The Star of Azazel - Azazelin Tähti

First of all, I want to hail everyone on the board.

I'd like to know your thoughts about the concept of Ayin, as it means absolute no-thing, in regard to your understanding of the Absolute, which I assume corresponds to the notion of Ein Sof in Kabbalah.

Best regards.

Westrup wrote:First of all, I want to hail everyone on the board.

Ave! Thanks for your interest & participation!

Westrup wrote:as it means absolute no-thing, in regard to your understanding of the Absolute, which I assume corresponds to the notion of Ein Sof in Kabbalah.

Did you mean that Ayin would be the actual negative of the Absolute ~ Ein Sof (Ayin Soph)? If that is the case, such is not a possible concept. Since the Absolute is, well, Absolute, it already has in it not only all manifestation, but all the uncreated and seeming void as well.

People sometimes confuse the concept of Logos (~"God") with the Absolute, which is a grave mistake, & discussed in Discordamelior. One could say Logos is "absolute manifestation", which of course has much more in it than our crude visible universe. But even beyond all this creation, the perfect All of the absolute remains in - if we want to say it thus - its pristine state of Total Void, lessening not at all from this apparent fullness of cosmic manifestation.

While I am no expert in kabbala, as far as I understand the kabbalists used the terms AYIN, AYIN SOPH and the AYIN SOPH AUR as the three aspects of the same uncreated absolute. As aspects, they are not separate but the same, only seen in different contexts. Somewhat similarly, one could speak about Nihil, Void or Space in everyday talk while actually referring to the different approaches to this one same thing.

Nefastos wrote: Did you mean that Ayin would be the actual negative of the Absolute ~ Ein Sof (Ayin Soph)? If that is the case, such is not a possible concept. Since the Absolute is, well, Absolute, it already has in it not only all manifestation, but all the uncreated and seeming void as well.

I see creation (Ein Sof Ohr) and all the uncreated totality of infinite probable manifestations (Ein Sof) as two different concepts, of course. But I wonder why you do think that the negation of the Absolute is not a possible concept.

Would you mind if I asked how you perceive the Absolute? To me, it is the total sum of every "thing" that could possibly "exist". Since the probable existence of a particular thing does not mean that particular thing has already manifested, we are living inside just a small manifested portion of whose totality suggests a limitless amount of probable existence. But as you already know, the whole point the Absolute is that it has has its axiom founded upon the concept of "to be" or be-ness. If there is the possibility of existence of some thing, it is of the Absolute. If that possibility of existence of that particular thing is not present in the Absolute, then we are thinking of something (?) that is not within the Absolute's offerings.

Also when I name Nothing as something, I'm basically producing a concept, which happens to be a thing after all, to define the Nothing. This is unhealthy and a result of human brain's incapability. This phenomenon can be explained mathematically as follows:

3 + (-1) = 2

which means that we are putting a non-existent value to an existent value. (-1) is not a thing and means that we have got 1 unit of no-thingness. Since our brain is incapable of thinking of no-thing and programmed only to grasp and calculate thing, we tend to think of numbers below zero as, somewhat, existent values.

Actually, (-1) is not there. There is no such thing as 1 is the absolute meaning of (-1). And if you add no-thing to thing, you end up having no-thing.

Nothing is nothing and is non-manifested, also it is which can't be possibly manifested or created because no-thing does not contain information and is the lack of information itself.

Nefastos wrote:While I am no expert in kabbala, as far as I understand the kabbalists used the terms AYIN, AYIN SOPH and the AYIN SOPH AUR as the three aspects of the same uncreated absolute. As aspects, they are not separate but the same, only seen in different contexts. Somewhat similarly, one could speak about Nihil, Void or Space in everyday talk while actually referring to the different approaches to this one same thing.

The uncreated absolute refers to Ein Sof, which means basically endless, limitless or "there is no end". Ein Sof is a state of total be-ness. Ohr Ein Sof is the creation itself, it encapsulates the limitless light of the Absolute but does not stand for the totality as Ein Sof. Ayin is, on the contrary, not subject to the Absolute, since Ayin is NOT.

If you ask me whether there is a duality, a contradiction within the Absolute in regard to Ayin, I'd say no. Contradiction happens between things, between opposite concepts which are also things (yesh in Hebrew).

Ayin is no-thing. For this reason, something cannot contradict, well, you know, "_________".

Hence, no duality.

Westrup wrote:Would you mind if I asked how you perceive the Absolute?

Not at all, this is very interesting subject! I try to elaborate.

Westrup wrote:the whole point the Absolute is that it has has its axiom founded upon the concept of "to be" or be-ness. If there is the possibility of existence of some thing, it is of the Absolute. If that possibility of existence of that particular thing is not present in the Absolute, then we are thinking of something (?) that is not within the Absolute's offerings.

I underlined the problematic point, where we disagree. With the Absolute, you mean something from which something could be excluded, while I mean something that is Absolutely All, possibilities & negatives also existing within, as its aspects. Something having anything, even "no-thing" outside of it, is not Absolute to me anymore.

Westrup wrote:I see creation (Ein Sof Ohr) and all the uncreated totality of infinite probable manifestations (Ein Sof) as two different concepts, of course. But I wonder why you do think that the negation of the Absolute is not a possible concept.

To me the absolute sum of all that manifests is Logos, the "God". Absolute on the other hand also keeps in itself the "Anti-God", or the literally infinite numbers (actually, "0") of all the infinite worlds after & before our present cosmos, plus the abstract void of all of them. This "abstract void" is something that only works in its unity with the manifested, not capable of "being" anything at all in a way it could be added or reduced from either absolutes (Absolute All or the Absolute Being i.e. Logos).

Westrup wrote:Also when I name Nothing as something, I'm basically producing a concept, which happens to be a thing after all, to define the Nothing. This is unhealthy and a result of human brain's incapability.

This is my own point, too. If we try to say that "nothing" is a concept that actually exists, we are facing a grammatical rather than actual metaphysical thing, and the problem is a seeming one. For as an occultist, I see metaphysical being ontologically very real. I see the Absolute, both in its Existing, Uncreated and Pristine states as a unity, and a "complete non-being" in all these aspects being only like the base of our own eye-ball: something that is not actually missing, just something we have named wrong because it slips from our immediate perception.

Part of our differing philosophies or terminologies here might be explained by applying Hindu symbolism. Of course, we can only speak of Logos forming an analogy, not with the actual Absolute. But according to that analogy, let's take the trinity of the destruction aspect (which of itself is part of yet another trinity) of the Hindu deities: Shiva, Kali, and - let's say, for example - the jiva as the third between. But we only need the two first here, talking about the difference of Ain & Ain Soph here, the offspring corresponding to the Ain Soph Aur. When drawing the symbol of the Sun, a dot at the center of the circle, the dot at the center is Shiva, while the circumference is Kali. These two are, but at the same time are not, "opposite" with each other. Actually they are in loving embrace. They can also be said to be projections of each other, for there is no circle without a centre, and actually there is no mathematical centre without a circumference (it is not immediately clear if we look upon the symbol, but let us remember the point in the middle is actually there marking a point which has zero length to all directions).

Nefastos wrote:
I underlined the problematic point, where we disagree. With the Absolute, you mean something from which something could be excluded, while I mean something that is Absolutely All, possibilities & negatives also existing within, as its aspects. Something having anything, even "no-thing" outside of it, is not Absolute to me anymore.

Actually, no. I agree with you that something cannot be excluded from the Absolute. The whole point is that no-thing is the state of non-being (not necessarily manifestation), thus cannot be referred to as something. No-thing is not a separate presence outside of the Absolute, simply it is not there. This is a very hard to explain understanding for me, I am sorry that I might be unable to choose correct words to explain my thinking.

Nefastos wrote:To me the absolute sum of all that manifests is Logos, the "God". Absolute on the other hand also keeps in itself the "Anti-God", or the literally infinite numbers (actually, "0") of all the infinite worlds after & before our present cosmos, plus the abstract void of all of them. This "abstract void" is something that only works in its unity with the manifested, not capable of "being" anything at all in a way it could be added or reduced from either absolutes (Absolute All or the Absolute Being i.e. Logos).

Again, I agree with you that manifestation is something correspondent to what you refer to as Logos, the God. But it is kind of strange to me that you take "0" as infinite. How can you associate 0 with infinity? Could you please elaborate?

When you say that this abstract void is not capable of being anything that could be added or reduced, I'd like to think of it mathematically. 1 + (-1) = 0 is the reason that when the Absolute and Ayin coexist together in unity, there is no manifestation or more precisely, creation. As 1 represents the impulses of be-ness or thing-ness (the Absolute) and -1 represents the impulses of non-being or no-thing (Ayin). And the result, 0 is the state of manifestation which implies there is no creation at all, at that point.

Nefastos wrote:This is my own point, too. If we try to say that "nothing" is a concept that actually exists, we are facing a grammatical rather than actual metaphysical thing, and the problem is a seeming one. For as an occultist, I see metaphysical being ontologically very real. I see the Absolute, both in its Existing, Uncreated and Pristine states as a unity, and a "complete non-being" in all these aspects being only like the base of our own eye-ball: something that is not actually missing, just something we have named wrong because it slips from our immediate perception.

I insist that concepts are existing things. Not necessarily grammatical, but also their being ideas reveals that concepts are actual. Thinking of the concept of nothing is like looking at the mirror to see the reflection of the actual. Since there is nothing reflects, our understanding of nothing is the mirror itself, reflecting nothing.

Westrup wrote:This is a very hard to explain understanding for me, I am sorry that I might be unable to choose correct words to explain my thinking.

Same goes for me. It's a little bit frustrating to make this deep a conversation while unsure about the terms in certain language (English is not my forte), but I think that we're doing fine considering the circumstances, & that is because there's a true mutual desire for understanding each other.

Westrup wrote:I agree with you that something cannot be excluded from the Absolute. The whole point is that no-thing is the state of non-being (not necessarily manifestation), thus cannot be referred to as something. No-thing is not a separate presence outside of the Absolute, simply it is not there.

When you say that "something cannot be excluded from the Absolute", do you with the first word (something) mean a certain kind of things? I mean, do you think that there are some ideas, abstractions, which are not included in that word?

If you do not, then I don't understand how even any mathematical idea could be opposed to absolute, because these ideas are something too. On the other hand, if you do think that there are some things that are not included in that word something in the context, then we do disagree. Here's how I think:

Fosforos wrote:Two separated from each other cannot exist. If they could, then our unity separate from otherness would be, for us, the only unity, making the other a completely non-existent reality. If the other were unobservable for the concrete, intellectual, and spiritual senses, it could not be counted as existent. (Polyharmonia, chapter 1, paragraph 6)

And this "existent" means existent in any possible way, including its use in language or mathematics.

Westrup wrote:Again, I agree with you that manifestation is something correspondent to what you refer to as Logos, the God. But it is kind of strange to me that you take "0" as infinite. How can you associate 0 with infinity? Could you please elaborate?

This too has been gone through in Fosforos, but I don't try your nerves by picking another, somewhat lengthy quote. To say it briefly, I'm talking about the laya state, the point with no length at the center ("Shiva" in the last message's example). Laya is a Sanskrit word for zero, and in (the Star of Azazel's) occult energetics it means the middle point, the critical state, between manifestation & nihil. From that zero state it is seemingly possible to create something out of nothing, in all planes both spiritual & physical: it is a highest, most fundamental state of being, where everything is in absolute unity. So, this 0 is the sum total of all that is, all that could be, and even all that we could say that "it can be not" but, as we can talk about it & somehow perceive it in this way, actually has come to (and which actually always has been in) existence too. Total all, the Absolute.

Westrup wrote:When you say that this abstract void is not capable of being anything that could be added or reduced, I'd like to think of it mathematically. 1 + (-1) = 0 is the reason that when the Absolute and Ayin coexist together in unity, there is no manifestation or more precisely, creation. As 1 represents the impulses of be-ness or thing-ness (the Absolute) and -1 represents the impulses of non-being or no-thing (Ayin). And the result, 0 is the state of manifestation which implies there is no creation at all, at that point.

In the light of the laya state example above, I think we use a little bit different terminologies here. I say that +1 = -1 in the Absolute (i.e. Absolute equals Ain equals Absolute), while those "+1" and "-1" which are functioning in respect to creation/manifestation, are actually Logos (+1) and Anti-Logos (-1), which can be named God (+1) and Satan (-1) as well, if we can see through the wrong anthropomorphic associations of the names. (And like I see Absolute containing Ain & vice versa, so I see God containing Satan & vice versa. To me, the occultism most fundamentally is the philosophy of unity.)

Westrup wrote:I insist that concepts are existing things. Not necessarily grammatical, but also their being ideas reveals that concepts are actual. Thinking of the concept of nothing is like looking at the mirror to see the reflection of the actual. Since there is nothing reflects, our understanding of nothing is the mirror itself, reflecting nothing.

I hope I understood your point here right. If so, this question too has already been answered in Fosforos. There it comes up as one of the problems of the black magician in danger of the downward path, while he sees only neutral void (or abstract substance) somewhere where actually conscious "God" can be deduced to dwell as well. For every possible idea necessarily springs from, is, & is made possible to behold by that very "God", i.e. the Logosic high mind which is the cosmos in its real state. (Everything besides spiritual mind, the lofty abstract concepts, is actually Maya, distortions of these first rays of being.)

If the term "thing" has to point at something separate from the observer then no things belong to the absolute because it is not separate, but is all that is. Every "thing" is an illusion. State of no-things is the absolute because there is no separation, there can't be anything that can be called a thing. If we like to play with words a bit we could say that there is nothing that can be called a thing & I guess that's close to what Nefastos meant with "From that zero state it is seemingly possible to create something out of nothing, in all planes both spiritual & physical: it is a highest, most fundamental state of being, where everything is in absolute unity."

Nefastos wrote:
Same goes for me. It's a little bit frustrating to make this deep a conversation while unsure about the terms in certain language (English is not my forte), but I think that we're doing fine considering the circumstances, & that is because there's a true mutual desire for understanding each other.

Indeed. Thank you for your patience in trying to help me understand your esoteric system and philosophy.

Nefastos wrote:

When you say that "something cannot be excluded from the Absolute", do you with the first word (something) mean a certain kind of things? I mean, do you think that there are some ideas, abstractions, which are not included in that word?

No, I don't mean a certain kind of things. I mean that the word, "something" that I used contains any thing. Not a particular group of things.

Nefastos wrote:If you do not, then I don't understand how even any mathematical idea could be opposed to absolute, because these ideas are something too.

In my thinking, there is no opposition. Opposition cannot occur between a thing and nothing. For opposition to occur, there must be separate beings that contradict each other with their own qualities.

Ayin and the Absolute are not contradicting each other in this context. Because there is only the Absolute, it is all that is. Thus, it cannot be possible for the Absolute to oppose nothing (or something that's not there or anywhere). The clash is actually between the ideas (which are actual, existing things). The idea of being and the idea of non-being oppose each other, of course. Bu this is not the opposition between being (every thing that be) and non-being themselves.

An apple being on the table cannot oppose an apple not being on the table. But the idea of an apple being on the table can oppose the idea of an apple not being present on the table. I guess you already noticed that when I refer to this nothingness, in the apple example, I define it by despairingly referring to the apple. I mean that "apple not being present" is not the real definition of this nothingness. It is just a contextual negation of a thing that be.

Nefastos wrote:

Fosforos wrote:If the other were unobservable for the concrete, intellectual, and spiritual senses, it could not be counted as existent. (Polyharmonia, chapter 1, paragraph 6)

And this "existent" means existent in any possible way, including its use in language or mathematics.

Yes, as you wrote in Fosforos, it cannot be counted as existent. This unobservable no-thing has not its use in language or mathematics, too. What has its use in language and mathematics is the contextual negation of what is already existent. If there was not "thing", we couldn't have called it "nothing" and if there was not 1, we couldn't have thought of -1. Our references are existent things that have their roots in the Absolute.

Nefastos wrote:This too has been gone through in Fosforos, but I don't try your nerves by picking another, somewhat lengthy quote. To say it briefly, I'm talking about the laya state, the point with no length at the center ("Shiva" in the last message's example). Laya is a Sanskrit word for zero, and in (the Star of Azazel's) occult energetics it means the middle point, the critical state, between manifestation & nihil. From that zero state it is seemingly possible to create something out of nothing, in all planes both spiritual & physical: it is a highest, most fundamental state of being, where everything is in absolute unity. So, this 0 is the sum total of all that is, all that could be, and even all that we could say that "it can be not" but, as we can talk about it & somehow perceive it in this way, actually has come to (and which actually always has been in) existence too. Total all, the Absolute.

Okay, I understand. I find what you are saying pretty coherent to my thinking. As I see the Absolute and Ayin (in this context, 0) as entangled and intertwined as one. Why?

Finite is an adjective which indicates a measurable separateness. Infinite, on the other hand, has nothing to do with separateness and cannot be measured. If infinity is unmeasurable and a non-separate unity of all, then we cannot know its qualities that differ accordingly. So it must no different than 0.

That's how I translated your approach to my thinking with my ignorance. Sorry if I made a mistake.

Nefastos wrote:In the light of the laya state example above, I think we use a little bit different terminologies here. I say that +1 = -1 in the Absolute (i.e. Absolute equals Ain equals Absolute), while those "+1" and "-1" which are functioning in respect to creation/manifestation, are actually Logos (+1) and Anti-Logos (-1), which can be named God (+1) and Satan (-1) as well, if we can see through the wrong anthropomorphic associations of the names. (And like I see Absolute containing Ain & vice versa, so I see God containing Satan & vice versa. To me, the occultism most fundamentally is the philosophy of unity.)

Do you think that the Absolute is the state that ascends both Logos and anti-Logos? Or do you think that the Absolute is the anti-Logos itself?

To me, the subject matter between God and Satan is dependent on impulses. Ayin cannot manifest as nothing cannot manifest. On the other hand, impulses emanating from the Absolute are enabling the principle of being both spiritually and physically. When the Absolute is in its infinite state, it is equal to zero, which means no manifestation. But when the Absolute withdraws itself and transforms its infinity to finite, separate, measurable existence by emitting its rays into a void, which functions with the impulses of Ayin, then the creation takes place.

Sorry for the pause, I was AFK for a few days.

Westrup wrote:In my thinking, there is no opposition. Opposition cannot occur between a thing and nothing. For opposition to occur, there must be separate beings that contradict each other with their own qualities.

But aren't you saying Ayin is something already by naming it? If "something" could be totally "nothing", we couldn't even talk about it, couldn't think about it, because it would be nothing to all of our senses both physical, mental & spiritual. A sense of abstraction is already a mental sense, as we agreed above.

Westrup wrote:Finite is an adjective which indicates a measurable separateness. Infinite, on the other hand, has nothing to do with separateness and cannot be measured. If infinity is unmeasurable and a non-separate unity of all, then we cannot know its qualities that differ accordingly. So it must no different than 0.

I see both Logos & anti-Logos being simulacra, the most perfect images of the Absolute, & being actually the same - but only when seen together. Logos +1 & anti-Logos -1 (it's always the same One) being together, and both on their own accord, the Absolute or 0. With this zero, I mean not only the foundation & possibility of all the manifested, but also its opposite; as just discussed. It's both, it's all, that including "nothing" (whatever we mean by that last word, for in its own it is an impossible concept, breaking itself by the very definition).

Westrup wrote:To me, the subject matter between God and Satan is dependent on impulses. Ayin cannot manifest as nothing cannot manifest. On the other hand, impulses emanating from the Absolute are enabling the principle of being both spiritually and physically. When the Absolute is in its infinite state, it is equal to zero, which means no manifestation. But when the Absolute withdraws itself and transforms its infinity to finite, separate, measurable existence by emitting its rays into a void, which functions with the impulses of Ayin, then the creation takes place.

Yes, our ideas are here very close to each other. But I claim there actually exists no such thing as time, so the Absolute "is and is not" (I mean, is in all ways which also include all our ideas about "non-being" & transcending them) now & forevermore, being in & above all time. The seeming manifestation is time & our other apparent forms of separatism are the Absolute's manifestation as Logos/anti-Logos (God & Satan), which necessarily are the two faces of the same two-dimensional coin. Which means, they are separate only for the mind unable to see their factual unity. And because of that: -

Westrup wrote:Do you think that the Absolute is the state that ascends both Logos and anti-Logos? Or do you think that the Absolute is the anti-Logos itself?

- The first. It is our viewpoint which makes the anti-Logos seem like the Absolute, because it leads to the idea of the Absolute one can understand at the particular stage. The same goes with the Logos. There are people who are in personal phases in which they can only grasp the Absolute by the concept of Logos, the absolute manifestation. Then there are people who are in personal phases in which they can only grasp the Absolute by the concept of anti-Logos, the absolute un-manifestation. But both the manifestation and the un-manifestation are concepts (hence realities, but only for the limited beings) which veil & thus unveil the Absolute, which necessarily transcends both.

Nefastos wrote:But aren't you saying Ayin is something already by naming it?

No, not at all. What I do, when I mention Ayin, is giving a unique name to what I, otherwise, would refer to the negation of existence.

Does the negation of existence/non-existence exist? This issue is very similar to the negative space in art.

For example:



To my thinking, the goat is non-existent in the second pic. The lack of the goat in the existing black surrounding causes so much an illusion, that we think "the lack" means something on its own, in fact it is the sense of abstraction.

Nefastos wrote:If "something" could be totally "nothing", we couldn't even talk about it, couldn't think about it, because it would be nothing to all of our senses both physical, mental & spiritual. A sense of abstraction is already a mental sense, as we agreed above.

That holds true. That's why Ayin cannot be thought of. My arguing about Ayin is just like describing the non-existent goat in the pic that I posted above.

Nefastos wrote:I see both Logos & anti-Logos being simulacra, the most perfect images of the Absolute, & being actually the same - but only when seen together. Logos +1 & anti-Logos -1 (it's always the same One) being together, and both on their own accord, the Absolute or 0. With this zero, I mean not only the foundation & possibility of all the manifested, but also its opposite; as just discussed. It's both, it's all, that including "nothing" (whatever we mean by that last word, for in its own it is an impossible concept, breaking itself by the very definition).

Agreed. As you put it, it is an impossible concept. It is all that is impossible. The Absolute is its own negation.

Nefastos wrote:Yes, our ideas are here very close to each other. But I claim there actually exists no such thing as time, so the Absolute "is and is not" (I mean, is in all ways which also include all our ideas about "non-being" & transcending them) now & forevermore, being in & above all time. The seeming manifestation is time & our other apparent forms of separatism are the Absolute's manifestation as Logos/anti-Logos (God & Satan), which necessarily are the two faces of the same two-dimensional coin. Which means, they are separate only for the mind unable to see their factual unity. And because of that: -

I agree with most of your thinking. And I feel the need in my part, to add that to my thinking, God/Logos happens to be the characterization of the finite manifestation of the Absolute, as receiving its impulses (principle of existence) from Ayin Soph opens the door for a possible manifestation, while Satan/anti-Logos happens to be the negation of the finite manifestation/God, as receiving its impulses (principle of non-existence) from Ayin closes the door for a possible manifestation.

All in all, the dialectic relation between Ayin Soph and Ayin inevitably ends up in the Absolute.

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