Have you read any Carlos Castenada? — Metaphysician Undercover
Well eternity is reality which from our perspective is all things to all men. It is heaven, or nirvana, for example. This I think is described as the classical interpretation of eternity. I will be more specific and define it as that realm embodied by the three higher planes of our existence. The atmic, monadic and logoic, in this realm the divine logos, or God is manifest together with the various divine beings and immortals which form the hierarchy of being. All things are born out of this realm and worlds like ours are like pearls on Ishvaras necklace.Now, this is not the first time you've referenced "the divine", and "eternity", so we really need to broach this subject "eternity", to validate claims such as this. We've really avoided what constitutes "divinity" up to this point.
A subtle body, I don't think we can say that these beings do, or don't have a body, or what form it takes. But in line with the cosmology of the the three higher planes there will be a body constituted of the forms found on the lower of the three planes, the atmic. Something which we probably can't comprehend.So when someone says something like "lifted up and hosted in the body of a divine being", I realize that it is impossible for a divine being to have a body, and so you are speaking metaphorically. What I can imagine is you taking a place in another human body, or even a body which is very much superior to the human body.
I have a rich narrative which I use in contemplation on this issue. What I have experienced is not that clear, but I have had a number of experiences in the form of a presence of eternity, or divinity in some way. Rather like sitting in a room and eternity is in the next room and there is frosted glass between them and I can feel the presence and dimly make out the forms. I have had experiences like soma, but not in a formal setting. Although in a heightened state in puja, there was formal orchestration of revelation, or ceremony, to a degree.I would say that you've had a glimpse into eternity. It is experiences like this which open our eyes to the extremely befuddling nature of time and existence.
Well eternity is reality which from our perspective is all things to all men. It is heaven, or nirvana, for example. This I think is described as the classical interpretation of eternity. I will be more specific and define it as that realm embodied by the three higher planes of our existence. The atmic, monadic and logoic, in this realm the divine logos, or God is manifest together with the various divine beings and immortals which form the hierarchy of being. All things are born out of this realm and worlds like ours are like pearls on Ishvaras necklace.
By divinity I mean beings who dwell in eternity and their nature. — Punshhh
In this link the seven planes are laid out. — Punshhh
A subtle body, I don't think we can say that these beings do, or don't have a body, or what form it takes. But in line with the cosmology of the the three higher planes there will be a body constituted of the forms found on the lower of the three planes, the atmic. Something which we probably can't comprehend. — Punshhh
I have a rich narrative which I use in contemplation on this issue. What I have experienced is not that clear, but I have had a number of experiences in the form of a presence of eternity, or divinity in some way. Rather like sitting in a room and eternity is in the next room and there is frosted glass between them and I can feel the presence and dimly make out the forms. I have had experiences like soma, but not in a formal setting. Although in a heightened state in puja, there was formal orchestration of revelation, or ceremony, to a degree. — Punshhh
Forgive me, I am not trained in classical philosophy, I simply looked for a definition and this seemed to fit.That's the first time I've seen "eternity" described without reference to temporal concepts. So I don't really think it's the classical interpretation. Even the ancient Greeks described it through relation to time.
This is theosophy, in the cosmogony it refers to, it is specifically discussing the beings represented by humanity, their role in the being of the planet Earth and likewise in the being of the Sun.Why is it called the seven planes of our solar system?
The usage of the terminology is different to other uses. Etheric in theosophy refers to a level of being, and is often used as in the etheric body. The form this takes is not known in the sense that science currently understands the physical body. It is largely undefined, some people might know it as the astral body. It is a body in a system that describes a human being as having 7 bodies, or vehicles of expression.Are you sure there would be a body composed of the third etheric? Doesn't "etheric" imply without any body? The diagram shows will there. How can there be a body composed of will?
I appreciate this and am happy to try to find a way through here. Perhaps if you were to define your use of the word? We might find there is not much difference in our understanding of the underlying issues, but that I use the word in an unconventional sense.I'm really having difficulty with your use of "eternity"..
I think where I stray from the philosophical definition is that I tend to use the word eternity as a substitute for divine realm. I will happily change to that if you would prefer. Naturally for me the divine realm is outside time, atemporal in relation to our word. Also I tend not to delve into that realm in discussion because we would be trying to discus things we don't understand, perhaps can't understand, which are not like our world and about which we don't have means of finding out (other than through revelation). — Punshhh
This is theosophy, in the cosmogony it refers to, it is specifically discussing the beings represented by humanity, their role in the being of the planet Earth and likewise in the being of the Sun. — Punshhh
So the divine being has a body, or vehicle of expression on the atmic plane, this would necessarily be a subtle body, which is undefined on the assumption that it is beyond our comprehension. That the divine being would have a mind on the monadic plane, again undefined on the assumption that it is beyond our comprehension and that the divine being has the equivalent of a soul on the logic plane, which would be beyond our comprehension. So trying to understand the detail of these planes, or bodies etc is futile, pointless, as they are manifestations in a divine realm, for which we as humans are unequiped to understand. — Punshhh
Yes, I haven't given it all that much significance for two reasons, firstly that it is a human invention and as such cannot be verified. Which is fine and secondly that I had already reached the point where you end up here;Are you familiar with Aristotle's cosmological argument?
You see I had already arrived at these conclusions before I encountered academic philosophy, so it is more a case of marrying up academic philosophy with my own philosophy, (or more correctly a marriage of theosophy with Hinduism).Once the concept of time is adjusted, then the so-called eternal actuality can be brought into relationship with material actualities so that this actuality is no longer "outside time".
Yes, which is why I said before that our material world is a construct, conceived by, constructed by, maintained by and animated by a being who is a priori, external to this world.This implies that the common notion of "time", which ties time to material existence, is incorrect, and must be adjusted to allow for this time in which the supposed eternal actuality is active, prior to material existence.
Yes, very much so, there is a correspondence between the higher and lower. Which is understandable, as we are told we are made in the image of God. We are baby gods, I suppose.I see that there is a sort of understanding possible through comparison or analogy. The parts of the higher three can be compared to the parts of the lower three.
The way I view it is that divine beings came up with a system of generating a realm of manifestation, a place of extension, of extension of space and time, spacetime. As this extends the space inflates along with the window of time, like blowing bubbles. Or as the Hindu's describe it spun from the tips of Ishvara's fingers like silk, creating the fabric of our world. — Punshhh
So the mystic is concerned with the practice of developing this embryonic development within themselves. — Punshhh
I don't see the need myself, but I would like you to explain it some more so that I can understand what you are getting at.For the reasons alluded to in my last post, and mentioned earlier in the thread, I really think it is necessary to separate space and time conceptually.
But surely the prior state is external to (separate from) the physical universe we are discussing. So it can have its own separate space? Remember I said the physical world we find ourselves in is a construct. So the prior actual, genuinely real state then constructed an artificial world which isn't real in the same, actual, way, which is the our physical world*.The problem described in the last post is that there is an actuality which is prior to the existence of material things. Since space is a concept used for measuring material things, and this activity does not involve material things, being prior to them, we have no reason to believe that space is an applicable concept when we are speaking about this activity which is prior to material existence.
Ok, that's fine and how does that look?So we must unchain the concept of time from the material world, such that we can apply it to the activity of the eternal, which for now is outside of time because the currently applied concept of time is tied to the spatial activity of material things.
I don't see it that way myself, but I am happy to go with that concept and see where it leads.Remember the principle we agreed upon earlier, that the entire material world must be created anew at each passing moment.
My bubble analogy was for the creation of the physical world, not its maintenance. Although I am happy to look at the idea of it renewing every moment for now, as I said.So if there is a bubble which is blown at each moment (to use your analogy), each of these bubbles must expand from nothing, or near nothing, to extremely big, in a time period which is so short that we do not even notice it.
Well this would not be an issue provided the recreation occurred at the level of the sub atomic particle, temporally on the Planck scale.Our conceptions of space do not allow for anything like this, having been derived from the illusion of continuity of spatial existence and distances, rather than from this idea, that spatial existence must be recreated (therefore expanded from near nothing), at each moment.
For me all is material, but this is not the material known to science, or philosophy, but rather a constellation of subtle bodies. The only physical material in this schema is on the physical plane. So if by immaterial, we can agree on some kind of subtle body, immaterial in terms of any material we are aware of, then that's fine. I can also go along with immaterial too, but at some point I would ask the nature of these immaterial forms and how they become expressed in worlds of material.whereas western mysticism, such as Neo-Platonism has turned to a hierarchy of immaterial Forms which are separate, free from bodies
Yes, for me these forms are subtle bodies, there are numerous kinds of subtle bodies, or ethers (ethereal bodies).But a bigger body, a unity of which the smaller body is just a part, requires a Form with more governing capacity then the smaller one, because it also exercises some control over the smaller body, robbing the smaller body's Form of some degree of freedom by virtue of the smaller body being within the unity of the larger. So the Neo-Platonists start with the One, which would be the Form that corresponds with the entire universe, and they proceed from there.
Yes, the mystic is practicing activities tailored to their individual spiritual development, directed by the intuition.I think that's a good way of putting it.
I don't see the need myself, but I would like you to explain it some more so that I can understand what you are getting at.
Also, as I said initially the mysticism of the creation and maintaining of the physical world is complex with some deep mysteries and spiritual cosmology which will probably be difficult to correlate with metaphysics. It would be better to stick to the more obvious correlations around being and what Mystics are actually concerned with, as the physical world is regarded merely as a tool for the development of the expression of being.
If you insist on delving into the creation of physical matter and it's attendant time we can go there, but I expect we will quite rapidly hit an impasse. However provided when the impasse is reached we can get back to the topic in hand then that's ok with me. — Punshhh
But surely the prior state is external to (separate from) the physical universe we are discussing. So it can have its own separate space? Remember I said the physical world we find ourselves in is a construct. So the prior actual, genuinely real state then constructed an artificial world which isn't real in the same, actual, way, which is the our physical world*. — Punshhh
For me all is material, but this is not the material known to science, or philosophy, but rather a constellation of subtle bodies. The only physical material in this schema is on the physical plane. So if by immaterial, we can agree on some kind of subtle body, immaterial in terms of any material we are aware of, then that's fine. I can also go along with immaterial too, but at some point I would ask the nature of these immaterial forms and how they become expressed in worlds of material. — Punshhh
I can also go along with immaterial too, but at some point I would ask the nature of these immaterial forms and how they become expressed in worlds of material. — Punshhh
Yes, for me these forms are subtle bodies, there are numerous kinds of subtle bodies, or ethers (ethereal bodies). — Punshhh
Mystics may also have the desire to know, however realise that there are necessarily things which are unknown, or can't be known. Also that the process of finding out something might be a distraction from a more important, or pressing goal. Let's say for example that it would take a Herculean effort to find out how the world we find ourselves in came to be. While in fact that knowledge is not of importance and that effort was either inefficient, or sideshow. When in reality the goal of the mystic is to allow her natural inclinations of the her higher self to shine through and further down the path such truths about existence might be revealed in an instant. Or more importantly they would be revealed via the appropriate route and not through an overdevelopment of the intellect.Maybe this is evidence of that difference between metaphysics and mysticism which you have been describing. Metaphysics, in the tradition of philosophy involves the desire to know.
Yes I would agree with this, I would be interested in what metaphysics can say about this?As I explained in the prior post, the reason for separating space from time is to bring the eternal, or what you called eternity, into the realm of intelligible. What separates the forms which we know and sense, from the Forms of eternity, is matter. So we have to get through matter in one way or another if we want to properly understand the existence of the divine, immaterial Forms.
I would disagree with this from the point of view of a mystic, although I recognise the need for the mystic to want, to have the desire, to embark on the mystical path. Once on the path, the intellectual direction of one's actions are seeded to the higher self via the intuition to a degree.without any desire to act. But the nature of the human being, as I described earlier is to be inclined to act.
I don't see the requirement for a knowledge of an intellectual understanding of ethics in this endeavour, although I am interested in the role this will play, please continue.and this makes us consider purpose and therefore ethics. We need to bridge that gap between the passive enjoyment of the divine beauty (aesthetics), and the ethical principles which guide us in our actions. This means that we need to understand what it means to act, and this includes all forms of activity, including that divine activity which is prior to material existence (the eternal). And since space is a concept based in observations of material existence, we must allow a conception of time which is free from space, in order to understand this activity, which is necessary for an inclusive ethics..
I follow you, although it would be useful to take a look at this distinction you make between past and future, and possibly the present again?But we see that the internal is much closer to the real, so the internal activity, internal changes, are the activities which the concept of time ought to be based in, not conceptions of space. The internal time is based in the distinction between past and future, not in spatial relations.
but the planes are like nodes on a scale of frequency, the higher planes being at a higher frequency. We only hear sounds within the range of frequency that our ears are attuned to detect. All the other frequencies are present, but we can't detect them. Through incarnation a being becomes embedded in a plane of activity and is able to detect what the apparatus which naturally occur on that plane, in reference to the being in question, detects. Were that being to be more developed, she might detect higher frequency notes due to having a suitable apparatus. Mystical practice is about developing and using this apparatus for some kind of constructive purpose.So it seems to me that to say that this type of body is on this plane, and another type on another plane, would create a certain incommensurability between these different types of bodies.
Substitute subtle (can be undefined) for immaterial and we are in agreement.This is the opposite of what I described, and is the key principle of Plato's cave allegory. In reality, the material world is an expression of the immaterial Forms.
Well they would all be bound to an extent to the time, the present of our world, certainly if part of our being. I think if there were a disconnect in time it would be between the lower three and the higher three. Although I see no reason to regard them as not present in the same moment of time.If so, do you think that an adequate conception of time could establish a relation between them?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.