Support our Kickstarter

The Transformation of the God-Image

Angel-face.jpg

 

Just as we can interpret our dreams symbolically and we can interpret our life as a dream, we can contemplate the history of the world as we would a dream being dreamed by the deeper, dreaming Self that we all share. When we view the unfoldment of the cosmos in this way, one of the things that comes into focus is how the Self, or God-image, which is a living symbol and doorway into the wholeness of our true nature, is continually differentiating and expressing itself in both inner and outer events. Seen symbolically, outer phenomena such as the enlightenment of the Buddha and the life of Christ are seen to be reflections of a mystical process of awakening that is occurring in the depths of consciousness itself, a process which has to do with the birth and the revelation of the true Self in all of us. To quote Jung, "The real history of the world seems to be the progressive incarnation of the deity."

The Self is continually revealing its mystery in symbolic code hidden in plain sight, woven into the fabric of our waking dream, i.e., life, whether these self-secret clues be found in experiences such as the cosmic passion play of Christ, in synchronicities, dreams and visions, in the ordinary events of our daily lives, or in the patterns of global events. The underlying, archetypal motifs which repeat themselves in endless variations as the dramas of history are themselves living, embodied revelations of the ever-evolving God-image. To quote Jung, “…the imago Dei [the God-image] pervades the whole human sphere and makes mankind its involuntary exponent.”

As if speaking a rarified and refined form of symbolic language, the Self paradoxically reveals itself in its own veiling of itself, adumbrating itself in a variety of images which all hide as well as indicate its true nature. If the inner resonance of the God-image is attuned to and awakened inside ourselves, these living images of God reveal themselves to be hyper-dimensional portals into and living symbolic expressions of a more expansive consciousness that is always available to us.

A living symbol that points beyond itself, the God-image is not a concoction of the conceptual mind. To quote Jung, “The God-image is the expression of an underlying experience of something which I cannot attain to by intellectual means.” The God-image is an autonomous phenomenon that is not invented by the intellect, but rather, experienced. Based on a pre-existing, archetypal pattern, the God-image’s existence precedes our cognition of it. Having no hand in its creation, the intellect can only try and come to terms with and assimilate the God-image into its conception of the world. The God-image is a self-produced image spontaneously blossoming from the psyche as a whole that simultaneously reflects and effects what is going on within the very psyche which produced it. The God-image is not a static entity but a living, dynamically evolving process, which is the core archetype, the supreme symbol of the collective unconscious. The God-image is the collective unconscious’ projection of itself, representing the Self as well as the individuation process (the process of realizing our wholeness). Our God-image expresses our conception of and relation to God, while at the same time being the very image through which God is revealing Itself to us. To quote Jung, “As it is a natural process, it cannot be decided whether the God-image is created or whether it creates itself.” Do we create our God-image? Or does our image of God create us?

Seen as a dream, the Christ event was an inner, archetypal process that was occurring deep within the collective unconscious of humanity that literally got dreamed into materialization as its own self-revelation (see my article “Christ Would not Vote for Bush). Seen as a dreaming process that is playing out in the collective psyche of our species, it makes no difference whether the Christ event actually historically happened or not. The Christ-image is a genuine symbol that has arisen in and out of the human psyche which speaks to, is an expression of, and transforms the imagination itself.

When the Christ event is viewed as a dream of the deeper, dreaming Self and interpreted symbolically like a dream, it reflects the incredible polarization and deep inner split existing in the collective unconscious of humanity. This tension of the opposites symbolically played itself out on the world stage in the adversarial figures of Christ and Satan. Christ’s utterly sublime and spotless nature evoked a blacker darkness on the seemingly contrary other side to oppose it, as if the two interconnected opposites reciprocally yet mutually co-arose together. Seen symbolically, Satan, to quote Jung, “represents the counterpole of that tremendous tension in the world psyche which Christ’s advent signified,” and he was related to Christ “…as inseparably as the shadow belongs to the light.”

Christ in himself represents a completely perfect emanation of the Self in its radiant light aspect, lacking nothing, being an open doorway into and mirror of our divine and primordially pure nature. Seen symbolically, however, the figure of Christ is too one-sided a symbol of the multi-faceted archetype of the Self. Christ himself is too overly light and identified with the good, and as the Gnostics realized, he “cast off his shadow from himself,” which Satan is carrying. Because he is the full-blown Incarnation of the Light, to quote Jung, Christ is only a symbol for “one side of the Self [the light] and the devil the other [the dark] [emphasis added]. Seen as dream characters, symbols representing aspects of ourselves, in the figures of Christ and Satan the opposites had become completely severed and dissociated from each other. To quote Jung, “the Christ-symbol lacks wholeness in the modern psychological sense, since it does not include the dark side of things but specifically excludes it in the form of a Luciferian opponent…from the psychological angle he corresponds to only one half of the archetype.” Psychologically speaking, Jung continues, “…the Christian image of the self – Christ – lacks the shadow that properly belongs to it.”

When we view the history of the world as the progressive differentiation of the Self, which is to say the incarnation of the deity, we begin to notice that the Self responds to a one-sided image of itself by gradually expressing and giving rise to the part of its totality that is left out and marginalized, just as in dreams the unconscious compensates a one-sided image to a dreamer.

This process can be clearly seen in the minds of the alchemists, who after the Christ event discovered a new God-image within their own psyche. The God-image of the alchemists was a further differentiation over time as well as a revelation in time of the archetype of the Self, which exists outside of time. In their God-image, which they called “Mercurius,” the energy that had animated the Christ event had further extrapolated itself in the imagination of the alchemists by taking into itself its darker half. Jung said, “…alchemy is rather like an undercurrent to the Christianity that ruled on the surface. It is to this surface as the dream is to consciousness, and just as the dream compensates the conflicts of the conscious mind, so alchemy endeavors to fill in the gaps left open by the Christian tension of opposites.”

The wisest of the alchemists knew that what they were witnessing in their retorts was nothing other than a projection, or reflection of the deepest ground of the archetypal, transpersonal psyche. They experienced Mercurius, like the unconscious, as an autonomous spirit very unlike the purely light figure of Christ. Mercurius was ambiguous, paradoxical, and dark, not to mention utterly pagan. Jung said, Mercurius "represents a part of the psyche which was certainly not molded by Christianity and can on no account be expressed by the symbol ‘Christ’…It represents all those things which have been eliminated from the Christian model."

An evasive trickster, Mercurius was a shape-shifter who was considered two-faced and duplicitous. He was related to Hermes - the God of Revelation, the Germanic Wotan, the Egyptian Thoth, and the maleficent Saturn. Saturn is the dwelling place of the devil himself, and to quote Jung, "If Mercurius is not exactly the Evil One himself, he at least contains him." Jung continues, "Mercurius truly consists of the most extreme opposites; on the one hand he is undoubtedly akin to the godhead, on the other he is found in sewers." To again quote Jung "It seems, however, that the alchemists did not understand hell, or its fire, as absolutely outside of God or opposed to him, but rather as an internal component of the deity, which must indeed be so if God is held to be a coincidentia oppositorum." As an image of the Self, Mercurius was a revelation of the Self as a co-incidence of opposites, consisting of and uniting the most extreme opposites within itself. Jung continues, “The concept of an all-encompassing God must necessarily include his opposite…The principle of the coincidence of opposites must therefore be completed by that of absolute opposition in order to attain full paradoxicality and hence psychological validity.”

When the figures of Christ and Mercurius are recognized to be symbolic expressions of two different aspects of the Self, to quote Jung, “Christ appears as the archetype of consciousness and Mercurius as the archetype of the unconscious.” Seen together, the figures of Christ and Mercurius re-present the Self in its totality, in its light and dark aspects, of consciousness and its inseparability from the unconscious. To quote Jung, “The paradoxical nature of Mercurius reflects an important aspect of the Self – in fact, namely, that it is essentially a complexio oppositorum, [a union of opposites] and indeed can be nothing else if it is to represent any kind of totality.”

When viewed relative to and as relatives of each other, the revelation of Christ and the alchemist’s revelation of Mercurius are different symbolic representations of the very same emerging Self. Just like consciousness and the unconscious, the figures of Christ and Mercurius collaboratively illumine each other as complementary and compensatory aspects of a greater whole. To quote Jung, “In reality every intensified differentiation of the Christ-image brings about a corresponding accentuation of its unconscious complement.” In the fully revealed Incarnation of Christ, the Word became flesh such that it precipitated its symbolic complement in the figure of Mercurius, a genuine praising of the logos.

To quote Jung, “Hesitantly, as in a dream, the introspective brooding of the centuries gradually put together the figure of Mercurius and created a symbol which, according to all the psychological rules, stands in a compensatory relation to Christ. It is not meant to take his place, nor is it identical with him, for then indeed it could replace him. It owes it existence to the law of compensation.” Mercurius, Jung concludes, presents “a subtle compensatory counterpoint to the Christ image.” Seen as a symbol in a dream, in the figure of Mercurius the unconscious is compensating its one-sided image of itself in its own evolving self-revelation.

A divine messenger, Mercurius is itself the message, as the medium is truly the message. Though appearing to be a trouble-maker, Mercurius, like Christ, was considered to be a peacemaker, a savior, a guide through the underworld, a server of humanity, the mediator between the warring elements of the psyche, as well as the producer of unity. Mercurius is the figure who acts out the marginalized role, presides over the borderline, the places of transition, and the cross-roads.

Though not existing objectively, separate from the creative imagination of the alchemists, it is a mistake to write off Mercurius as merely a figment of the alchemical imagination. Through the figure of Mercurius, the alchemists had discovered what Jung calls the “reality of the psyche.” By saying the psyche is “real,” Jung is pointing out that the psyche in-forms our experience of ourselves and the universe in the most fundamental of ways. It is through the medium of the psyche that we give shape to both ourselves and the world around us. When we recognize the reality of the psyche is when we begin to enter the dimension of experience where our imagination and our experience of ourselves intersect, interpenetrate, and mutually influence each other in a conscious and consciousness-generating way.

The figure of Mercurius is a living example of the God-image making itself known by revealing itself through the image-making psyche. As Jung reminds us, “Psyche is image.” The figures of Christ and Mercurius are different iterations of the same deeper, universal Self imaginatively and fractally unfolding itself within the dimension of the human psyche. A further component of the resurrected body, Mercurius is an elaboration over time of the birth of the Self, an Incarnation which is happening within the creative imagination of humanity. The human psyche is the organ through which we imagine God while God simultaneously imagines Itself into incarnation, in our psyche as well as the world, through our imagination. To quote Jung, “The human psyche and the psychic background are boundlessly underestimated, as though God spoke to man exclusively through the radio, the newspapers, or through sermons. God has never spoken to man except in and through the psyche, and the psyche understands it and we experience it as something psychic.” Just as the eye is the instrument through which we behold the image of the sun, the psyche is the organ through which we behold the image of God.

The paradoxical figure of Mercurius is not only a symbolic expression of a process going on deep inside the human psyche but within the divine imagination as well. The divine imagination is the creative organ of perception animating the human psyche through which the formless archetypal dimension is accessed and translated into comprehensible images. The God-image is a unique phenomenon in that it is the intersection point through which the human and divine imaginations reciprocally in-form and collaboratively engage with each other as if wedded in an intimate relationship.

The God-image is an expression of the unconscious of humanity, while simultaneously being God’s disclosure of Itself to Itself through us. This is similar to how our dreams at night reflect back to us our unconscious, while at the same time they bring consciousness to the very unconsciousness of which they are an expression. Like with our dreams, how the figure of Mercurius manifests, whether as a helper or as a diabolical seducer leading us astray, depends upon if we recognize what he is revealing to us.

The God-image is realizing and revealing itself in the collective unconscious of humanity, which is to say “incarnating,” and we are, whether we know it or not, active participants in and vessels for its transformation. This is a big discovery, genuinely worthy of our deepest attention. Realizing that the God-image is transforming itself is to be contributing to the transformation of the God-image. The degree to which we comprehend this process is the degree to which we become active participants contributing to the very process we are simultaneously comprehending. To quote Jung, “But if consciousness participates with some measure of understanding, then the process is accompanied by all the emotions of a religious experience or revelation.” A true conjunction of opposites, the Self is making itself known in the unconscious of humanity and is inviting us to share and partake in its wholesome, whole-making, and holy nature.

Integrating within ourselves an expanded image of God can only be achieved at the moment when we ourselves change in relation to our new imagination. To enlarge our conception of God is to ourselves grow and become greater in volume, as the limits of who we imagine we are and what we imagine we are capable of expands simultaneously to greater heights and more abysmal depths. Seen in its progression since ancient times, the God-image was mediated in the Old Testament through the law, in the New Testament it was dependent on faith, and in the new psychological dispensation of our time the God-image is centered in and mediated by direct experience.

In the symbolic figure of Mercurius is a spontaneous God-image that has crystallized into and out of the human psyche which is a manifestation of, as well as a doorway into, an inner experience that unites the opposites. In a radical re-visioning of itself, in the figure of Mercurius the unconscious has offered us an image of God which includes and embraces evil as an integral aspect of our wholeness.

The God-image is like a dream that we are dreaming that is simultaneously dreaming us. To recognize what the unconscious is revealing to us through our God-image is to step into and discover within ourselves the dark, unconscious, projected, and “dreamed up” content which is being reflected back to us through our imaginings of God. To expand our conception of God so as to include darkness can only be done, and is an instantaneous reflex of, our embracing the darkness within ourselves. Becoming acquainted with our own darkness is a genuine “illumination,” which is why Jung points out that, “…not only darkness is known through light, but that conversely, light is known through darkness.”

To recognize that the figures of Christ and Mercurius are reflections of a deeper process of awakening happening within ourselves “appreciates” them, as well as ourselves. Appreciated as the mirror that they are, these internal figures, as well as ourselves, appreciate, i.e., grow in value.

The figures of Christ and Mercurius, when recognized as co-related symbols of our wholeness, reciprocally activate, awaken, and reveal the wholeness within us. The evolving God-image, our intrinsic wholeness, has crept under our skin and has empowered our creative imagination to materialize itself as our experience of ourselves. In a sacred IN-pulse, something greater than ourselves is incarnating through us as it reveals itself to us. We are truly made in the image of God, while at the same time our image of God makes us.

 

Image credit: "Angels and Demons" by Gonzalo Fernandez, and "nov 1 07 - 25/365" by erin is a star under Creative Commons license.

Comments

trips me up

Thank you for the article. I've wanted to know more about this aspect of Jung's work. Perhaps you might help me out of a spiritual bind.

Here's something that I can't wrap my head around: you point out that we have to embrace our darkness to become truly whole. You note how Mercurius is essentially a symbol that integrates darkness and light. I don't know how to do that. For the past two years, I've progressed, and I feel that my life is filled with more light. Now, I intellectually appreciate the challenge of also embracing and accepting the darkness, but I can't see how to practically achieve that. To my mind, light is progression, evolution, growth, happiness, etc. When you say embrace the dark, I understand that as a lack of spiritual understanding, regression, insensitivity, emotional apathy, etc.

How can I embrace that aspect of myself and continue to grow? I feel I need to, oddly enough, but it feels like a need to return to bad habits that I've spent years training myself against. I've always understood the darkness to mean those aspects of myself which avoid spiritual growth.

These are only words, and the experience defies exact definitions, but hopefully you get the thrust of my question. I'd really appreciate any guidance on this. You'd be doing good. (Isn't good better than bad/light v. dark? . . . sighs in incomprehension).

Light/Dark

 Michael,

I dig. The Dark Me decays, becomes fertilizer for Homo Luminous Me. I embrace the rot, smell the fetid evidence of transformation. [caterpillar dissolves, is raw material for butterfly]

 Transformation has its gnarly aspects, radiant Being is rooted in shit. All God. All good. Make sense? OK if no. I'm just another clueless meatmonkey.

PAX

The way I see it

Hey Matejka. The way I see it embracing darkness is to not supress it. Embrace, go through and let go. No need to go back. Darkness is to be transcended not repeated and indulged.

SugarMag

Yeah, embracing the dark...

...means, I suppose, recognising those uncool aspects of ourselves - anger, envy, resentment, lust, vanity etc - rather than repressing them and pretending to be all humble and saintly. By keeping tabs on our inner devil, we keep him in check. If we are blind to him, all sorts of problems may occur.  

 

There's an English phrase "keep a stiff upper lip," which means broadly, don't feel it, ignore it. Jung suggests in contrast that it is important we feel it, and acknowledge it. This was part of DH Lawrence's great campaign against English society: he believed that people were almost paralysed by their repressed emotions, and that they were therefore pretty much incapable of saying or doing anything genuine. So he tried to bring the darkness back to consciousness, bring the devil, or more properly, Pan, back into society.  

 

I could be wrong. Hopefully Paul will chime in.

 

 

Growing

This may sound trite but getting to know yourself is the first step.  This can be done through a regular meditation or contemplation practice where you spend time investigating your thoughts and images (including those that have been buried in your unconscious) and then noticing how they make you feel, and what they attract in your life.  Or, merely becoming aware on a moment to moment basis what you think and say and how that impacts yourself and others; what triggers you to say and do things you regret and make conscious decisions to change and then noticing what those changes have produced in your life and relationships. Embracing and accepting the darkness in yourself cannot be done intellectually.  The trick is that when you become aware of the darkness, genuinely forgive it like you would a child which has caused you some irritation, and then let it go.  In time any darkness will recede into the background and become less bothersome; it will lose it's power.  It is this process that will help you grow without falling back.  It takes patience.

Redefine your words and the world will unfold.

There is a difference between negativity and darkness which can confuse many a rational man.  The words you used to describe darkness are actually better suited for negativity, which is the unconscious/conscious choice to remain stagnant.  It is the spiritual regression of which you speak.  It is the choice of man. 

Darkness, on the other hand, is a beautiful mystery which can provide more maturity than some forms of light.  Darkness is the universal polarity choice of expression.  Negativity is the human's polarity choice of expression.

Conquering darkness only requires awareness in each and every moment.  Its gifts demand a lack of judgment,  a passion for growth at all costs, and the ability to flow in and out of its grasp in integrity and immense understanding.

It is as simple as light is, but it is by far the more difficult choice to make, which is why it has the potential to reap powerful rewards.

 

Light and Darkness

Thanks, Paul, for another good one. Your article kept reminding me of the ole "Gospel of Philip" saying: "Light and Darkness, life and death, right and left, are brothers of one another. They are inseparable. Because of this neither are the good good, nor evil evil, nor is life life, nor death death. For this reason each one will dissolve into its earliest origin. But those who are exalted above the world are indissoluble, eternal"

Jung Adam

Interesting points about Jung's apparent androcentrism, zezt. I'm guilty of assuming general similarity of male and female consciousness - but I'm not so sure since my brush with the french feminism of Kristeva and Cissoux. Do you think that Jung might yet have some insight to offer to women? What about to genders other than masculine and feminine - might they exist?

 

Our society often envisages early paleolithic humanity as a masculine, tool using culture child emerging from the green womb of wild nature. (Perhaps thats why we love the mediocre Rimbaud?) I wonder why this child is imagined to be masculine? Perhaps all those early myths of the Goddess and her son/lover might be creatively reinterpreted/reframed for our time?

 

I've no answers yet - I'm glad you raised these stimulating  questions. 

Rimbaud

"mediocre" is probably overstating the case, and I do love the poetry - memorised reams of it as a kid to shock my teachers. I just wonder if his stature isn't also overstated. He was an extraordinarily gifted poet, but wasted it....so we could say he failed his poetic calling, and that he understood this, and hence the long years of austerity as a successfull buisnessman in Africa. Where, perhaps, he continued his quest in another form.

 

In contrast, Blake, similarly talented as a kid, could be said to have achieved the goal of his quest - spectacularly so with Jerusalem.

 

 But this is all a huge can of worms for another day.

 

Apologies all for going off topic with the line about the often over-rated Rimbaud.  

CJ

CJ, thanks for that. I'd be happy to discuss all things poetic with you - in fact, most of my friends are academics or postgrad lit geeks, so the view from da street would undoubtedly be like a cool breeze to me. My views are a bit too idiosyncratic for most academics, perhaps you might find them more congenial. Email me via my contact form if you want to continue this discussion. 

darkness

"Darkness within Darkness, the gateway to true understanding" - Stephen Mitchell's translation of the first verse of the Tao te Ching

In regards to your questions Michael, I think it's important to recognize that darkness ultimately for Jung can be seen as "the dark waters of the unconscious" - those hidden and often inaccessible parts of our mind.

By overcoming and progressing in your own life, you've clearly had to go through your own dark processes and patterns to arrive at the comfortable place you appear to be in now... while there is likely always more darkness "to conquer" for each of us on our paths, it is not necessary to return to any bad habits but rather to turn to understanding and going through the darkness in order to create stronger new good habits.

Trust your intuition.  Don't try to force bad habits back upon yourself because you feel have to embrace more darkness.

All bridges can be rebuilt.

Yes

As someone who digs the shadow (pun intended, I appreciate the direction of this piece. I will contend that Christ is an integrated deity because as all the Solar deities of his lineage (Osiris, Dionysis etc) He has journeyed into the underworld of death and the unconscious and resurrection. Now as a neo/pagan world culture seeker I understand that Satan as it is known in the Western World is just a misunderstanding of the Great Horned One, whose image has been distorted for many reasons. Never the less going with the cosmology of Christ, Jesus does directly confront the "image" of Satan who tempts him to use his power for his own mortal benefit. This happens when he is fasting in the Desert for 40 days. The beauty of the story is that he does contemplate his shadow of using his power for selfish gain but instead chooses to use it in service of the divine and the people. It is only when he decides to not be tempted by his purely animal desires for power, does he achieve integration. Not by denial but by choice. Christ also is connected with the femmine in his relation to his Mother and Mary. He also cofronts the shadows of power in the temples. In my mind the trickster is a deity who is a teacher who is an ego destroyer by a sharp edge of a sword. Christ is a teacher of Love and service. Not wimpy love that is the water-down version that this story sometimes is depicted as, but by love beyond death.i.e. going into the Shadow and coming back as the integration of duality. Perhaps most of our popular religious myths do lean towords the male side because Men need the lesson of rememberence of their own connection to the divine more then women. As the Tao says, Know the Masculine but Live the Feminine.

good-evil

I see it like trying to understand why a person does what they do. What kind of conditioning they've had, the bad imprints they might have had as a child, which might have perverted their natural instincts somehow - I think it's about seeing that what someone does, no mater how diabolical it is, is always understandable and explainable, and therefore worthy of forgiveness, and applying this also to oneself. Life seems to be a process of either unconsciously being bound by one's conditioning, or the attempt to look into one's 'dark' behavior and understand and reprogram it, if one is able.

Jesus' shadow

I think that Christ himself is overly identified with the good by many. I put this down to our natural tendency to think in dualities. However, if you read his teachings then he has a lot to say about shadow work and the acceptance of the dark side of our psyche. He repeatedly encourages us to see our own sin and to accept the sin in others. He does the same with the rejected people of his society. He speaks against those that claim to be completely free of sin. So to say that he cast off his shadow is a misreading of the gospels by my understanding.

You say that Jung says that “The concept of an all-encompassing God must necessarily include his opposite. The principle of the coincidence of opposites must therefore be completed by that of absolute opposition in order to attain full paradoxicality and hence psychological validity.” It seams to me that Jesus achieves this through being both man and God. Sinner and saint. Satan is the shadow of the old testament God and through Jesus we achieve integration.

 I don't understand the idea of Mercurius arising as a counterpoint to christ when alchemy and Mercurius predate Christ. It is likely even that Jesus was familiar with alchemy. His family spent time in Egypt when they fled from herod and his teachings point towards somebody who had completed the alchemical process. I suggest that it was this process that created the state of mind necessary to step into the archetypal process that he did.

 How is the medium the message? Jung is right Mercurius is completeley ambiguous and as such has no message. It'd be like watching the static on a tv screen. It is through Mercurius that the Godhead is revealed but I don't see how he can be elevated to the Godhead himself. I'd say if any thing Mercurius is more similar to the Tao.

 I don't take the bible literaly I'm just fed up with people ignoring it's sophistication.

Embracing Dark

Great post and dialogue here! This post came to me at the most perfect moment.
I am exploring this theme through my art right now, as I completed a painting about the goddess Boann, which was based on Celtic mythology. The painting focused on aspects of transformation that are required for one to gain wisdom. There are very dark aspects to the myth, as the goddess is maimed and eventually drowned, in her attempt to peer into a magic well containing wisdom. And while the events are dark, the overall result is something positive. It is because of her sacrifice that the salmon of wisdom is released to the world of humans.
This painting made me think about how much contemporary society tries to break things up into black and white, good and bad, positive and negative, etc. I wonder, if we looked at these things more as part of a whole system rather than a dichotomy, perhaps we would have less problems than we do now. Of course this is oversimplifying a bit, but I still suspect there would be benefits.
I am now researching a painting based on the mythology of the Morrigan, a very dark goddess connected to sovereignity of the land and of war and fertility. I think, by delving deeper and exploring these darker aspects, I will gain a better understanding of myself and how I relate to the world.  And, in turn, I hope the painting will help others to not fear the dark parts of themselves.
It is as, some other posts suggested, that the only way we can progress is to acknowledge these dark aspects and move through it. I think a lot of us have a tendency to push it away or ignore it, and such things never just go away on their own. In fact, usually more problems develop as a result.
I am looking forward to seeing how the dialogue progresses here, as I believe there is the potential for some very powerful and transformative ideas yet to be revealed.
Thanks!

DoAn

Interstitial Artist

www.doanart.blogspot.com

language

Funny if you look at a word long enough it starts to seem wierd...anyway, maybe language needs to languish, weaken, soften, dissolve into something more holistic, that can become more a kind of unspoken communion with something greater than ourselves...or whatever.

Tools

cjmoore,

the more I read of your posts, the more sense you make.

Language is a tool like almost every other manifested aspect of universal life. It can be used well or misused.

I often think, that some people write or talk for the almost solipsistic pleasure of it. Others communicate from and around a factual content.

While I understand your association

with Christ and many negative things. I wonder if you see that other people can view the Christ figure as a mythology similar to the Greek, Celtic, or other Gods of cultural traditions.  I tend to see that there is difference between the religion of Christianity and the mythic teachings of the Christ.  All religions to some degree become problematic, because humans invest too much power and control within them.   I am not Christian, but I can see the stories in many other traditions, so for me, I can replace the Christ with Apollo or Lugh or Mabon, etc.<br>

I don't need to get the religion mixed up in the message.   Perhaps that will help you?

DoAn

Interstitial Artist

www.doanart.blogspot.com

Misc.

Cit ecolocal:

"Which is why i have been ignoring several recent RS articles going on about good ol' Jesus with the conviction of born-again christians. A guy even believes he met him personally!"

I share your thoughts, and have tried not to let these articles go unopposed in my comments. But real communication with the 'saved' seems to be impossible. At best you get interminable biblecitations, at worst they expect you to play the entire game at their rules.

Cit doan: "I don't need to get the religion mixed up in the message. Perhaps that will help you?"

I (we?), who am critical to christianity in both its original form and later church forms, am aware of the differences between its original content and later church-doctrines. And sweeping comparisons of Jesus with other 'divine' messengers doesn't help to make the christian message more acceptable.

Cit zezt:

"the crone who sees and questions, and doesn't care what others think of her, is sharp and wise and doesn't accept what is said just because it might be from an extra-terrestrial."

This sounds like someone, who's willing to examine belief-systems critically. But other parts of it sounds as dogmatic as the new-age marmalade, she wants to distance herself from. It doesn't bring anyone closer to truth, if one belief-system is just swapped for another.

No grudges, zezt

actually I respect your request for clarification on my part.

Cit: "....where were you years ago when Sjoo almost singlehandedly challenged the insidious might of the 'New Age'?"

I take this as a question of my position on 'new age'. I was one of the original 'sixties people' in my part of the world, and when I saw the degradation of the original experiments over the next ten year period, I reacted very critically to it. Occasionally by going out publicly in a small scale. I was never a 'big name' in public, as I then prefered to demonstrate my points at a practical level.

"....where are YOU at?"

I feel, that if anyone writes articles etc. it can have two purposes. Either it's missionary one-way preaching, OR it's meant for communication and debate. If it's the last, there must be a common ground for communication, a startingpoint which the implied persons can agree on. Otherwise it'll just be a lot of people yelling dogmas at each other.

STARTING with serving ultimate 'answers' like christian dogmas, subconsciousness like a proven fact, the need of mother goddesses, non-dualism etc makes communication difficult.

I would rather find functional startingpoints and methods. Generally speaking epistemology and methodology.

Starting and going part of the way together makes it easier to respect and accept final differences in the outcoming answers.

Personally I'm more than willing to revise some of my own opinions, if I'm exposed to good arguments in a two-way communication.

But having a holy book or a socalled 'authority' thrown at me as 'proof' is what I protest against.

I have tried to answer your questions, as well as I can. Should there be uncertainties I apologise and try again.

Witchcraft

Zezt - who says darkness is earth, female and lunar? Surely this must be an opinion shared by the few as darkness to me is everything that is destructive in oneself and others. Unless, of course, you are talking about witchcraft and sorcery which to me has nothing to do with darkness. Rather a childish and infantile game played by insecure, bitter man haters. And what do you mean by Monica not accepting what is said just because it might be from an extra-terrestrial? Is this to mean that the extra-terrestrials are all the people in power? Or even all the people in power controlled by aliens? Or is it just an analogy for greed in our world? Or simply a way of saying that she doesn’t listen to anyone but herself? Please clarify this for me as I see it as very important for further discussion. Confusing the whole embracing the darkness with black magic mumbo jumbo is nothing but a rebellion towards everything conventional (like a teenager rebelling against his parents) ….and why not spice it all up with a little alien talk…And it all surfaces and becomes, you guessed it, DOGMA!!

SugarMag

Just to clarify

Not to say that conventional is a good thing...it´s dogma just as well. A thought construction like anything else that exists. But let´s keep the unreal real you know... SugarMag

Reality

Cit:

"But let´s keep the unreal real you know..."

True. But there are so many 'realities' in circulation, that it can be confusing at times.

Same same

Sure. There are infinite realities but there is an objective reality that binds us all together. For any other of these realities to bear any useful meaning they should in some tangible way at least touch the very edges of the unified objective one.

 

Zest – my bad. No alien theory here. I jumped to conclusions. Sorry. Nevertheless, please define the darkness you are referring to as I would like to bring it in to our unified objective reality. I still don’t see why the Female Gaian aspect is Darkness. It is merely the Masculine Ego turned inside out. That’s it. Men tend to think that they are the creators of the universe through their own manifesting powers as women see themselves as part of the whole (generally speaking). Two sides of the same coin.

SugarMag

Satan an angel?

'Now it was no longer a matter of angels or devils or words used to say this is and that is that.'

Apparently  'Satan  is a term that originates from the, Abrahamic faiths, being traditionally applied to an 'angel' in Judeo-Christian belief, and to a 'jinn' in Islamic belief.'

'While Hebrew ha-Satan is "the accuser" and Satan itself means "to overcome" — the one who challenged the religious faith ..'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan

Nough said

Where is up where is down? In comparison to what? Darkness manifests in repetition. Stop and the light shines through. Change perspective and reverse.

embracing our darkness

Hi Michael Matejka, About embracing the darkness: the root source of the darkness is our own clinging and grasping, which explicates over different levels of experience as demons, evil, etc. Seen as a dream, the seeming darkness “out there” is a reflection of the darkness within ourselves. In fighting against the darkness, whether it be in the outside world or within us, it is as if the darkness is trying to get rid of itself, which clearly just perpetuates the darkness. When we realize that the darkness we are fighting against is not only within us, but is an aspect of our monstrous totality, a process becomes initiated in which the darkness becomes integrated into the light of this realization. Our sense of who we are expands to include the darker, (self)-destructive parts of ourselves, as we begin to realize how we are creating our own suffering by our clinging and grasping. We would never have had the light of this realization without the darkness, which is to say that the darkness is a disguised expression of the light of this realization. The darkness is a manifestation of the light, as without the darkness we never would have reached the higher-dimensional light which includes and unites the light and the dark.

Paul Levy

Don't take this as a strong criticism. It's not intended so.

But I do feel, that the present discussion looks a bit like former times medicine, where the symptoms were sometimes the main object of interest in illness, and the symptom removal was seen as a cure.

The same way with 'inner darkness'. If the 'spiritual patient' starts on a real cure, by achieving enlightenment, realisation (or whatever it's called), inner darkness goes away. So the only function darkness can have is to make a diagnosis.

Don´t complicate

Who is talking about enlightenment? What I am saying is drop the whole darkness/light bit and just focus on ridding one self of any habitual behaviour that brings chaos to ones life. When the clouds are dispersed one sees that the sun has always been there. We are already there. It´s just as magical driving a car on a concrete road in downtown Manhattan as it is seeing visions in a remote cave in the Himalayas. It is down right completely and utterly amazing that we exist at all! On the other hand it would be just as amazing (if not more so...) if all there ever was was a great big eternal nothing!

Complication re Sugar Magnolia's "Don't complicate"

I agree in spirit with what you say, but also, have some exemptions I want to claim about it. While, what we are doing is what we are doing and that such is our current "problem" or accomodative "sense of self as divine", I can see that eventually "driving a car down the road" will eventually be something we will see as a curious, if logical, intermediate stage of our ignorance. It seems completely logical that we would make cars, and so bring about a "plastic" revolution. But as a viewer from either a more primitive or more advanced stage of evolution, we could just as easily see it as a form of complete madness. Only, however, as we could also see the effects on the life of the whole. The planet is suffering in ways we seem to want to enure ourselves to. The very life-blood of the oceans is being replaced by plastic, the off-spring of the internal-combustion engine. And, while many say the warming of the planet is "natural", and that all the planets are also "warming", it seems beyond imagination that such solar-system-wide warming might be, also, the result of actions of such technology on this planet.

I have to disagree with the idea, "it is all divine" it is "all good". We do have the obligation to step back and say or ask: I don't think this is good; or, Is this really "good"? We are fortunate enough at the present time to have such anachronistic societies as the people still living in supposedly "backward" cultures that the World Monitary Fund thinks should be "brought up to speed" and who want to fund the implacement of electricity and computers and taxation systems. The Amish are under attack now, too. Variety of culture is under attack under the aegis of "modernization" or "equalization". We find cause to fault any culture that doesn't want or is unwilling to "buy into" the modern norms. I suppose their unwillingness is seen as "divine", but we do little to stop the "advancement movement". We don't study the economic-materialistic motives of those who want to put their fingers in all things. This "it is all divine" idea is just a kind of accomodation to real evil. Just like the thinking of all religious fanatics who think going into the bush to "educate" the "primitives" as to their form of thinking is "charity".

The most esoterically-ignorant person in the world can bring a law suit against the government, a hospital, or a charity and be more spiritual than someone who just sits back and says "it's all good". Otherwise, why not just sleep all day, why not drink the coctail, why not just "let it be"?

I agree that "enlightenment" exists just as richly in downtown New York as in the Himalaya. What we want though is the "best" attitude, not just the most currently expedient. The problems of the Himalayan people are different from the problems of the New Yorker. We have to act locally and relevently. It takes engagement and reflection at once. If we get up and act on some impulse of some inferred "emergency" and not from a sense of what we deem ideal, we are merely reactionary. Not thinkers. We have to see what really threatens the greatest peace and happiness, and apply ourselves to these things, even if they don't currently exist. Ideas become reality. We can cut 'em off at the pass. We can "non-participate" in any mass-movement, whether it be car-driving, or blindly following a world-trend. And we can mock such. We still must live the truth we espouse, or we are hypocrits.

===========

Letter writing is still the most potent way to raise the consciousness of elected representatives: it's a record they cannot ignore and cannot say they were unawar

Been there, done that

Cit Sugar M: "On the other hand imagining a great big eternal nothingness is equally hard (or harder...) to comprehend!"

Too late. I've already been there in the great big eternal nothingness, and it definitely beats even motorcycle-driving.

Besides the bad name of 'nothingness' isn't quite correct. It's more like stillness.

It's ofcourse a personal choice if anyone wants to go there or not. And how.

How?

How have you been there? In your mind? What I meant to say is that the very fact that anything exists at all is just as bizarre as nothing to have EVER existed at all. I never meant to say (if that is what you are implying) that driving a car is amazing in the sense of driving the car. What I mean to say is that the very fact that we are sitting in a box made of metal filled with magical electronics rolling down a manmade concrete road surrounded by tall hightech buildings that all stand on the surface of a giant (or tiny) globe that is hovering in something called space should be enough. The realization of this is just as "deep" as the realization of "nothing". I hope I am making sense here... That is not to say that I haven´t dwelled in the "nothingness" realm myself from time to time! I would also argue that stillness is not the same as nothingness but maybe that comes down to semantics...

Cit Sugar M: "How have

Cit Sugar M:

"How have you been there? In your mind?"

Both as in my mind, but also as how this influenced my experience of the outer world. I saw the same things as before 'being in silence', but they 'looked' different while being in silence. It was the same old world, but in a different version.

"What I meant to say is that the very fact that anything exists at all is just as bizarre as nothing to have EVER existed at all."

Could be that something comes from nothing. Without formulating an opinion on this, mahayana buddhists say, that samsara is the same as nirvana. MAYBE universal existence is the same as transcendent existence, it's the percieving which differs.

"I would also argue that stillness is not the same as nothingness but maybe that comes down to semantics..."

In my case I feel, that I still have a distinctive identity in the silence. A nothingness wouldn't contain that, so the difference isn't only semantic for me.

Something Nothing

So silence is more a state of perception than a nothingness. There is still you to sense it and it to reflect back on you. Or is that simply an illusion? The duality of it I mean. In Zen, when hit on the head by the master symbolizes exactly that. The momentary aha experience of transcendence of this duality. On the other hand, even this is perception! If you turn the table all the way around and talk about an Omega Point where that big something is pulling us from the predestined future shaping us in it’s image you see that every micro inch of everything that exist on all planes of existence, physical as mind, are working together towards this point. In this version perception doesn’t matter so much as it has no influence over anything but your own personal experience of the ride. You are only left with a choice to suffer or not suffer on the way. That is really the only choice we have on this rollercoaster. The ride is either joyful or awful. Dark or light. What is this Omega Point? I would say it is inconceivable. Maybe this is why we dabble in concepts of nothingness. Because that is the most inconceivable we can think of… Then again, the linear journey vs. the eternal nowness where everything happens at the same time could, and probably are, one and the same!

To be continued...

Hi Zezt – I see your point. You are saying that for anything to exist it must have an opposite. Again, I think this boils down to perception. It is all IT. It is all ONE. Even the plurality is singular. But I guess to navigate in these earthly waters everything must have a comparison. Otherwise it would all melt to oneness, which is to say enlightenment? But can we be this and at the same time stay here in the dual world? I think not, because it contradicts the very phenomena of the then achieved so-called enlightenment. I guess maybe one could remain in this sphere by choice. But wouldn’t that be biting the apple all over again only to perpetuate oneself back into dual existence? Because of this paradox I am wondering to myself if, as I mention in my post above, we are delusional about our own perception mattering at all. Pain is pain. Joy is joy. Hard is hard. Soft is soft. The ride is there whether we believe it or not. We can align ourselves with this flow and feel peace but that is not the same as exiting the whole thing. The notion that perception is everything and that duality is necessary for everything to exist diminishes existence to the confides of our own mind and imagination and places it outside of linear time, space and evolution. Maybe we are not there yet? Maybe our perception is only beginning to matter and when fully evolved is that which equals Omega Point which equals enlightenment which includes every single sentient being in our universe. Maybe no one can get there on own merit and we must all get there together. But I think we can all agree that we want to suffer as little as possible on the way there and every little bit of light that we can gather is good, no?

how do we embrace the darkness?

thanks for the reflection that my last response seemed a bit rushed. What I wrote made me feel that there's so much more to say on this subject of how to embrace the darkness. I guess the first thing that comes to mind is that even by asking the question we are already missing the mark, as it is the wrong question, as it assumes there's something to do and that we aren't whole right now.

one more thing

hi bogomil, you write: "But I do feel, that the present discussion looks a bit like former times medicine, where the symptoms were sometimes the main object of interest in illness, and the symptom removal was seen as a cure."

for me, it's actually the opposite. The darkness is not a symptom to be gotten rid of, but is actually the light itself in the form of darkness. This gets into the whole idea that encoded in the seeming symptom, the seeming pathology is its own medicine, its own resolution (makes me think how in trauma, the very re-solution of the trauma is hidden in the compulsion to recreate it). The point is to get to that place in ourselves where we recognize the inseparability of the opposites, which is the expanded consciousness which is the teleology of the whole process.

Abstract

Yes. It may be abstract. But not more so than any psychedelic experience or any experience for that matter. Since we are exploring ourselves WITH ourselves it seems to me that there can only be one. We are dancing on the edge of the razor and at the same time we are the razor and there is nothing outside the razor. Duality is an illusion but at the same time this very illusion is what this world is made of. You said: "Now...try and imagine HOW you could see all that WITHOUT nothing." I say try to imagine all that with you not there...

re: Sugar M

Cit Sugar M:

"The duality of it I mean."

Yes, but then I am a dualist (my preferred maps are partly pagan-gnosticism/theravada buddhism).The non-dualistic situation exists at ultimate reality, which is still far away from me.

If my dualism is correct, then I have no choice but to accept suffering as unavoidable. I could ofcourse try to trick myself into percieving 'the ride' as pleasurable, but I prefer 'truth' to pleasure.

(I'm not on a mission. I just state my own position).

Sorry, I didn't understand the part about omega, but maybe this will be an answer anyway.

I see (some kind of)individuality as a central point, but as with you, I don't know the final answer to that one.

"But can we be this and at the same time stay here in the dual world? I think not, because it contradicts the very phenomena of the then achieved so-called enlightenment."

I agree. And rumours have it, that if you achieve samadhi, the body will give up after 3 weeks. And many thing points towards the universe existing on polarities/dualities. (Matter: +/- electrical charge etc. Emotions: Attraction/repulsion, etc.etc.)

Inside the dualistic system, there exists a possibility, where our human, individual perception isn't the mainpoint.

It could be, that the 'demiurge' has created the whole universe as one big illusion. While we still have an option for getting out of this collective illusion, it's a considerable more difficult process than proposed in any of the individual-based models of 'wrong' perception.

In the 'demiurge' version, we not only have to stop our personal dualistic perception, but also the demiurge's dualism. (As with Mara in buddhism).

In any case 'pain' isn't only a question of human beings making funny belief-systems or not. When my cat takes a mouse, the mouse shows great signs of pain, even without the benefit of highbrow thoughts about existence.

Omega Point

You say: ” In the 'demiurge' version, we not only have to stop our personal dualistic perception, but also the demiurges dualism. (As with Mara in Buddhism).” How could we ever stop the demiurges version? That one is beyond us. Can we stop our own duality by changing our perception? Maybe. Or it could just as easily be an illusion, a denial. It’s like we both said, pain is pain no matter how you perceive it. It is pretty easy to perceive the possibility (as an abstract thought) of transcending duality but a whole different ballgame doing so. If we assume the following is true then transcendence on the personal plane ONLY happens in the mind and is nothing but an illusion. At least, that is how I understand it… 

Here follows an extract from: The Phenomenon of Man by Teilhard de Chardin:

Omega point is a term that describes the maximum level of complexity and consciousness to which the universe seems to be evolving. In this theory, the universe is constantly developing towards higher levels of material complexity and consciousness. The universe can only move in the direction of more complexity and consciousness if it is being drawn by a supreme point of complexity and consciousness. Thus Teilhard postulates the "Omega Point" as the supreme point of complexity and consciousness, which is not only as the term of the evolutionary process, but the actual cause for the universe to move in the direction of complexity and consciousness. In other words, Omega Point exists as supremely complex and conscious, independent of the evolving universe.  

Five attributes to the Omega Point:

  • it must be already existing;
    this is the only way to explain the rise of the universe towards higher stages of consciousness.
  • it must be personal – an intellectual being and not an abstract idea;
    the complexification of matter has not only led to higher forms of consciousness, but accordingly to more personalization, of which human-beings are the highest attained form of this 'personalization' of the universe. They are completely individualized, free centers of operation. It is in this way that man is said to be made in the image of God, who is the highest form of personality. He expressly states that in the Omega Point, when the universe is made One by unification, human persons will not be suppressed, but super-personalized. Personality will be infinitely enriched. This is because Omega Point unites creation, and the more it unites, the more the universe complexifies and rises in consciousness. Thus, as God creates the universe evolves towards higher forms of complexity, consciousness, and finally with humans, personality, because God, who is drawing the universe towards him, is a Person.
  • it must be transcendent;
    Omega Point can not be the result of the universe's final complexification of itself on consciousness. Omega Point, instead, must exist even before the universe's evolution, because Omega Point is responsible for the rise of the universe towards more complexity, consciousness and personality. Which essentially means, that Omega Point is outside the framework in which the universe rises, because it is by the magnetic pull of the Omega Point that the universe evolves towards Him.
  • it must be autonomous – free from the limitations of space (nonlocality) and time (atemporality);
  • it must be irreversible, that is it must be attainable

Choiceless

It seems in this scenario we are left choiceless, no? But with the freedom of imagining otherwise. A sort of valium to endure the ride...

We reconcile with creation/samsara through a complete and utter surrender and acceptance in the face of the unavoidable. Not because it actually matters but because we can. Embracing both darkness and light as part of the journey, but doing what we can to stay on the bright side. How bright I guess depends on our individual ability to dream/imagine/transcend (within our own mind) but at the same time dependant on the card we are dealt on this journey.

re: Paul

This is an answer to a former post:

Paul, if your universe is an 'abramic' one, maybe you already are 'whole' and shouldn't ask questions.

But in my 'corrupted universe' model questions are necessary, and my approach is examine 'ignorance'(anti-gnosis, anti-realisation).

Cit Paul: "The point is to get to that place in ourselves where we recognize the inseparability of the opposites, which is the expanded consciousness which is the teleology of the whole process."

I agree. Then the problem seems to be to find some functional and basic assumptions from where we can start making ourselves whole.

a clarification

yo bogomil, w/r to my language, quite often I come from the "dzogchen" point of view, which points out that there's nothing to do, nothing to attain, nothing to purify, etc, as our true nature is always already whole, and all we simply have to do is to recognize this, abide in and as that, and not become distracted. This point of view embraces all other dualistic points of view as part of it, which is to say, for example, the part of us that in any moment feels really fucked up and a million miles from enlightenment is simply the form our enlightenment is taking at this very moment. The practice is simply to integrate every moment into this realization, which doesn't involve effort (dzogchen is said to "cure the disease of effort"), but in recognizing the true nature of all phenomena (both outer and inner), effortlessly allows all phenomena to "self-liberate" in, of, and by itself.

re: Paul

Your cit:

"... which points out that there's nothing to do, nothing to attain, nothing to purify, etc, as our true nature is always already whole, and all we simply have to do is to recognize this, abide in and as that, and not become distracted."

Good point Paul. My best friend through 40 years have for the last 20 years proposed thoughts similar to yours, also based on some tibetan tradition (maybe the same).

Without making it into a situation of negative disagreement, I always answer the same: There is still a question of change involved in this position, the ...."all we simply have to do is to recognize this...." So we have to make this change for recognization; this is a dynamic activity.

My point may look like a pedantic arguing about minor details, but considering the nature of 'silence' such an inner recognition is like a brassband playing march music. It's not only academic.

A change (recognition) is based on a choice, and as long as we choose, we are in a dualistic position: This way or that way.

Far from being a buddha myself, I'm nonetheless familiar with regular deep experiences of 'silence' and I know, what decisionmaking (even small ones) is felt like in that state. It can fill the whole experience.

A parallel can be taken from the Buddha/Boddhisatva choice. In Nirvana a Buddha can either stay as a Buddha, ot he can return as a Boddhisatva. That is certainly a choice, implying a non-homogenous situation.

While I find Mahayana-buddhism sensible, useful and agreeable, this is the point, where I get off the train and ask myself, if non-duality (if it exists at all? But I'm not a manichean) is to be found at a still more removed possibilty.

 

But the 'we're all Buddhas, only we don't know it' is an intriguing idea, and I have spent maybe ten years on it. Not finished yet. 

re: Sugar M

Sugar M.

I appreciate your comments very much. You seem to grasp the essentials nicely, and this inspires me to go to the limits of my own understanding.

Your cit:

" If we assume the following is true then transcendence on the personal plane ONLY happens in the mind and is nothing but an illusion. At least, that is how I understand it…"

For various reasons I like the concept of 'zero-point'. It's not encumbered with too many dogmatic associations, but can be used in several connections. I would like to make the following suggestion:

Zero-point is a condition without the 'normal' dualities (polarities) from universal existence. This is part of both religious and scientific cosmologies and cosmogonies. While science hasn't got much to say about the nature of zero-points, except by negotiation (it is the absense of order or structure) or by searching for answers in chaos-theory (still very speculative), both religion and mystical experience postulate, that this seemingly 'vacum' is only a vacum concerning aspects of universal manifestations. Zero-point has it's own, different nature, often described as consciousness or awareness. (The 'mind').

So transcendence maybe takes place in a 'real' surrounding, 'mind' (awareness), and therefore it isn't only an individual, subjective illusion. There's no proving this idea, I can only point out the general experiences of mystics, who (independant of maps) give quite similar descriptions of zero-point/'mind'. Though later religious doctrines give different doctrinal interpretations. The most extreme: The abramic universe model or the corrupted universe model of gnostics/theravada.

Slightly new subject.:

Omega-point can be approached both from abramic or 'corrupted universe' models. In the first the omega-point is seen as a positive ideal: Closer to God. In the second the universal complexity is inherent in the fabric of the laws governing the universe, and has a possible function as what science would call negative entropy as suggested in the theory of 'the strong anthropic principle'. Complexity can create local negative entropy, meaning that parts of the universe can exist a bit longer than otherwise. This complexity isn't for the benefit of the complex parts, but only for the creator (the demiurge), who wants to prolong the existence of the universe. Complexity can include predation as a way to speed this negative entropy up.

In extreme gnostic doctrine the demiurge is himself a victim of his own illusion. His creation of the universe is based on incorrect assumptions on the nature of ultimate reality, so the universe is not very weelconstructed. The nature of ultimate reality makes itself felt constantly (making the universe unstable), and this is the possibility for complex beings to 'escape' from universal existence into reality. If we can disarm our personal illusion of universal existence, then we can find the 'cracks' in the demiurges universe-illusion, making it possible for us to escape.

My own way of imagining the universe is, that I live inside a cosmic schizopreheniac's dream. But as always, please remember that my conclusions are valid for me, and though an exchange is nice; I would never go so far as to actively hurt anyone with them by using violence.

Oneness

It seems to me, Zezt, that you are an existentialist (or at least not far away from it). Existentialism asserts that a human is born into a concrete, inveterate universe that cannot be "thought away". Or in other words, the ultimate and unquestionable reality is not consciousness, but existence. If this is the case I can see how “oneness” can seem abstract to you, but you must at least in some way be able to envisage that ultimately everything is connected and therefore One. That it springs from one source. No? Somewhere down the line it all MUST boil down to ONE. How could it not? Please help me understand.

a trippy contemplation

hi bogomil, you say: "Without making it into a situation of negative disagreement, I always answer the same: There is still a question of change involved in this position, the ...."all we simply have to do is to recognize this...." So we have to make this change for recognization; this is a dynamic activity."

good point. I appreciate your insight. Maybe I just need to clarify my language more. Whether we recognize the nature of our situation or not, our recognition or nonrecognition doesn't change our true nature, in fact, our nonrecognition is itself an expression of our true nature, ie, it is the form our true nature is taking. The point being that there is nothing we do or don't do that affects our true nature, which is always already the case. It's like one of those kid's puzzles with all of those hidden faces and you have to find the faces. The faces are staring you in the face, you just have to re-cognize them (get them in focus). You don't have to add them, or create them, or make them. I can them imagine your very understandable response - getting in focus (recognizing) the faces is indeed an activity, which in one sense it is. the trippy thing is with reference to our true nature, there is no-thing to recognize, which is the very thing to recognize. All very mind-blowingly trippy.

Different but same

Yes Paul, I agree with this: "the trippy thing is with reference to our true nature, there is no-thing to recognize, which is the very thing to recognize. All very mind-blowingly trippy." So another way of putting it would be the worn out cliche saying: Acceptance and surrender. To recognize that there is no thing to recognize happens on an abstract plane whereas acceptance and surrender happens on an emotional plane. They taste differently but but lead to the same place.

re:Paul and Sugar M

Paul cit:

"Whether we recognize the nature of our situation or not, our recognition or nonrecognition doesn't change our true nature, in fact, our nonrecognition is itself an expression of our true nature, ie, it is the form our true nature is taking."

It IS a tricky question. We seem to be somewhere between Schroedinger's cat and predeterminism. Hope we can move from map to territory one day. I hope you understand, that our different opinions isn't a conflict.

Sugar M cit: "Acceptance and surrender."

That's something I personally can't and won't do, because my intellectual conclusions tell me a different story. But live and let live.

Oneness

Personally I HOPE for oneness, somewhere out in a new way of percieving existence.

What I MOSTLY see is diversity. The point of interest for me is to find out how, when and why this change from oneness to diversity takes place.

And the practical answer "here and now" doesn't take away duality completely. "Here and now" as an answer only describes the specific human shortcoming of structuring life into too rigid maps.

Complex beings without the human tendency to over-structuralisation still experience and suffer from diversity/duality.

The lions aren't grazing with the lambs. Even if they theoretically are very zen or whatever.