Agape (love)

Rational discussions on metaphysical and abstract topics.
User avatar
Insanus
Frater
Posts: 924
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 7:06 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Agape (love)

Postby Insanus » Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:37 pm

Nefastos wrote:That is why there can be no "âtmic" work as separated from Buddhic and Manasic, which are the two hands. There is no third hand; the act of the seeming third part is just the application of the two. In a mystic language, two hands create the third when they join in prayer. (The same goes with eyes.)
I see this the other way around: there can only be two hands because of the non-existent Will, which is the only force one can be certain of - because it does not exist & ergo cannot be questioned. For this reason also, I have a hard time understanding Atma as the will to do right because it's activity is to create the duality of buddhi & manas, self & the other, which is the original separative act. Will to self-destruct, to break the "perfect" solipsism - to create by dividing & complicating itself seems to be the "creative evil".
Nefastos wrote:Did the suffering help to create empathy, or was the love there to create empathy?
Or was Love there to create suffering to be it's own great (m)other, if we understand suffering in the largest, buddhist sense? The concern about world's suffering -I think- is already affinity with it, and maybe Satan can be understood as the unity of love and suffering. Which, of course, is not there: much like Atma is not there either.
Myrkky sattuu siihen jolla on haava.
User avatar
Nefastos
Frater
Posts: 3431
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Agape (love)

Postby Nefastos » Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:45 pm

Insanus wrote:I see this the other way around: there can only be two hands because of the non-existent Will, which is the only force one can be certain of - because it does not exist & ergo cannot be questioned. For this reason also, I have a hard time understanding Atma as the will to do right because it's activity is to create the duality of buddhi & manas, self & the other, which is the original separative act. Will to self-destruct, to break the "perfect" solipsism - to create by dividing & complicating itself seems to be the "creative evil".


Ah, but isn't this choice (that we made or which made us, whichever; and I wouldn't separate those two) the âtmic choice, the âtmic essence par excellence? The choice of integration or disintegration, reach for nirvâna or, fundamentally, avitchi (evil)?

To join, or to separate? To create, or to destroy? Or, like a magician or Baphomet, use the both hands accordingly, meaning here: the unity of hands, the separation of hands. I think that the ultimate intention remains, whether it is concealed or open: are we "destroying in order to create", or "creating in order to destroy". And by creating, I herein mean also creating of things that are more absolute and therefore seemingly empty, in a nirvanic sense.

So, the âtma is that direction of every action – of which we are full at every moment, nolens volens, even while meditating succesfully. Like said, it is the "third eye" which seemingly opens only when the other two are closed (one can see the spiritual unity only when one stops seeing the duality in matter), but actually it is there at every moment, including the moment where it apparently comes to being by "virginal" birth: actually it is its own sole parent.

Insanus wrote:Or was Love there to create suffering to be it's own great (m)other, if we understand suffering in the largest, buddhist sense?


I think there was a lapsus in my text you quoted, and I meant to say "Did the suffering help to create empathy, or was the love there to create suffering?" (Meaning the sympathetic love that suffers with the sufferer.) If that was a Freudian slip, for the first time such a slip seems comforting... Nevertheless, how I accidentally wrote it is not so different to the idea, so I won't edit the original message.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
User avatar
Insanus
Frater
Posts: 924
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 7:06 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Agape (love)

Postby Insanus » Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:39 pm

Nefastos wrote:
Insanus wrote:I see this the other way around: there can only be two hands because of the non-existent Will, which is the only force one can be certain of - because it does not exist & ergo cannot be questioned. For this reason also, I have a hard time understanding Atma as the will to do right because it's activity is to create the duality of buddhi & manas, self & the other, which is the original separative act. Will to self-destruct, to break the "perfect" solipsism - to create by dividing & complicating itself seems to be the "creative evil".


Ah, but isn't this choice (that we made or which made us, whichever; and I wouldn't separate those two) the âtmic choice, the âtmic essence par excellence? The choice of integration or disintegration, reach for nirvâna or, fundamentally, avitchi (evil)?

To join, or to separate? To create, or to destroy? Or, like a magician or Baphomet, use the both hands accordingly, meaning here: the unity of hands, the separation of hands. I think that the ultimate intention remains, whether it is concealed or open: are we "destroying in order to create", or "creating in order to destroy". And by creating, I herein mean also creating of things that are more absolute and therefore seemingly empty, in a nirvanic sense.

So, the âtma is that direction of every action – of which we are full at every moment, nolens volens, even while meditating succesfully. Like said, it is the "third eye" which seemingly opens only when the other two are closed (one can see the spiritual unity only when one stops seeing the duality in matter), but actually it is there at every moment, including the moment where it apparently comes to being by "virginal" birth: actually it is its own sole parent.
So buddhi-manas is effectively atmic way of looking at this whereas thinking separately about manas and buddhi is kama manasic?
Myrkky sattuu siihen jolla on haava.
User avatar
Nefastos
Frater
Posts: 3431
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Agape (love)

Postby Nefastos » Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:08 pm

Insanus wrote:So buddhi-manas is effectively atmic way of looking at this whereas thinking separately about manas and buddhi is kama manasic?


It can be kama manasic if the emphasis is on theory, on structure. But it can be also, say, kamic, or manasic, and so on, depending on how and why we act on the separation. The only thing that cannot, in my opinion, see buddhi & manas ultimately separate, is âtmic principle itself, because it transcends them and thus sees their unity.

For example, Prince Myshkin in not kama manasic at all, but still he sees manas & buddhi quite separately, incarnating buddhi almost blindly (and in this he errs). So the final problem is the lack of equilibrium, of final dynamic unity.

The âtmic Self is the final key-point (connecting the structure into the monad above). But if the structure starts to operate âtma as if it would be something separate, we fall almost instantly. Similarly, if try to remove âtma out of the picture because of its apparently fundamental problems (concerning the Self and the One in the actions towards the seeming Other), we also fall – this time to the paradoxal mistake of a Discordameliorist.

In a way, it might be more apt way to draw the hexagram of the principles in a way wherein prâna and âtma swap places, and âtma is in the middle, i.e. present in all the other principles. Blavatsky's original points of the esoteric theosophical sevenfold scheme were that a) "âtma" actually does not exist as a principle in itself, but is more like a veil for the so-called auric egg in Jupiter correspondence, and b) that prâna (life force) equals jiva (~ spiritual Self or the monad) in spiritual realm and they are in a way one. (In her diagram II of the Esoteric Instructions I.)
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
User avatar
Nefastos
Frater
Posts: 3431
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Agape (love)

Postby Nefastos » Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:18 pm

The abstract branch of discussion about buddhi (as the principle of love) involving geometry & the principles of the Hieroglyphic Key has been split to a new thread Dimensions of the Demons' Cube.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
Alfalfa

Re: Agape (love)

Postby Alfalfa » Wed Oct 31, 2018 7:30 pm

Nefastos wrote: As do I. I consider that there is no "âtma" principle per se, but the so-called âtma (or "Will") principle is an abstract point in metaphysical space which necessarily, always and unavoidably radiates a buddhic aura or presence. These two "together" are a monad, which is (only seemingly paradoxically) a unity at the same time when it is a duad. Rather, it is like the symbol of Sun, a middle point of which is non-existent without the circumference.
That is why there can be no "âtmic" work as separated from Buddhic and Manasic, which are the two hands. There is no third hand; the act of the seeming third part is just the application of the two. In a mystic language, two hands create the third when they join in prayer. (The same goes with eyes.)
Would you enlighten me about your understanding of 'âtma' as a monad, i.e. the being, or “being“ of this togetherness? It might of be, that I've made a little 'parorama', though the 'panorama' of right interpretation as it's ground is the openness to correct oneself — a problem bit different living people than with books, since living are at least as their ground more open to debate — even if a book might have a more fixed meaning and our knowledge of this is not at it's end like a mere letter, a sublime thought goes beyond words even in mere books, etc.
                              How do you understand the relationship between a so called human monad and a divine monad? For Blavatsky they seem to differ in that the human “monad“ is rather a “dual Monad“, i.e. not the monadic monad. A unity which is at the same time a duad, as an abstract point in metaphysical space — would an undivided space of the wherein of this “abstract“ human dual-monad be more like the divine monad?
                             What is mean by a “principle“ here? I mean, for Blavatsky, it seems that for example prâna is the outward differentation of jîva and as such is a principle, like a sponge in it's relationship to an ocean surrounding it. According to this view, the system of principles is itself an emanation from a still higher level, which is not a principle, i.e. jîva not as an aspect and particular application of itself. Blavatsky uses the term 'monad' of jîva, e.g. “Monad (jiva)“.
                             Then again, I've heard you speak of jîva and prâna both as principles, even though you still differentiate between them, but also equate them in hte spiritual realm, where they are “in a way“ one, which sounds they're one “as if“, i.e. 'quasi' one, or “als ob“ as not really “res postulat“. Considering Blavatsky's sevenfold scheme you say that âtma doesn't exist as a principle per se, but is more a like a veil. You also say, that it's in the middle, i.e. present in all the other principles — but isn't jîva as well as prâna present in all the other principles?
                             Even if âtma is a sort of monad and not a principle per se, do you still consider there's a difference between it and blavatskyan jîva, which also is not a principle in itself, at least for Blavatsky, I think? Do you consider âtma as the togetherness of the “hands“, i.e. paths, without a third hand or path, still as a way to another monad, i.e. jîva as a more monadic monad? Or is this dual monad as “existent“ for you as monadic as it gets? Are the “paths“ rather existences on their way to non-existence, i.e. quite like aspects have something towards-which (ad) they as views (specta) are? This is not me trying to make a 'panorama' of your thinking, but it might still matter, since I presume it's not in anyone's interest for me to understand this “point“ wrong even in some formal sense.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests