February 12, 2006 at 8:16 am #10456
Hi again everyone.
Michael I read your nice lecture-excerpt on sex identity – prompted me to post on this forum again as I had already come to similar conclusions based on my (currently) non-Taoist practices. (I posted here once before the Norse creation myth which is identical in its postulates – the splitting of the original egg into electrical and magnetic poles which mated, making the first giant. Etc. – who knows whether this is parallel evolution, importation of foreign ideas, etc? Not I.)
Anyone who has seen the cover of Franz Bardon’s ‘Initiation Into Hermetics’ will be aware that western magic has a grip on these ideas, and not in very dissimilar terms either.
I did have two questions for you though, just to clarify the intent of what you’re saying.
1. On the question of the ‘four people’ involved in any relationship – this has been a focus of mine for a while now. Of course Jung I believe referred to the anima/mus and this is the same thing. My question: some of what I am trying to do involves contacting as entities (I’m more inclined to magical procedures, remember) the opposite pole in each partner, and having these entities consciously mate, simultaneously with the physical sex. Does this in your opinion accomplish anything of what you are talking about? Also do you not feel as I do that this is constantly happening anyway – that is, that we project onto a lover our inner opposite sex in an attempt to complete ourselves?
2. I’m not clear (apart from convention) why you say: “original human collective *lived* [past tense] in androgynous bodies”. I am still finding out about such ‘realms’, or whatever you would like to call them, but it seems to me that a time-based, historical location of their whereabouts is not quite accurate? I feel that they super-exist and/or simultaneously exist with the here-and-now. In some sense there never has been a separation and this past self is still very much present, it merely depending upon your point of view. But maybe this is because Taoism views everything so much from the down-to-earth and physical perspective.
… was going to put a couple more, but I guess that’ll do for now. Thanks for still being out there, everyone. Best NNFebruary 12, 2006 at 10:06 am #10457
If I may speak up from my experience:
They super-exist and are still very present here and now.
I can’t speak time-based or historical place, I don’t hunger for that knowledge. I experience ‘them’ in a present setting, at least how it works for me. Maybe Michael is saying ‘lived’ because they don’t have/need a ‘body’ any longer.
Taoism is helping me to ground that type of ‘information’ into my body otherwise I would become a tripping flying space craft. Thanks to the earth bounding I can use the ‘information’ practically in my daily life and be in service earth wise. I see a lot of human space crafts flying very high, using mythical and mystical language in an attempt to translate the ‘information’, that type of language will reach other human space crafts.
It is just a matter of choice. Some have the ability/need/purpose to communicate in such a way, others work down to earth, they all serve just from a different angle.
The trap is our ego, how tempting it is to name yourself a new Messiah (look at Michaels post about yoniverse).February 12, 2006 at 10:17 am #10459
So here – when you say: >>Maybe Michael is saying ‘lived’ because they don’t have/need a ‘body’ any longer.< < ... how can you say both 'lived' in the past tense and also they don't need bodies 'any longer'? Since *when* do they not need bodies, if they are still in the 'past'?? You see what I mean? Either they are our progenitors or they are our destinies! Maybe it is only the linguistic structure that is at fault. But I believe all of this is because of mistaken thinking that time runs the same at that 'androgynous' level and this is far from the case I'm sure. At that level what we call time doesn't really exist. You are getting far closer to eternity there. Therefore it exists NOW or exhibits NOWness continuously. That is what I was getting at. As far as getting back to earth with something you can actually use, I'm in full agreement with you. >>The trap is our ego, how tempting it is to name yourself a new Messiah (look at Michaels post about yoniverse).<< Well why not, if you think it's fun? See how many people believe you. No-one with much in the way of self-respect, I'm sure. best NNFebruary 12, 2006 at 10:50 am #10461
<February 12, 2006 at 10:54 am #10463
>>But I believe all of this is because of mistaken thinking that time runs the same at that ‘androgynous’ level and this is far from the case I’m sure. At that level what we call time doesn’t really exist. You are getting far closer to eternity there. Therefore it exists NOW or exhibits NOWness continuously. That is what I was getting at.<< lol - "Nowness continuously" - sounds very much like you're talking about the passage of time. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said: "Maybe it is only the linguistic structure that is at fault." It's not *only* the linguistic structure at 'fault' here - because that comes about from living in a body. Since we have a body, we live in the universe of polar opposites - you have "me" and "not me" male and female etc. You cant inhabit the 'androgynous', or undefrentiated or primordial universe with a body. So since we live in a universe of opposites, our language reflects that fact. It's like wendy said some ppl attempt to leave their bodies while living in the universe of opposites, and these are the guys and gals flying high with no grounding in our current reality - they may use language such as 'continious nowness' since that's what they experience in the aether. Unfortunately they often dont reach their full potential, since they dont integrate their bodies into their experience. Taoism holds that your body is your principal universe (microcosm) and over time you make an effort to align your body with all aspects of the universe 'outside' so that outside and inside (microcosm and macrocosm) become one and birth your 'immortal child' - the androgynous, primordial aspect of ourselves. Whilst you still have a body, time *has to* exist - once you've completed birthing and 'educating' your imortal child with the power of the undiferentiated universe, and your body dies, only then do you live in eternity - and that's what being immortal really means. The 'high flyers' can experience timlessness, while the clock is ticking away, and their bodies get older - although they can experience timlessness, they are not part of it.February 12, 2006 at 11:50 am #10465
Hey again ff –
Have to disagree with some of that – respectfully…
‘Continuous nowness’ refers to the concept of time but not to its passage.
>>It’s not *only* the linguistic structure at ‘fault’ here – because that comes about from living in a body< < This implies that language is used only by bodies? From my perspective the universe is made out of language. The splitting into yin and yang begins the process with a binary code. qigong is a language - for communicating. etc. >>You cant inhabit the ‘androgynous’, or undefrentiated or primordial universe with a body< < A misunderstanding... The prime void might be one way of seeing the highest level but there is still 'androgyny' of various kinds far below that, and you can indeed take a body there - just not a physical one. (IF YOU COULDN'T TAKE A BODY THERE IT WOULD BE A VOID!) The androgynes who constantly live there, and to whom Michael refers in his lecture, do indeed have bodies (or else they would be unbounded infinities, limitless, =voids) - just not quite as we know them. Some of them are 'bounded infinities'... I say they 'live' there - I think that a continuous present 'are living' says it better than 'lived', which was the nature of my original question. >>some ppl attempt to leave their bodies while living in the universe of opposites, and these are the guys and gals flying high with no grounding in our current reality – they may use language such as ‘continious nowness’ since that’s what they experience in the aether< < ha! you're not playing fair. You know very well that I do OBE practices and you have decided that I'm ungrounded as a result! For the record, we are all 'ungrounded' every night asleep and we return next morning - and if we are wise, integrate the experience into the everyday. The experience appears beneficial and anyway necessary. Being high up does not mean never coming back. Further, the more you integrate, the higher you can then go next time, and the more you bring back. You still have a life to come back to! I'm sure some people just vanish in the yonder for a while, but that is a ridiculous way to 'live'. Bringing things back down and integrating is essential. Using the spiritual to inform the physical is hardly an alien concept to the magician, who has to do it. The point is that since this 'other' place is "always" there to access, from *whenever* you are, it must therefore not be located in time. Referring to it as our ancestral past is misleading - not that all myths don't do it. Sallust says, in "Of Gods And The World" (speaking about Graeco-Roman mythology) - 'These things never were, but are always'. >>Whilst you still have a body, time *has to* exist<< The problem is your use of the word 'you'. The parts of 'you' that 'have' the body do not necessarily always exist in the same concept of time as the body does! Indeed only for a very advanced human would the various sorts of timing synchronise. That could be thought of as a spiritual goal actually. I'm certainly all for the process you talk about - the integration directly into the physical etc. What fun would it be if you didn't actually change your physical existence for the better as a part of spirituality? What you miss is that this integration always happens anyway, to everyone, all the time, continuously - the up and down of the attention along the structure. It is just a case of which bit of 'you' 'you' are looking at/with/through, and how much of 'you' you know of and where to find. - The practices on this site are simply one way to do it all consciously and completely, and become aware of the parts of 'you' that do things unrelated to standard 'time'. I'm sure that Michael would back me up on this. When he is in deep meditation he does not necessarily 'leave the body' - but even though, as he says, 8 hours might pass, is he aware of them all as 8 normal hours? And haven't you experienced dreams that lasted hours but only 10 seconds? The fuzziness of time is apparent to all of us, all of the 'time'. It is all about where one places one's attention. best NNFebruary 12, 2006 at 2:59 pm #10467
great response, NN
>>This implies that language is used only by bodies? From my perspective the universe is made out of language. The splitting into yin and yang begins the process with a binary code. qigong is a language – for communicating. etc.
by *naming* yin and yang you are implicitly creating a language – and you have a body. You can never know what the universe is made up of unless you translate it into your own way of viewing reality – your own language (having a body means translating your experience of the universe into the 5 senses and then perhaps into english etc.) So I guess you could say that the universe as seen through a human’s reality is all language, since we can only grasp a human *representation* of the universe – but the universe itself is not necessarily ‘made out of language’ in fact there is no way of knowing what it’s made out of unless you are the universe.
>>ha! you’re not playing fair. You know very well that I do OBE practices and you have decided that I’m ungrounded as a result!
I’m sorry that it came accross that way – I was actually referring to people that view their bodies as ‘illusion’ and something that keeps them from attaining full enlightenment (by dragging them down to ‘mundane’ reality). I’m not saying that obe is grounded or ungrounded, it can be either, depending on the person doing it.
Having a body means that you live in the physical, yin-yang universe – although you can have glimpses of your androgynous energetic nature, having a body essentially keeps you in the yin-yang differentiated state.
Similarly having a body means that you have ‘now’ and ‘then’, ‘past’ and ‘present’ – and therefore time – it’s true, however that the experience of the passage of time is completely subjective – and everyone’s had an experience of time slowing and speeding up, that’s not what i was concerned with… Whilst in the physical, we always have the duality of time, it can not be escaped. Even if you had a meditation and experienced a ‘timeless moment’, you would still come out of the meditation and perhaps say “I *had* a timeless experience” – there would have been a time *before* you meditated and a time *after* you meditated.
>>The parts of ‘you’ that ‘have’ the body do not necessarily always exist in the same concept of time as the body does! Indeed only for a very advanced human would the various sorts of timing synchronise.
I do agree with this in a way, but I still maintain that whilst you live in your body, your body will experience the passage of time – you were born, you grew up, and you will (probably) die – which creates the physical passage of time.February 12, 2006 at 3:33 pm #10469
I think we are fundamentally agreed apart from the way we like to phrase it, but just to make sure –
>>by *naming* yin and yang you are implicitly creating a language< < They exist whether we name them or not. >>the universe itself is not necessarily ‘made out of language’ in fact there is no way of knowing what it’s made out of unless you are the universe.< < ... which you are. >>everyone’s had an experience of time slowing and speeding up, that’s not what i was concerned with< < I think it was! Certainly it was what I was concerned with. The reason for the subjective change in experienced time is the same as the reason for the 'continuous nowness' of androgynes. >>Even if you had a meditation and experienced a ‘timeless moment’, you would still come out of the meditation and perhaps say “I *had* a timeless experience” – there would have been a time *before* you meditated and a time *after* you meditated.< < And the 'real you' was - when? Surely everywhen? And the experience of time changed, according to the bit of you that was focussed upon. Why is it 'not really you' when it is not physical? My point is simply: the androgynes ARE YOU. You see? >>whilst you live in your body, your body will experience the passage of time – you were born, you grew up, and you will (probably) die – which creates the physical passage of time.<< Absolutely - any substance experiences the level and kind of time appropriate to the medium out of which it is made. We are composed of ALL the substances. best NN PS I asked 2 questions... long ago...February 12, 2006 at 4:42 pm #10471
>>I think we are fundamentally agreed apart from the way we like to phrase it.
I’m not so sure…
>>They [yin and yang] exist whether we name them or not.
How do you know?
When I say ‘naming’ I also mean ‘identifying’ – by structuring your experience you are creating language – it’s impossible *not* to structure experience, since there are certain physical limitations that come with being human, ie. your 5 senses. By saying that something exists without us identifying it (or experiencing it), you are suggesting that you somehow have an objective view-point, which you dont. That’s an outdated Aristotelian logic which just doesn’t hold water anylonger (being superceded by special relativity and quantum mechanics).
Think of yourself as a measuring instrument, a ruler for this example – so the way you experience the universe is through inches – although you can spend your life experiencing only inches, you cant possibly say that the universe is structured in inches, because for another measuring instrument, say a thermometer the universe is actually composed of temperatures. By viewing the world through your bodymind you are subjecting the limits of your bodymind on the universe, you are compressing the universe down to your particular measuring ability – in your case the 5 senses are the most immediate structuring elements (there are ofcourse many more levels of structure which individualise your view point even more, like the 4 ‘circuits’ or psychological drivers that I described in another post.)
This also explains why you are *not* the universe, because the universe is far greater in mass, size and any other measurment than your body.
>>And the ‘real you’ was – when?
what is the ‘real you’? is there a more or less ‘real’ aspect of you?
>>And the experience of time changed, according to the bit of you that was focussed upon.
focused upon by who?
>>Why is it ‘not really you’ when it is not physical?
because you dont exist without your body.
>>My point is simply: the androgynes ARE YOU. You see?
not really, sorry.
I know we’re playing an intelectual game here (this is the nature of a forum) – but I’m only really concerned with experiential data, I’m only concerned with intelectual theory, when it is *usefull* – and if it’s not usefull, then it’s just entertainment. Theorising whether time ‘really exists’ whether we are anything more than just a mindbody, whether yin and yang really exist without us there to interpret it as “yin” and “yang” has only so much use, since I’ve not experienced any of these things, I cannot say whether they are so or if they are “true” or whatever – it’s all just entertainment, and should not be taken too seriously.
>>PS I asked 2 questions… long ago…
sorry, what were your questions?February 12, 2006 at 6:50 pm #10473
>>>>I think we are fundamentally agreed apart from the way we like to phrase it.< < I'm not so sure... << oh, okay... that was sort of a polite way of saying we perhaps should agree to disagree. I certainly don't think I am asserting an objective viewpoint, but if you think I am we can't really go further. What follows is an attempt to pique your curiosity rather than an 'argument'. >>This also explains why you are *not* the universe, because the universe is far greater in mass, size and any other measurment than your body.< < Suppose you tell me where you stop and the universe begins then? Put it another way - you say that an objective view is impossible. If so all is subjective, correct? And if that is so, all is oneself, correct? >>By viewing the world through your bodymind you are subjecting the limits of your bodymind on the universe< < But you are saying there is a world separate from oneself to 'view'! If this is so there must be something called 'objectivity'! Please remember - it was you who didn't like my 'objectivity', if that is what it was, I had no problem with it. You see the circles we are going in but anyway... >>what is the ‘real you’? is there a more or less ‘real’ aspect of you?< < Not according to myself. According to you, as long as you are in a physical body that defines you to such an extent that it becomes a more 'real' aspect of you. Why else would you say that time spent meditating may 'appear timeless' but that nevertheless you are 'always really' in time as long as you are bodied? Why else would you say that you 'must' view the universe through your senses and thus disort your view of it? >>My point is simply: the androgynes ARE YOU. You see?
not really, sorry.< < The body cannot exist as a body without astral/mental/spiritual on top - it 'dies' = decomposes = is no longer a body = is no longer something with a particular identity. The spiritual cannot exist without the void on top, from which yin and yang are even now forming their very first breath of universe-stuff. The androgynes are certainly somewhere between us and the void, no? And they are real things to the extent that we are. Furthermore the chain back down from them to your personal shen and mind and emotions and body is unbroken - that's why the body *lives*. You are they and they are you. They are your source. You are linked. That was the whole reason for Michael's lecture - the fact that you yearn to be your full androgyne self whilst incarnated in a single-sexed body means that you 'on some level' still are linked to it. A part of you is s/he. Moreover I can tell you that that from our bodied perspective that part lasts a great deal longer than we! But this is because 'time' is not the same where s/he lives. >>I’m only really concerned with experiential data< < Oh me too. >>Theorising whether time ‘really exists’< < I didn't theorise. I stated that it does exist, but behaves differently in different areas. This wasn't an intellectual theory but a statement of my own verified and definite experience, and one moreover which as I suggested (and you agreed) everyone constantly experiences. How can you 'experience timeless meditation' without coming to this conclusion? >>sorry, what were your questions?<< See my first post. - this was one question, the other concerned the advisability of a sexual practice I'm devising. Anyhoo... is all this of some use to you? best NNFebruary 12, 2006 at 10:05 pm #10475
>>oh, okay… that was sort of a polite way of saying we perhaps should agree to disagree. I certainly don’t think I am asserting an objective viewpoint, but if you think I am we can’t really go further. What follows is an attempt to pique your curiosity rather than an ‘argument’.< < Firstly let me say that an argument is not what I'm going for here - a discussion or "playing with words" is what I'm after - please dont take what I say so seriously, words are clumsy, blunt tools, and often cause misinterpretations, especially in written form. I was suggesting that thinking of the universe as composed of words/language can lead to complications (and therefore may not be so usefull - as you've probably noticed 'usefullness' is a high category for me). The reason I thought you were thinking from an object view point is because you mentioned that yin and yang exist whether we witness this existence or not - since a measurment cannot exist without a measuring implement... I'm suggesting that we dont really know whether yin and yang 'really exist', perhaps we're projecting our own nature onto the universe? - currently it's usefull for me to pretend 'as if' this seperation exists. >>you say that an objective view is impossible. If so all is subjective, correct? And if that is so, all is oneself, correct?< < Firstly I'm not saying that an objective world is impossible - I'm just saying we cant make solid statements about it. I do agree that we only experience the world subjectively - and the seperation between 'me' and 'not me' is a (quite usefull) illusion. >>But you are saying there is a world separate from oneself to ‘view’!< < yes, well, maybe... Ethnomethodologists call our subjective reality "emic reality" and the objective reality "etic reality" - the distinction is purely functional, since you cannot experience or make any meaningful statements about etic reality. The reason I choose to believe there exists an etic reality is because so many times I've read new-age bollocks on how 'you create your own reality' which is utter nonsense, especially when you get knocked over by a car. I'm suggesting that we make transactions with the etic reality, and I guess the goal of most spiritual systems is to widen and de-clutter our emic realities to open up further possibilities of transactions with the etic counterpart. >>what is the ‘real you’? is there a more or less ‘real’ aspect of you?
Not according to myself. According to you, as long as you are in a physical body that defines you to such an extent that it becomes a more ‘real’ aspect of you.< < Ok, yes it's true - I do consider the physical aspect of myself as 'more real' than another aspect, simply because it's far more usefull in day-to-day life. For example, I could get high on a cocktail of drugs and breathing induced 'hallucinations', then go and play in the street - at some point it may seem to me that I'm about to hug a great big teddy bear that turns out to also be a great big bus coming at me - so that's where the transactions between etic and emic realities distort and I end up in hospital. However if I was to invoke the spirit of pure femininity, to carry out some magickal opperation, it may prove more usefull to think of this spirit as 'real', even though there is no physical manifestation of it. So I guess all this is to do with context and whether it is usefull in that context or not. I think I understand what you mean about "the androgynes ARE YOU" - you're suggesting that your energy body is undifferentiated (thus androgynous) and it is an aspect of you - is that correct? I agree although, one may have to do a bit of work to get your energy body to be undifferentiated - but the principle makes sense now. by the way, I didn't mean to suggest that *you* were theorising about the existence of time... I was trying to say that such theorising in general should be for entertainment purposes only. Yes you can have 'timless moments' - I've had many myself, however having a physical body means that we always get back to the differentiated state of "past" and "present" - in the physical realm timelessnes cannot exist - in the andorgynous state that you speak of timelessness can exist, but you always have to come back into your body, and therefore time. To give my answer to your questions... I believe that both magick and taoist chi kung do similar things... they both aim to communicate with different aspects of the chi field - in magick you generaly symbolise energies into anthropomorphic figures - so you could invoke the 'pure feminine' force and imagine it as a beautiful, watery goddess, and then invoke a pure male force and imagine it as a powerfull, fiery male god. In taoism you could contact the same energies by concentrating on specific parts of your body and feeling the energies. The reason I mostly prefer the taoist techniques is simply because it has a clearer, more grounded guide-map - your body. A taoist might say that practicing magick seperates your energy from your body, since you imagine these entities outside yourself. A magician may use kaballah and the tree of life as a map to follow to get to 'enlightenment', 'true will' or 'immortality' - a taoist might say that since the tree of life is a purely mental creation, again you are seperating yourself from your body. The benefit of magick is that our unconcious loves symbolism, and it can be easier to comunicate powerfully with the energy field by symbolising energies as gods or beings than it is by imagining and feeling energies in the body. So imagining male and female entities mating, is similar to the taoist method of imagining bodily energies merging or whatever - (in fact some taoist practitioners do invoke male and female energies and symbolise them as humans/gods mating - although they do that within the body). The main difference in approach between taoism and western magick is that magick is more centered in the mind, and taoism is more centered in the body - I think this reflects cultural differences between east and west. For me, at this time, using the body is proving more effective... however I'm quite pragmatic and often incorporate elements of magick with taoist practices. (there are also other ways to represent and comunicate with energy - for example sacred geometry represents different energies as different goemetric shapes...) hope this helps a little... >>is all this of some use to you?
yes it is!February 13, 2006 at 12:29 am #10477
Many thanks for continuing this! We seem to be actually getting somewhere, but I have probably written too much again.
>>please dont take what I say so seriously, words are clumsy, blunt tools, and often cause misinterpretations, especially in written form.< < Well... but I assure you that I am not misinterpreting you at all, I'm understanding you perfectly, and you may take what I say seriously even if I am not allowed to take what you say seriously! I find this makes the discussion more enjoyable. For me as I say it is far more than theoreticising and all comes directly from what I have experienced. Furthermore I find neither your nor my words in any way clumsy. They seem to be doing just what they should to me! >>A magician may use kaballah and the tree of life as a map to follow to get to ‘enlightenment’< < Not me! I never use it myself. >>a taoist might say that since the tree of life is a purely mental creation, again you are seperating yourself from your body< < Then why do so many kabbalists build their trees into a coat of many colours which they then set on their bodies? You need not answer since the question does not seem to be very important to me. I will say this - I know few magicians who don't engage in some sort of sacred sexual activity and if this doesn't qualify as 'body-centred' what does?? >>I do consider the physical aspect of myself as ‘more real’ than another aspect, simply because it’s far more usefull in day-to-day life< < Really? The example you give is total bollocks ff! You say you are on drugs and think you see a teddy bear when it is actually a bus?! But tell me - *who* sees? Not your physical body certainly - it lets the light in but without something animating it, it would just be inert matter in the act of decomposing. The thing animating your body looks at the world through your physical eyes but is not itself physical, and by the chain up past the androgyne to the void is permanently and 'timelessly' fed with pure life. I thought all Taoists knew that! 'It supports the ten thousand things' or what have you. Your body cannot 'see' without it. The brain shows the image to the *mind*, and the mind is not the body! Just because you are not always *aware* of the full chain of your consciousness, endlessly rising and falling through the whole universe, you cannot say it is 'not useful in everyday life'!! I assure you your life would be difficult without it, to say the very least! But I still value your example because it shows you think (perhaps subconsciously) that when you leave the body you leave the truth and enter illusoriness... not so, any more than the Hindu claptrap that the bodily world is itself illusory. I assure you it is possible to walk down the street and interact with the physical plane whilst being centred in the spirit - and still not be run over. Someone when I was here last talked (movingly) about meeting a man and experiencing this man's entire life up to his future death as he reached out to take his hand. That is what I mean. What are you looking at? Physical objects? Well please say when you are fucking someone it's more than that! >>taoism and western magick is that magick is more centered in the mind, and taoism is more centered in the body< < It's not your fault, but you are assuming you know the kind of magic I practice. I forgive you. My own magic is not in the least centred in the mind and involves the body at all points. It is not centred anywhere in fact. 'Mind' you, since you say that an incarnate human being cannot help *but* involve his/her body in everything, how could it be otherwise? There is nothing in magical ideas that suggests magic must be 'mind-centred' - magic to me is primarily an overall approach not a set of techniques. How people choose to practice is another matter but I personally am very eclectic. I can give you information but it's not important! Not the issue, not the issue. You have to understand what I mean about language. You talk about symbols. You assume you mean something of a graphic nature perhaps with a sound attached. But the universe is a 'symbol' of you, and you of it - that is what microcosm/macrocosm means. You yourself are a 'symbol' of your androgynous higher self. When you are using qigong you are using your body symbolically please tell me if this is not using a language! Please point to something physical and tell me that it is not a symbol of something else! You are a metaphor. Where there is symbol there is language. As soon as there is more than a void, more than one single thing, there is communication between two things which exist to communicate with one another. That is why I say the universe is made of language. I am not trying to 'introduce complications' as you suggest, but to reduce all to the barest essentials. You think of language as a human concept. But the relation of human language to the great language from which the universe is made is just as microcosmic-macrocosmic, just as symbolic, as the relation of our bodily structures to that of the universe. This english language is a symbol of the great creative language of the universe. Langugage does not have to be made of words as we know them - but you could think of it that way without stretching too far. Some people like to say that "in the beginning was the word you know!" (Of course "... was/is/will be the word" would be clumsier but more accurate...) >>I think I understand what you mean about “the androgynes ARE YOU” – you’re suggesting that your energy body is undifferentiated (thus androgynous) and it is an aspect of you – is that correct?< < Yes, so far as it goes. Well that seems obviously so to me. Not only is it an aspect of you, it is a rather important one! After all as Michael says it is the motive for sex at least partly. These places where your energy body lives are made of conscious energy - the 'original human collective' Michael speaks of is people. Perhaps if I knew all the Taoist language of early and late heaven, etc. (which from what I can fathom of it seems equivalent in many respects to what you call the 'purely mental creation' - you mean artificial - that is the TOL by the way) because maybe that would explain it better. Think of your mental and emotional and physical bodies as places as well as people. BTW you don't understand about invocation/evocation. It isn't a game, where you *pretend* something is a person! These are conscious energies, therefore they *actually are* people. And the sex they could have is another symbol of the first great word, the big orgasm.... well I could go on. Sex is another language but this I'm sure you knew. Is the erection caused by the filthy talking of the wife as she removes her clothes? - language. Is it cause by the neurotransmitters sending Nitric Oxide to the cock? - language. Is it caused by yang and yin communicating underneath all that? - still language. The universe is created by things telling things to other things! Like this now. >>I’ve read new-age bollocks on how ‘you create your own reality’ which is utter nonsense<< Please tell me then - who does? love NNFebruary 13, 2006 at 12:50 am #10479
>>I’ve read new-age bollocks on how ‘you create your own reality’ which is utter nonsense<< Please tell me then - who does? love NN lol - amen, NN....February 13, 2006 at 7:37 am #10481
I don’t want to interrupt your intelligent conversation.
I just want to add that I agree with NN that everything is communication. From my experiences I know that this ‘communication’ has many angles and forms, some we are able to recognize in sounds, images or feelings, some are so way-out that we don’t understand the message in our mind/mental but we ‘feel’ that there is ‘interaction’- I experienced this with some kind of complicated arm movements as a ‘language’, no way to understand it but yet it was no doubt very strong communication, very similar to qigong movements (some qigong forms are high level communication) and some are not to be understood because we lack the tools to comprehend them, yet it is there.
I once entered a ‘realm’ where I was not supposed to be, warned by the realm it was not for ‘human’ entering, too dangerous, yet stubborn doing it anyway. My bloodpressure jumped up and down very dangerously, going high up, tremendous pressure in my vains and head, dropped down very fast, very low, nearly past out, took hours to recover from this little journey. That is why I once said, never to go diving without a pressure suit, meaning tools, practice and healthy boundaries.
My friend witnessing couldn’t believe it was possible doing this with just your energy body. Well it is.
And no I don’t use any drugs btw, never did and never will. In my opinion drugs are too easy and I don’t like easy.February 13, 2006 at 8:18 am #10483
>>I don’t want to interrupt your intelligent conversation.< < Why not? Please do! >>From my experiences I know that this ‘communication’ has many angles and forms, some we are able to recognize in sounds, images or feelings, some are so way-out that we don’t understand the message in our mind/mental but we ‘feel’ that there is ‘interaction’< < Yes exactly, although I feel ultimately it's all comprehensible - a measure of your stage of development. You obviously have experienced what I mean. But I'd also make the point that this is not restricted only to 'spiritual practice'. Eg, the advancements in understanding DNA's 'code', so people can figure out its 'instructions', or those 'messages' the brain sends to make 'neurotransmitters' that 'tell the body' how to feel - if something has code, instructs, and transmits messages - this is a language I think. Those who use the chakras often point out that the endocrine system is the equivalent of it at the physical level and is stimulated by this practice. At this physical level the language is physical, to do with the body releasing certain substances into the blood - but this is a symbol of the higher-level activities of the chakras themselves. BTW one of my favourite magicians, Taylor Ellwood, is working on a book called 'Inner Alchemy' - but this is not what Taoists mean by the term! He has spent the last decade communicating with the substances in his body by evoking them as magical entities. Example from his blog: >>So I decided at that point to visit mitochondria. Mitochondria talked in a low metallic voice and said we a lot. They said to summon them I should think of the color blue-green and explained that they were the light dancing in the cells. They explained that they helped the process of metabolism in cells and also the processing of environmental information that came to the cells and modified the genetics within as well as working with the neurotransmitters. This will bear investigation on my part, but I’m very intrigued. I’ve just looked up the information about mitochondria via wikiepedia and it seems the information was correct that the mitochondria gave me. So this will definitely bear more experimentation possibilities.
After visiting with mitochondria I decided to get in touch with the bacteria of my body. They told me when wanting to work with them that I should think of sunlight touching gold hair…It was interesting because the bacteria took the form of a young woman. She talked mainly about how important the interconnection of everything was…how my body was a universe for what was in it, and that everythign worked together to stay alive as well as keep me alive. I think really she was explaining how important interconnection and working together is overall.< < !! - he also promises to teach how to hack your own DNA... I think he does also know something about Taoism because I noticed a (glowing) review by him of a Frantzis book on Amazon. But anyway this is obviously a modern magician not a Taoist - however it does illustrate what I am saying. To change something you need to open those lines of communication... >>some qigong forms are high level communication< < Why only some, why only the high ones? When you do the 'Inner Smile' is this not a form of communication? Most smiles are, it seems to me! >>some are not to be understood because we lack the tools to comprehend them< < All this means is that we have to learn a new language that something is trying to teach us though. The languages get more and more 'everything-like' the higher you go. Maybe at the top there is only one great word that means everything and yang is telling it endlessly to yin... >>no I don’t use any drugs btw<< Me either but I have done mushrooms socially once and it made me think they could be useful one day. I mention this because Michael talked about mountain mushrooms last time I was here, in a Taoist-Shamanistic context. I know many shamans do use drugs and you gotta respect those guys! I also know some people who have done Ayahuasca and reported amazing things, really very opened up by it. The interaction of these plant-beings with us is really a very beautiful language! best NN
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.