes chambers would have to be flooded and drained in rapid succession, f'r instance, where part of the test was to keep a cool head as water filled the enclosed space where the candidate was) so naturally the builders of temples would have to be "obligated" and sworn never to reveal anything of what they had worked on.
The Knights Templar were supposed to have been behind the building of cathedrals in Europe, weren't they? In that way, they would have been on familiar and friendly terms with stonemasons. I heard a story once, that one reason the Church hates Freemasons is that back when, the stonemasons becoming prosperous with all the cathedral-building that was going on, felt free to disregard sumptuary laws and to wear all kinds of things normally forbidden to the working class (such as FUR) . The Church became irate at this and issued a bull ordering the stonemasons to cease and desist from their behaviour and return to their humble, cloth-wearing status.
The stonemasons promptly responded with the message that not only would they NOT obey, but that the Church had best rescind its bull at once, or the stonemasons would go about and PULL the keystones OUT of all the cathedrals they had built forthwith, and see how the Church liked THEM APPLES!
Thus challenged, the Church was forced to back down, but since then there has been a BAD FEELING between the Church and stonemasons! I heard this story once and never forgot it, but I have NEVER heard it again anywhere else!
In any case, it is certainly NOT difficult to see how the persecuted Knights of the Temple would seek shelter from the BUILDERS of the Temple, the common denominator being...THE TEMPLE.
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Nov 25, 2010 10:38:53 GMT
What I suspect you mean asiinja is you got the answer you wanted to find. I used to say to the Masonic detractors, "If you go out to the woodshed looking for wood, you most likely will find some wood." Rats! I always find Rats! Must be looking in the wrong place! Bill your pearls are priceless!
|
|
|
Post by asiinja on Nov 25, 2010 12:46:43 GMT
Jeez why am I even discussing this with you guys. Could someone please close my topic? I already got the answer somewhere else. Thanks! The answer you got elsewhere was incorrect. The answer given here was. That is, the modern Masonic Knights Templar group have ZERO to do with the medival order of the same name. Dude you do not even know where I found the answer or what I found. Why don't you go bother someone else.
|
|
|
Post by asiinja on Nov 25, 2010 12:49:41 GMT
What I suspect you mean asiinja is you got the answer you wanted to find. I used to say to the Masonic detractors, "If you go out to the woodshed looking for wood, you most likely will find some wood." As I said you guys do not know wich answers I found. I did not want to find anything in particular just a proper "answer" was perfect. So I went to a Dr. at the University of Leuven who knows a lot about freemasonry and knight templars and I sortof heard him out. He had lots of interesting things to tell from all different point of vieuws.
|
|
|
Post by jayman on Nov 25, 2010 13:29:15 GMT
What I suspect you mean asiinja is you got the answer you wanted to find. I used to say to the Masonic detractors, "If you go out to the woodshed looking for wood, you most likely will find some wood." As I said you guys do not know wich answers I found. I did not want to find anything in particular just a proper "answer" was perfect. So I went to a Dr. at the University of Leuven who knows a lot about freemasonry and knight templars and I sortof heard him out. He had lots of interesting things to tell from all different point of vieuws. IS this guy a freemason? Has he ever sat in lodge? Does he even know what the modern group is all about? Otherwise it is just his opinion. I know your answer is wrong. We gave you the correct answer here and you disagreed. So you went looking for an answer elsewhere that would back up what you believe. Whether you choose to believe this or not is your prerogative. But the truth has already been provided here. The inherent problem with your research is that you disbelieve that masons know more about masonry than non-masons do. Do you also know more about flying an airpkane than a pilot does? Do you know more about building a house than a carpenter? Do you know more about heart surgery than a medical doctor?
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Nov 25, 2010 14:26:29 GMT
Dude you do not even know where I found the answer or what I found. Why don't you go bother someone else. We do not know because you have not taken any time to tell us. That tells me a lot, it tells me you are playing with us on this forum, you have no interest in contributing to the debate, you just want to make others comply to your views. when that does not happen you go elsewhere to find someone who will comply. Been doing this forum business for longer than you have been on the planet I suspect. Been there, seen it, got the tee shirt.
|
|
Augur
Member
Travelling salesman. Roamin' profit.
Posts: 184
|
Post by Augur on Nov 25, 2010 14:58:05 GMT
...and deleting most your posts from this thread, so that it doesn't even make sense anymore let alone give someone else the benefit of the answer to the question you claim to have found, does little to bolster your case of being 'bothered' here. In fact, it seems to be quite the opposite.
|
|