Ayin: the Absolute Nothing

[Kenazis]

Btw, I haven't been posting for a while. I simply didn't have the motivation. Sorry for reviving an old thread.

This has been one of the most interesting conversations to follow, so reviving an old thread like this is very good indeed.

[Jiva]

Indeed, this is an interesting thread.

Using the goat picture as an example, I'd say that they would more accurately represent the Logos and anti-Logos, God and Satan or +1 and -1. Maybe it's unhelpful to add yet another simile to the thread, but I personally view this as the difference between particles of matter and antimatter: they have identical mass, but different charge. The reason the universe exists is due to asymmetry; there is more matter than antimatter. But if this was switched there would still be a universe as a result of there being more antimatter than matter. In fact, if it was an exact switch it would be an identical universe.

Aside from that, I don't have anything in particular to add other than stating that a zero or nothingness as a concept that nevertheless encompasses infinity isn't unheard of in philosophy, particularly when one looks outside Neoplatonist cosmogonies – where something is created from a nothing that is then lost – but instead towards monist theories. So, for example, where something created from some sort of primordial stuff is differentiated, but instead of being lost remains as a fragment inside that which is created.

[Sebomai]

I badly do not wish to throw something confusing and mentally irritating into this mix, but I have been looking into the Temple of the Black Light's Book of Sitra Achra, and I feel that fra. Nefastos's stance, one many of us seem to agree with, myself included, that Ayin includes No-thing whatsoever AND every imaginable and unimaginable something is the biggest and most crucial difference, the one from which all our other oppositions spring, with their contesting that Ayin is No-thing, never ANY-thing, thing-ness not even remotely possible.

Fra. RaktaZoci and I discussed today a Hegelian and also Nefastosian concept that the Absolute is all motion, which would mean that the Some-thing aspect of it is always in the process of generating motion which is a sign and a process of existence. This would ultimately explain all manifestation and emanation as the ripples of the motion of that Some-thing aspect of the Absolute. While they explain it in great depth and I understand what they are saying in Book of Sitra Achra, I am a committed Nefastosian who doesn't accept that, illusory or not, all manifestation somehow springs from a true NO THING AT ALL TOTAL ETERNAL ABSENCE. Sorry for the all caps but I felt that needed to be emphasized as that is the reading I get of these Ayin is No-thing ideas and the importance the writers place on them.

That ultimate unshakeable belief in an innate complete absence underlying All is, to me, the source of all anticosmic theology and philosophy and, also, the source of all Path of Regression beliefs that the ends justify any means. When your "Cosmos" is ultimately a nihilistic -1, the first thing most people throw out the window, according to Dostoevsky in every major novel he ever wrote and my own, personal experience, is any kind of morality or ethics. As I used to call it, Mystical Nihilism, the imbuing of nothingness with some kind of sentience and purpose while absolutely insisting it is still a complete absence is not just a theory that justifies terrible actions, it encourages them and makes a good excuse for them, because if No-thing is the only goodness there is, the only desirable condition, what is to stop someone from any action they want to take to harm the existence of phenomenal creation?

I just don't see this way and it is the fundamental sticking point for me with this book. Ayin must not include anything at all for the rest of their philosophy to make sense and I just do not agree that saying the ultimate reality is a nothing that defies our ability to conceptualize is identical to saying that the ultimately reality is a No-thing that is absent even in the realms beyond concepts. Sorry if this makes NO sense. But it is something I've been grappling with lately in my Qlihpothic studies. I undertook this book to assist me in that, just to see what someone else thinks other than my primary sources, and it is definitely instructive but I just cannot let this one point and my inability to reconcile it, go.

[Jiva]

...the Temple of the Black Light's Book of Sitra Achra.

A slight correction. The Book of Sitra Achra and the Liber Falxifer books were written by N.A-A.218 who was a magister of the TotBL but is no longer (amicably it would seem) and is now the magister of TFC.

That ultimate unshakeable belief in an innate complete absence underlying All is, to me, the source of all anticosmic theology and philosophy and, also, the source of all Path of Regression beliefs that the ends justify any means. When your "Cosmos" is ultimately a nihilistic -1, the first thing most people throw out the window, according to Dostoevsky in every major novel he ever wrote and my own, personal experience, is any kind of morality or ethics. As I used to call it, Mystical Nihilism, the imbuing of nothingness with some kind of sentience and purpose while absolutely insisting it is still a complete absence is not just a theory that justifies terrible actions, it encourages them and makes a good excuse for them, because if No-thing is the only goodness there is, the only desirable condition, what is to stop someone from any action they want to take to harm the existence of phenomenal creation?

While I get this criticism, I'm not convinced by it as I think it assumes the worst. By this I mean that this criticism could also be applied to Buddhism to explain everything away as illusion, which can be used as an excuse to act like a total psychopath. Of course, while some ultimately have, most don't. I'm also wouldn't characterise the intention of TBoSA's philosophy as “NO THING AT ALL TOTAL ETERNAL ABSENCE” as it's stated to be a return to the “primal unmanifest” i.e. Ayin, which I don't interpret them as meaning “absolute nothing” as they ascribe to it various tradiationally paradoxical definitions like “fullness of emptiness”, “unrestricted potential” etc.

Having said that, I have encountered such views elsewhere, and I think there's some irony in this sort of anti-cosmic arms race. If there was originally some latent possibility for the manifestation of the cosmos in Ayin, then simply returning to this status would possibly re-allow a re-manifestation of the cosmos. Of course, if the destruction of this possibility is desired, it is no longer a return, but a development. And if this development is desired then I don't see a huge amount of difference between the uniformity of the entropy of God's proposed heaven and Ayin as total nothingness with all unrestricted potential removed.

Again, I would just say that I obviously prefer monist to Neoplatonic philosophy and therefore personally favour something like the Hassidic rather than Lurian Kabbalah, where the former proposes a psychological, illusory emanation while the latter proposes a literal emanation. However, as an analogy to these Lurian examples I'd consider Ayin, at least in its original primal state, as more or less synonymous with the Theosophic Jiva.

[Sebomai]

I think the difference between Buddhism/Hinduism and their conception of illusion and emptiness versus some anticosmic group, even if TotBL is a poor example, is that I've studied the writings of many Buddhist and Hindu teachers and for a year WITH a Tibetan Buddhist geshe, and they all come around to the same kind of thing. To paraphrase loosely: If you think we mean the normal idea of what is unreal and what is illusory, hit your hand with a hammer and see if it hurts! This moves them into a place similar to where I see us, as agreeing that these things are real in the conventional sense but lacking ULTIMATE reality, an independent reality.

Honestly, I won't speak for the anticosmic folks on this but, from the ones I've spoken to, the answer seems to be OH PAIN! GOOD MORE PAIN! :p

When you align actual nihilistic beliefs with a dark philosophy, if you accept destruction and hate as a positive thing without any abstraction at all, and couple that with nihilism, you've effectively tossed out any reason anyone in history has ever given for being a decent human.

I thought about saying all this in an edit or second comment but felt too lazy, haha. Should have gone for it! I knew there was a loophole in all that!

Thanks, also, for the corrections on the Book of Sitra Achra. I knew the Falxifer books but not that one. Probably because Ixaaxar was all THE TOTBL IS BACK AND IN THIS HERE BOOK!!!!

[Wyrmfang]

I apologize you my English speaking brothers that at the moment I don´t have time/energy for an extensive discussion on this topic (since I´m going through/have lately gone through such in the Finnish side), but I want shortly to make a note. I of course agree that Nefastos´ conception of unity is tens of times preferable to the "anti-cosmic" view where chaos is the deepest essence of being, but there are also several other conceptions of unity, some of which may be better than Nefastos´. I haven´t read neoplatonic philosophy but based on what I have read on these forums it seems there is a clear path to Spinozism there. And in Spinozism (and similar systems) there is the central problem, how and why the Absolute as the greatest sum of everything divides in the first place. The practical problem that emerges is the inability to explain in a natural way how freedom is possible and how evil* can be seen real and not just "a privation" or "a moment in history". This can of course be answered by conceptual sophistry (as always in philosophy), but the basic problem remains.

I suggest rather Schelling´s presentation in the Freiheitschrift. At first I thought it only confirms what I had learnt from theosophy/Nefastos, but there are important differences. In Schelling´s view the highest totality where anything can thought included is God. But God has a chaotic ground, his unconscious, which does not literally exist but is becoming to existence. God is a harmonous totality but with a rupture. The Absolute is not a totality but a background ("the groundless") which makes possible that in God difference is compatible with harmony, although it´s a question of free choice whether one pursues that possibility. I´m aware that in some passages also Nefastos presents the matter practically this way, but for example the very foundation in the beginning of Polyharmonia clearly states a Spinozist conception of Absolute. I not also very convinced that Hegel´s conception either can be equated with Nefastos (there is the turn of Kant in between Spinoza and Hegel...), but I can´t really argue for this since I´ve read so little Hegel.

*By saying that evil is real I mean anything but that it would be a substance of its own.

[Kenazis]

...the Temple of the Black Light's Book of Sitra Achra.

A slight correction. The Book of Sitra Achra and the Liber Falxifer books were written by N.A-A.218 who was a magister of the TotBL but is no longer (amicably it would seem) and is now the magister of TFC.

“ I was for a couple of years the Magister of both the Temple of the Black Light and the T.F.C. but have since the publication of the first Falxifer Book been relieved of the burden of my responsibilities in connection to the Temple of the Black Light and serve now solely as the Magister of the Necrosophic Temple of Qayin, the T.F.C.

The current Magister of the Temple of the Black Light is a person with much more focus and dedication to the myriads of Separate Lines with and within which that Temple works and this serves the Good Cause much more efficiently as my own main focus is and will remain the Qayinite and Necrosophic Path, while still being constantly connected to and striving to spread That Holy Black Light.

But, I have some still unpublished Work more or less ready for public presentation in connection to some of the Lines of 218 directly connected to our Qayinite mysteries, such as the Nefilimic and the Qliphothic grimoires…” – Taken from the Ixaxaar interview.

Is the grimoire we are speaking (part of) the mentioned Qliphotic grimoire(s)? If so, then I see the link between the TOBL and The Book of Sitra Achra been very understandable and concrete. Are there any “official TOBL” books available (or even made) if these books written by N.A-A.218 are not TOBL-books? Liber Azerate is (somewhere).

[Sebomai]

Sitra Achra is very Qliphotic. Almost entirely so. As I read further, I realize that there is much more to it than in USA streams of anticosmic philosophy. I feel like anticosmic in the states is an excuse to act like a smarter version of a typical teenaged devil worshipper. Very immature and negative for the sake of negativity. A lot of passion, which is great, but it is directed towards wounding the world they feel has wounded them. A very injured buddhic capacity, it seems. Not the Buddhi itself being injured but the spiritual part of us and emotional part of us that seeks to reconcile our inner darkness with love. It seems to be injured in these people so they would rather lash out than build bridges and let themselves see the softness in the dark, and not just the hard and cold part.

[Jiva]

Is the grimoire we are speaking (part of) the mentioned Qliphotic grimoire(s)? If so, then I see the link between the TOBL and The Book of Sitra Achra been very understandable and concrete. Are there any “official TOBL” books available (or even made) if these books written by N.A-A.218 are not TOBL-books? Liber Azerate is (somewhere).

My memory's failing me at the moment, but the MLO published Liber Azerate (in Swedish). I think at least the first Liber Falxifer book was available on the old TotBL website and others, including TBoSA and presumably the others he's referring to, were listed.

I haven´t read neoplatonic philosophy but based on what I have read on these forums it seems there is a clear path to Spinozism there. And in Spinozism (and similar systems) there is the central problem, how and why the Absolute as the greatest sum of everything divides in the first place. The practical problem that emerges is the inability to explain in a natural way how freedom is possible and how evil* can be seen real and not just "a privation" or "a moment in history". This can of course be answered by conceptual sophistry (as always in philosophy), but the basic problem remains.

I suggest rather Schelling´s presentation in the Freiheitschrift. At first I thought it only confirms what I had learnt from theosophy/Nefastos, but there are important differences. In Schelling´s view the highest totality where anything can thought included is God. But God has a chaotic ground, his unconscious, which does not literally exist but is becoming to existence. God is a harmonous totality but with a rupture. The Absolute is not a totality but a background ("the groundless") which makes possible that in God difference is compatible with harmony, although it´s a question of free choice whether one pursues that possibility. I´m aware that in some passages also Nefastos presents the matter practically this way, but for example the very foundation in the beginning of Polyharmonia clearly states a Spinozist conception of Absolute.

Yeah, agreed. As I think I might've stated elsewhere, I am deeply sympathetic to Spinoza, although I agree with the primary criticism you mentioned. However, I think people were describing Ayin quite abstractly rather than as something specifically to be aimed for.

I don't remember Freiheitschrift as clearly, but Schelling's development of this in Weltalter (in its various versions) seems to try and reconcile Neoplatonism and monism which Ffytche highlights. For instance, the following quote from the first draft of Weltalter:

“The systems which want to explain the origins of things by descent from above, necessarily arrive at the thought that the outflowings of the highest original power must finally lose themselves in a certain outermost extremity, where there was only, so to speak, a shadow of essence, the slightest leftover of reality... This is the meaning of non-being for the Neoplatonists who no longer understood the truth in Plato. We, following the opposite direction, also maintain an outermost, beyond which there is nothing; but for us this is not the ultimate reach of an outward flow, but the first, from which everything begins, not pure lack or a reality almost wholly robbed of existence, but an active negation.”

In Wirth's translation of the third draft of Weltalter I don't think it's stated in such explicit terms, but there is the addition that this is a continuously circuitous process, which I think is significant. Therefore I think this inversion of the standard Neoplatonic hierarchy is similar to Jung's interpretation of the parable of Job. Like all humans, Job is made in the image of God yet essentially proves himself to be superior by refusing to be goaded from the ideals that God himself espouses yet hypocritically ignores. Thus there can be said to be an emanation downwards into matter, but also a progression upwards “beyond the stars of God” to the becoming absolute. To put it in Theosophic terms, I think it's similar to Manas containing accumulated human experience with the goal of aiding the unification of the higher spiritual and lower material evolutionary chains of Jiva as the heavenly human.

Incidentally, I actually thought of mentioning Schelling in this thread as Lorenz Oken, one of his disciples, categorically described the absolute as a “zero” (literally mentioned on the first page and onwards of his Lehrbuch der Naturphilosophie).