Transcendence & Enlightenment

Rational discussions on metaphysical and abstract topics.
User avatar
Nefastos
Posts: 3029
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Transcendence & Enlightenment

Post by Nefastos »

Transcendence and enlightenment (not the historical age but the state of mind) are quite common terms in spiritual writings, although less seen in the Star of Azazel literature.

How do you understand these terms? What do they mean?
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
Posts: 3029
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Transcendence & Enlightenment

Post by Nefastos »

Maybe I will begin with some thoughts. These are just some possibilities for opening the terms.
Nefastos wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 9:21 amenlightenment

Let's consider the opposite state at first. It would be a life totally under the veil of maya, or great illusion. Believing with the Zeitgeist (wholly in line with each cultural epoch, not questioning the collective paradigm in any way), believing that one's bodily perceptions and taking their meanings as our cultural upbringing teaches us is all that is. Living the animal life with human eagerness of using one's lower reason also.

Thus enlightenment would be a drastic opening to possibility of actual individuality from cultural, perceptional, and even reason-bound sleep. To what extent that possibility is then taken would be the amount of "enlightenment." But simple idea that our cultural paradigm might be wrong clearly is no enlightenment yet: the experience must be truly focus-shifting, and such "enlightened" individual is clearly standing in completely different place both in thought and (inner) deed than the masses. To be spiritual, the vision must necessarily be also ethical, or else it instantly reveals its mechanistic animal tendency.

And this is why I haven't much used this term in my writings. It is so open to egotistic and elitistic false intuitions of one's own worth.

Nefastos wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 9:21 amTranscendence

Enlightenment, taken as I sketched it above, is seeing behind the veil of maya. Transcendence would be going through that veil.

Profane experience: This world is the only reality there is.
Enlightened experience: There is a more real world behind this one, it has been factually glimpsed, and that knowledge is making one more alive, conscious, and one with the whole.
Transcendental experience: There is just one world, the spiritual. Anything else is barely noticeable when seen from that light, since it is not only seen but also felt as illusionary.

The fourth step would then be nirvâna, where there is no longer even a separation between the real world (spirit) and unreal world (maya), because all striving has been totally absorbed into one being.
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!"
Utthavat
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:29 am

Re: Transcendence & Enlightenment

Post by Utthavat »

The question brought to my mind this chapter I was just reading from a book called "The Secret Doctrine Commentaries, The Unpublished 1889 Instructions", Transcribed and Annotated by Michael Gomes. These conversations were transcribed from Blavatsky lodge's meeting of Theosophical Society in 1889.
If this reference seems to be a jump to far away from the subject, please let me know and direct this to more suiting Topic.

"Sloka (2) TIME WAS NOT, FOR IT LAY ASLEEP IN THE INFINITE BOSOM DURATION

Q. What is the difference between Time and Duration?

A. Duration is; it has neither beginning nor end. How can you call that which has neither beginning nor end, Time? Duration is beginningless and endless; Time is finite.

Q. Is then, Duration the infinite, and Time the finite conception?

A. Time can be divided; Duration - in our philosophy, at least - cannot. Time is divisible in Duration - or, as you put it, the one is something within Time and Space; whereas the other is outside of both.

Q. The only way one can define Time is the motion of the earth.

A. But we can also define Time in our conceptions.

Q. Duration, rather?

A. No, Time; as for the Duration, it is impossible to divide it or set up landmarks therein. Duration with us is the one eternity, not relative, but absolute.

Q. Can it be said that the essential idea of Duration is existence?

A. No - existence has limited and definite periods, whereas Duration, having neither beginning nor end; is a perfect abstraction which contains Time. Duration is like Space, which is an abstraction too, and is equally without beginning or end. It is in its concreteness and limitation only that it becomes representation and something. Ofcourse the distance between two points is called space (location); it may be enormous or infinitesimal, yet it will always be space. But all such specifications are divisions in human conception. In reality Space is what the ancients called the One invisible and unknown (now unknowable) Deity.

Q. Then Time is the same as Space, being one in the abstract?

A. As two abstractions they may be one: but this would apply to Duration and Abstract Space rather than to Time and Space.

Q. Space is the objective and Time the subjective side of all manifestation. In reality they are the only attributes of the infinite; but attribute is perhaps a bad term to use, inasmuch as they are, so to speak, co-extensive with the infinite. It may, however, be objected that they are nothing but the creations of our own intellect; simply the forms in which we cannot help conceiving things.

A. That sounds like an argument of our friends the Hylo-idealists; but here we speak of the noumenal and not of the phenomenal universe. In occult catechism (Vide Secret Doctrine) it is asked: "What is that always is, which you cannot imagine not being, do what you may?" The answer is Space. For there may be not a single man in the universe to think of it, not a single eye to perceive it, nor a single brain to sense it, but still Space is, ever was, and ever will be, and you cannot make away with it.

Q. Because we cannot help thinking of it, perhaps?

A. Our thinking of it has nothing to do with the question. Try, rather, if you can think anything with Space excluded and you will soon find out the impossibility of such a conception. Space exists where there is nothing else, and must so exist whether the universe is one absolute vacuum or a full Pleroma.

Q. Modern philosophers have reduced it to this, that space and time are nothing but attributes, nothing but accidents.

A. And they would be right, were their reduction the fruit of true science instead of being the result of Avidya and Maya. We find also Buddha saying that even Nirvana, after all, is but Maya, or an illusion: but the Lord Buddha based what he said on knowledge, not speculation. ..."

- "H.P Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine Commentaries, The Unpublished 1889 Instructions" Transcribed and Annotated by Michael Gomes.
User avatar
Beshiira
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 11:07 am

Re: Transcendence & Enlightenment

Post by Beshiira »

Transcendence is part of my personal vocabulary, enlightenment less.

I've thought and read about enlightenment more some 10 or so years ago, when I was more into zen buddhism. In that context it's often mentioned, but it's still at the same time ”nothing special”, nothing one should strive towards per se. This has affected my thinking a lot, even if I don't use that particular word that much.

All in all the idea of ”being awake” vs. ”being asleep” has stuck with me, and that sort of verbalization I use quite often still. I can quite easily notice it of myself whether I'm awake or in some sort of materialistic slumber. So yes, I guess enlightenment could be said to be being aware of the reality of spirit.

One could say that it comes quite close to the concept of initiation as well, from which we also see that there are stages in enlightenment, it's not only one particular thing or experience.

Nefastos wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 7:00 am It is so open to egotistic and elitistic false intuitions of one's own worth.
Yes, these sorts of connotations are among the reasons why I don't use this word that much either. And for example I would be quite cautious if someone claims to be enlightened themselves. But of course these words can always be defined and used in so many ways and in different contexts.


Transcendence then. I like this idea presented above, that it includes an active, personal element. But I guess it could be seen as some sort of a state without the necessity of someone striving towards it too, theoretically that is. Like a synonym for God or something. (Ok, there's a long philosophical offroad possibility here regarding trees falling in the woods etc... I'll not got to that right now.)

But yeah, transcendence is literally something that transcends our conceptions of what the world, life, consciousness and we ourselves could possibly be. It is something else, not in the sense that it is beyond our reach for good, but in the sense that in order to grasp it, we must be thoroughly transformed ourselves. It's something totally else for our lower selves. In the eyes of God (or our higher self) this all is of course a very different construction to begin with.

So yes, useful words in the right context, I'd say.
"Ja kun minun kirkkauteni kulkee ohitse, asetan minä sinut kallion rotkoon ja peitän sinut kädelläni, kunnes olen kulkenut ohi.
Kun minä sitten siirrän pois käteni, näet sinä minun selkäpuoleni; mutta minun kasvojani ei voi kenkään katsoa."
User avatar
Smaragd
Posts: 1120
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 4:27 am

Re: Transcendence & Enlightenment

Post by Smaragd »

The idea of everlasting space in the Blavastky lodge discussion, pointed by fra Utthavat, seems a fine concept to try and explain the idea of transcendence. The way I see it relating to enlightenment (agreeing with pretty much everything already discussed here) is that in that space manifests all, and the further in to manifestation the mind is closed in to, the harder it is to break the way out to the open space because the differentiating lines fools the mind, although the lines are merely an expression of the laws hidden within the nature and womb of the space. A demonic possession is like a confined room drawn within space, seeking to initiate a human being out of itself – the reign of the particular demon. It is just extremely hard to shift the mind in to the understanding of the laws whispered, and to be understood from those states. This is because the laws are whispered backwards in a Satanic fashion.

Trying to aid people in such states, I’ve often found myself speaking of world view and how I see the matter in order to transcend beyond the limits by seeing different laws together making a whole, instead of these separate rooms where some laws gain emphasis over others and thus ability for manifestation through the wound of the world – dislodgement of the equilibrium.
What I’m trying to say is that world view – the way one sees the world – tied to the basic ideas of Neoplatonism etc. is something that is perhaps a very practical and hands on relation to transcendence. When uniting two ideas, two laws in order to lodge the pieces back together and the whole to reveal itself, should it not be of great aid in such matters? So it seems to me, but perhaps I’m wrong because helping people with such words has been of minimal of actual help they have felt gaining. Trying to transcend when it’s time to pay attention to the details is ofcourse a problem, but shouldn’t it be helpful to connect the large context to the details?

Coming back to the quote offeret by Utthavat, there’s this very stubborn relation to meaning of words (a more strict relation to practicing truthfulness, that has a great danger of not being willing enough to understand others) that might look like the answerer of questions is an asshole getting stuck in semantics, but the point is in deep honesty towards the meaning of words as revealers of realities, and the transcendence of which could be pointed towards. If such strictness would be lifted in the context of seekers of truth gathered together, it would give excuses for the dividing lines in space to wrongfully define the nature of the space itself – God would be given unnecessary and harmful limitations.
Utthavat wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 11:03 am "Sloka (2) TIME WAS NOT, FOR IT LAY ASLEEP IN THE INFINITE BOSOM DURATION

Q. What is the difference between Time and Duration?

A. Duration is; it has neither beginning nor end. How can you call that which has neither beginning nor end, Time? Duration is beginningless and endless; Time is finite.

- "H.P Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine Commentaries, The Unpublished 1889 Instructions" Transcribed and Annotated by Michael Gomes.
It is peculiar to me that they spoke of duration with such transcendent meaning, as to me it seems like the very word marking something that has a beginning and an end. I wonder if this was due to Blavatsky's skills with English, a deliberate juxtaposition or attempt to point to the eternal moment as "duration", perhaps following an Eastern terminology and tradition to point the beyond.
"Would to God that all the Lord's people were Prophets”, Numbers 11:29 as echoed by William Blake
Utthavat
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:29 am

Re: Transcendence & Enlightenment

Post by Utthavat »

by Smaragd » Sat Oct 30, 2021 3:20 pm
It is peculiar to me that they spoke of duration with such transcendent meaning, as to me it seems like the very word marking something that has a beginning and an end. I wonder if this was due to Blavatsky's skills with English, a deliberate juxtaposition or attempt to point to the eternal moment as "duration", perhaps following an Eastern terminology and tradition to point the beyond
I started to wonder too if this concept of "Duration" would be somehow linked to the idea of "right now" that fra Nefastos wrote about for example in the article: "A New Path III – The Rhythms and Periods of Graal"
https://www.azazel.fi/en/article/a-new- ... -of-graal/
by Smaragd » Sat Oct 30, 2021 3:20 pm
The way I see it relating to enlightenment (agreeing with pretty much everything already discussed here) is that in that space manifests all, and the further in to manifestation the mind is closed in to, the harder it is to break the way out to the open space because the differentiating lines fools the mind, although the lines are merely an expression of the laws hidden within the nature and womb of the space.
I find that a helpful attitude to try to shift one's focus to see differentiating lines as an expression of those laws.
For myself it seems that usually when I'm stuck with the idea of myself as this personal ego as a separated from the whole, I do feel a lot heavier, and more prone to being carried adrift by those lines. Sometimes there then comes the impulse of trying to fight it, or strive to squirming free from it, but I often seem to find that the squirming makes it even harder and heavier.
by Beshiira » Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:35 pm
All in all the idea of ”being awake” vs. ”being asleep” has stuck with me, and that sort of verbalization I use quite often still. I can quite easily notice it of myself whether I'm awake or in some sort of materialistic slumber. So yes, I guess enlightenment could be said to be being aware of the reality of spirit.
For me, that drift I mentioned about, feels in a way like being asleep. Usually then when being able to grasp the attitude of acknowledging that we are the one and the same spirit seeing the same dream and being fooled by the mind in the same way in the eternal moment, it feels a lot more like being awake to me. To me, It almost feels as in those seldom moments when in dream you are realizing being awake in the dream.
User avatar
Insanus
Posts: 835
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 7:06 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Transcendence & Enlightenment

Post by Insanus »

I think death and the effect of death on life is a good analogy. Transcendence is like death and enlightenment is like the way life changes when we're certain we will die.
Jumalan synnit ovat kourallinen hiekkaa ihmisen valtameressä
User avatar
Nefastos
Posts: 3029
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Transcendence & Enlightenment

Post by Nefastos »

Insanus wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 1:05 pmI think death and the effect of death on life is a good analogy. Transcendence is like death and enlightenment is like the way life changes when we're certain we will die.

Yes, I think this is a great analogy. In Fosforos I repeatedly consider death and spirit as one and the same, from the human viewpoint. In reality, life and death are one and the same, but when they are considered by a being who identifies itself with something organic, transcending that prison is the same as ceasing to be. This also makes more understandable the gradual nature of initiatory journey: one learns, little by little, that their being is not the same as the body, the emotions, the reason, the life force, &c.

Beshiira wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 1:35 pmBut yeah, transcendence is literally something that transcends our conceptions of what the world, life, consciousness and we ourselves could possibly be. It is something else, not in the sense that it is beyond our reach for good, but in the sense that in order to grasp it, we must be thoroughly transformed ourselves. It's something totally else for our lower selves. In the eyes of God (or our higher self) this all is of course a very different construction to begin with.

"Transcend" is a beautiful, useful term in its paradoxality. It tells us that something can simultaneously cease to be as it was, and yet remain. It has always baffled me how much the antique was agonized with this thought. There are equivalents to Zenon's paradoxes in Buddhist texts, and in philosophy the idea of something being in the state of in-between seems to have been very hard to grasp. Most likely this had to do with our ancestors' more primitive idea of the human subconscious, and how it was always connected only to the non-human entities.

Smaragd wrote: Sat Oct 30, 2021 3:20 pmIt is peculiar to me that they spoke of duration with such transcendent meaning, as to me it seems like the very word marking something that has a beginning and an end. I wonder if this was due to Blavatsky's skills with English, a deliberate juxtaposition or attempt to point to the eternal moment as "duration", perhaps following an Eastern terminology and tradition to point the beyond.
&
Utthavat wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 11:45 amI started to wonder too if this concept of "Duration" would be somehow linked to the idea of "right now" that fra Nefastos wrote about for example in the article: "A New Path III – The Rhythms and Periods of Graal"

Blavatsky learned her English from Koot Hoomi, who was also the prime author of The Secret Doctrine. "Duration" seems to be a translation from an esoteric Vajrayana and/or Kashmir tantra term (since Koot Hoomi was a Kashmir adept who worked with a Tibetan lamasery); in Finnish it has been translated as "jatkuvuus," a continuum. This comes even closer to the continuality of emanation, the metaphysical concept of paratemporality.

"Spirit," the transcended form of being, sees the world above time, "by the Eye of Dangma," which means that it sees behind the so called causality. But even in this world of "duration" (I agree that the term seems awkward and not completely to the point, although as a non native English speaker I could easily be wrong) there is this higher octave of causality, which means that things are connected with nidâna chain of consequences, even – and perhaps even especially – above time. This is also the foundation of karma. Things happen all at once, but as a whole; we cannot choose to take only one part of something, but focusing into a being means focusing into its entirety.

And now when the Eye of Dangma got mentioned, I personally think it is probably the best way of seeing the concept of enlightenment, too. As one's ability to see behind the veil of temporal existence, to the world(s) of the archetypes. So, into the Black instead of White or Red astral, if you will; and even beyond.
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
Aquila
Posts: 355
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:14 pm

Re: Transcendence & Enlightenment

Post by Aquila »

I have tried to adopt the idea that while god is already everything there is, to transcend is to step beyond to that side of god which is "outside" of existence we sense merely as physical. This process works both ways and brings the god beyond to our own existence too. I know it's basically only a point of view that demands the limited human mind and life. That is how I understand transcendence.

Enlightenment is a major step in the above-mentioned process which in some circumstances happens and reveals another layer in experiencing reality in a more comprehensive way. Maybe it's more than just the idea of becoming enlightened. I think there's various ways to go further in this and I wouldn't limit it only to what we often call spiritual. Because god is everything there is, every step in to any direction of comprehending more, is a step to understanding god more consciously and furthering enlightenment. Whether we believe in some religions becomes trivial here. Even the pace it happens might be trivial because our conception of time is as limited as our understanding of what must happen before. One lifetime might bring understanding in something that seemingly has nothing to do with spiritual efforts. That is because we are not only working on something that we think of as spiritual but with that which needs to be worked on. Which small portion of our spirit incarnates during one lifetime, does not indicate the level of "spiritual growth or progress". Only if we choose to comprehend less, love less, would then be the opposite of enlightenment, meaning that it happens slower.

In both cases we could say that consciousness is the focal point of everything. Our consciousness is the small fragment of god's consciousness into which humanity and every living being is transcending.
User avatar
Soror O
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:15 pm

Re: Transcendence & Enlightenment

Post by Soror O »

Insanus wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 1:05 pm I think death and the effect of death on life is a good analogy. Transcendence is like death and enlightenment is like the way life changes when we're certain we will die.
I think that enlighted being is a being who is constantly dying and thus living forever. Living forever is as effortless as never being born.

To reach such transcendence it is relevant to release the undead, the entities that have not been able to die. As for as all, there once was a time, when dying meant something to be afraid of.
If you want to reborn, let yourself die.
Locked