OccultForum.org

Original post: LadyHydralisk

Focusing on the symbols of a deity does not have to include just sitting there motionless. It may include interacting with the animal aspect or places associated with the deity.

I went through a month of Thoth meditation, I did this by sitting in a library.

In Ningishzidda's case the meditation was extreme, never ending non-stop focus on the divinity, on the symbolism, painting the symbol, looking at photographs of real snakes, big cats, scorpions and caduceus, all a part of his traditional symbol, two winged dragon cats with scorpion stingers on their tail upholding the caduceus, the oldest known depiction of a caduceus in the world.

To properly meditate on a deity you must learn everything you can about it. This is difficult in the case with Ningishzidda, because he is known only from a handful of Sumerian inscriptions and three artifacts. In this case I had to do an enormous amount of research at the library to decipher what the symbols meant and even that the general archaeological viewpoint of the symbol is that the tails have scorpion stingers attached to them, which explains why I was encountering scorpion symbolism elsewhere in my visions and life.

So it comes from bother sides, your mind will help you fill in the gaps in the knowledge bank, and the deity itself will send you clues to aid you in your journey if you are really sincere.

As it is said - "Krsna cannot resist a heart truly devoted to him!" so it is with any other good divinity aspect of the Absolute.

Original post: Cool Smoothness

[QUOTE=LadyHydralisk;288245]

To properly meditate on a deity you MUST learn everything you can about it. [/QUOTE]

Hmm...

That sentence does sound a wee bit dogmatic, but your overall presentation in the entire paragraph is very insightful and well thought out...

So I guess I'll just have to let it go....


Just be careful when you use absolute terminology, and make sure that the idea that you are expressing REALLY has absolute qualities present that can merit such language. There are far too many great intellects who throw absolute terminology around, and inadvertantly pollute their writings with statements that can be torn asunder by even the most amateur of sophists.

(I would not normally point this out to most people, but I am for you, because you have a beautiful mind, and I merely want you to be able to cultivate its most brilliant capacities more effectively)

Original post: corbin_israfael

An Absolute with Qualities is not absolute.

Symbols are symbols. Everything is God. Interestingly enough a very fitting quote came to me from my daily quote subscription from one of the greatest mind's India has ever produced, Swami Vivekananda:

"Symbols have been used by all kinds of religions. In one sense we cannot think but in symbols; words themselves are symbols of thought. In another sense everything in the universe may be looked upon as a symbol. The whole universe is a symbol, and God is the essence behind."

Just as I am a Devotee of Shiva I also know there is something yet beyond my mind as it is now cannot truely comprehend which is why the Divine appears in symbols because it is easier for the finite human mind to understand until it becomes illuminated.

Original post: Solerus Silver

An Absolute with Qualities is not absolute.

couldnt have said something more true master corbin, i think i always saw the absloute as something not manifested completely passive with no attributes, nor qualities it only maintains the creation not participate in it,.

Original post: Cool Smoothness

[QUOTE=corbin_israfael;288284]An Absolute with Qualities is not absolute.

Symbols are symbols. Everything is God. Interestingly enough a very fitting quote came to me from my daily quote subscription from one of the greatest mind's India has ever produced, Swami Vivekananda:

"Symbols have been used by all kinds of religions. In one sense we cannot think but in symbols; words themselves are symbols of thought. In another sense everything in the universe may be looked upon as a symbol. The whole universe is a symbol, and God is the essence behind."

Just as I am a Devotee of Shiva I also know there is something yet beyond my mind as it is now cannot truely comprehend which is why the Divine appears in symbols because it is easier for the finite human mind to understand until it becomes illuminated.[/QUOTE]

Lady H,

Watch how I can easily refute Corbin's dogmatic assertions...

1) An absolute with qualities is not absolute.

Rebuttal - One could merely state that everything has qualities and that even the state of not having a quality at all is a quality in itself. Corbin's statement would have retained most of its integrity if it were not stated in such a dogmatic fashion - "An absolute with qualities is not considered by some/many to be absolute." or "An absolute with qualities is not as likely to be percieved as an absolute."

2) Everything is God.

Rebuttal - Then is Goddess part of God as well, or could God also be part of Goddess. The problem with statement number two is that the term "God" has masculine gender attached to it and this causes severe problems when any statement that utilizes the term comes under any type of intense intellectual scrutiny. A better term for Corbin's statement would have been the term "All." Everything is All. That could be considered a true absolute.

Original post: Solerus Silver

haha, well here goes;

1) One could merely state that everything has qualities and that even the state of not having a quality at all is a quality in itself. Corbin's statement would have retained most of its integrity if it were not stated in such a dogmatic fashion - "An absolute with qualities is not considered by some/many to be absolute." or "An absolute with qualities is not as likely to be percieved as an absolute."

rebuttal; an absolute with a quality cant be absolute because it is not, it is underlying with no standard, it is everything and nothing. it is not.

2) Then is Goddess part of God as well, or could God also be part of Goddess. The problem with statement number two is that the term "God" has masculine gender attached to it and this causes severe problems when any statement that utilizes the term comes under any type of intense intellectual scrutiny. A better term for Corbin's statement would have been the term "All." Everything is All. That could be considered a true absolute.

rebuttal; god came from both and goddes came from god, everything is god and goddess is from god and god is from goddess and god.

Original post: Raal

This logical nitpicking is a bit unproductive in this case (its merely re-enacting some of the things the Greek philosophers have discovered. It easy to lose sight of empirical and sensory evidence in the face of logic sometimes, so that it leads itself ad absurdum cf. eg all the things about "everything is unchangable" etc. edit cause Im nice : look into Parmenides: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides )).

I think that one useful thing one could learn from above post is that: the process of researching about/a deity is part of the devotion/bhakti itself, especially if one does not fully realize that it is.

Original post: LadyHydralisk

This video explains everything:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj8xBNufqsE

Raal yes, I learned that learning about a deity equals worship from m1thr0s, oddly enough....

CS, you are correct, I would be more mindful of my words but sometimes I have the misfortune of not giving a fuck and that is my downfall in this lifetime...

Original post: Cool Smoothness

[QUOTE=LadyHydralisk;288371]This video explains everything:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj8xBNufqsE

Raal yes, I learned that learning about a deity equals worship from m1thr0s, oddly enough....

CS, you are correct, I would be more mindful of my words but sometimes I have the misfortune of not giving a fuck and that is my downfall in this lifetime...[/QUOTE]

Not giving a fuck could obviously be a downfall, however, it could also be used as a strength if used correctly and in careful moderation...

Original post: LadyHydralisk

in bed and on the battlefield anyways

Original post: Raal

focus, grandezza/greatness and sometimes looking at the general intent (teleological interpretation) of a posting/writting instead of the literal one can also be useful at times, it helps effective communication...and also: this video explains a lot, too (jk)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxNPVAyzgSw

Original post: Raal

the previous vid was pretty cool, too- no kiddin'! makes me wanna watch that ol movie and read alice- or wait a sec am already in wonderland anyway...nice style German groove "eins, zwei polizei.."

ed: also great stuff on alc, by J.- lots of Indian words in it, though- but very good. was he Dattatreya, too? Have to read up on Indian history- got me really inspired there..want to check out some personal history some day, maybe...

Original post: LadyHydralisk

Speech is often subtle, you do not hear it unless you carefully tend your mind and body to receive the whispers. It is something that must be cultivated. Unwelcome and insistent thoughts that bother you or clear voices that won't go away are not something that is encouraged in bhakti practice. Some are so quiet they only speak in the rustle of leaves or the moan of the wind. Others are silent and speak with feeling. Still others, higher than this, may be so beyond human comprehension they do not bother trying to speak directly to humanity at all, but instead wait for you to cultivate your mind and approach them.

Once you arrange your mind in the proper way, your brainw ill begin interpreting signals as speech. It is delicate and timid, if you are discerning you can begin to tell the difference between external intelligence and your own fleshly thought processes produced within your own brain tissue.

One of the best ways to cultivate this is to practice reading the minds of other humans. Still another way is to focus all of your being on devotion to one entity, and try to interpret signals emanating from the line you cross with that sphere.

Cats can help act as recievers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztUIo3andAk

Ningishzidda talks to me through YouTube, music and by controlling all of my electronics. Sometimes he controls people, too...yet I have been evocating for so many years, it is easy for me to also hear his voice.

It's all some lila play...showoff

Original post: corbin_israfael

[QUOTE=Cool Smoothness;288335]Lady H,

Watch how I can easily refute Corbin's dogmatic assertions...

1) An absolute with qualities is not absolute.

Rebuttal - One could merely state that everything has qualities and that even the state of not having a quality at all is a quality in itself. Corbin's statement would have retained most of its integrity if it were not stated in such a dogmatic fashion - "An absolute with qualities is not considered by some/many to be absolute." or "An absolute with qualities is not as likely to be percieved as an absolute."

2) Everything is God.

Rebuttal - Then is Goddess part of God as well, or could God also be part of Goddess. The problem with statement number two is that the term "God" has masculine gender attached to it and this causes severe problems when any statement that utilizes the term comes under any type of intense intellectual scrutiny. A better term for Corbin's statement would have been the term "All." Everything is All. That could be considered a true absolute.[/QUOTE]Ah but you think in the terms of the Western Mind at best to come to these conclusions.

1) It is not that it has no qualities but rather it is all qualities at once. All thing's are an extension of the Divine and thus a spark of the Divine is in all things. The Universe itself is the Divine and all things within it are Divine as well. This world is illusion created by maya. Indeed it exists but is not real because we are blinded. It is said that a true devotee of the divine will see it in all things. From the greatest guru to the lowest criminal. The Divine is Reality and thus it is everything yet unmanifest in and of itself. It exists by it's own merit and the universe is an extension of that. Hard concept to truely grasp let alone explain.

2) I could speak and use terms most people don't know. Brahman. Ishvara. Paramatma. Numerous Yogic and Hindu terms that transcend the limited perception of gender and the western concept of the divine. However I find it easier to use God especially since I am a devotee of a male divinity. Yet still I am aware of the non-dual godhead without qualities. My mind cannot yet truely grasp this divine truth so for now I must content myself with what my finite understanding can comprehend till I ascend the slops of enlightenment and rest beneath the blaze of the divine light.

Original post: corbin_israfael

[QUOTE=Solerus Silver;288287]couldnt have said something more true master corbin, i think i always saw the absloute as something not manifested completely passive with no attributes, nor qualities it only maintains the creation not participate in it,.[/QUOTE]Ain
Ain Soph
Ain Soph Ur

Only once it reaches Kether beyond the Three Negative Veils does it become manifest.

Original post: Cool Smoothness

[QUOTE=corbin_israfael;288431]Ah but you think in the terms of the Western Mind at best to come to these conclusions.

1) It is not that it has no qualities but rather it is all qualities at once. All thing's are an extension of the Divine and thus a spark of the Divine is in all things. The Universe itself is the Divine and all things within it are Divine as well. This world is illusion created by maya. Indeed it exists but is not real because we are blinded. It is said that a true devotee of the divine will see it in all things. From the greatest guru to the lowest criminal. The Divine is Reality and thus it is everything yet unmanifest in and of itself. It exists by it's own merit and the universe is an extension of that. Hard concept to truely grasp let alone explain.

2) I could speak and use terms most people don't know. Brahman. Ishvara. Paramatma. Numerous Yogic and Hindu terms that transcend the limited perception of gender and the western concept of the divine. However I find it easier to use God especially since I am a devotee of a male divinity. Yet still I am aware of the non-dual godhead without qualities. My mind cannot yet truely grasp this divine truth so for now I must content myself with what my finite understanding can comprehend till I ascend the slops of enlightenment and rest beneath the blaze of the divine light.[/QUOTE]

Lady H,

Notice how he failed to address my basic argument about the dogmatic qualities of his assertions. He instead makes arguments regarding the actual substance of his initial arguments, which I had basically regarded as trivial in the first place - but don't tell him that...

Original post: LadyHydralisk

Yes, how strange. I regard all such nonsense as trivial. It is better to be devoted to silence than arrogance.

jai ma kali

Original post: corbin_israfael

[QUOTE=Cool Smoothness;288433]Lady H,

Notice how he failed to address my basic argument about the dogmatic qualities of his assertions. He instead makes arguments regarding the actual substance of his initial arguments, which I had basically regarded as trivial in the first place - but don't tell him that...[/QUOTE]I am not here to argue dogma only discuss topics. You disagreed with my statement on the basis of dogma and I merely spoke what I thought at the moment. However you must first establish in effect that such is established dogma. All beliefs are in essence dogmatic to various degrees based on the individuals point of view.

In the conventional sense it would mean I blindly quote and believe based on text and teachings. For me this is not true...indeed the helped shape the way and I have merely come to the conclusions I have on my own...they share similarities with various sects and such but not within the definite structure that can be called dogmatic. I am open to dispute of beliefs and further investigation into said beliefs with no reservations though I have my own personal opinions about things.

As I have said before we are only limited by our finite understand and I base all things on my own personal veiws and experience. Simply because they are similar to established beliefs means little...all things are similar in nature...

To simplify things here is a definition of dogma:

Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas, Greek δόγμα, plural δόγματα) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted. While in the context of religion the term is largely descriptive, outside of religion its current usage tends to carry a pejorative connotation â?? referring to concepts as being "established" only according to a particular point of view, and thus one of doubtful foundation. This pejorative connotation is even stronger with the term dogmatic, used to describe a person of rigid beliefs who is not open to rational argument.

Original post: LadyHydralisk

so silly....

and now I dance, for my lord and master.

Original post: corbin_israfael

[QUOTE=LadyHydralisk;288448]so silly....

and now I dance, for my lord and master.[/QUOTE]Dancing is fun...

~A Whirling Dervish

Original post: Solerus Silver

Ain
Ain Soph
Ain Soph Ur

Only once it reaches Kether beyond the Three Negative Veils does it become manifest.

hmm well not quite kether is called the maintainer it stands behinde the creation not in it the first manifestation is chokmah which is considered a channel, not a real state.

Lady H,

Notice how he failed to address my basic argument about the dogmatic qualities of his assertions. He instead makes arguments regarding the actual substance of his initial arguments, which I had basically regarded as trivial in the first place - but don't tell him that...

now darling listen closely at what i will say because i think it is really sick and annoying what you do,

obviously you are hurting to make an aquaintance on this site so dont be pushy about it and let go we dont need to hear boring crap about how people put their fucking words, and i think i addressed it in the first place, he was too important to spar with you anyway,

and as i said before stop the crap about how everybody writes, no one will think you cool and smooth if you do that, besides as lady H said, most of us dont give a fuck anyway, now lets us not turn her thread into some philosophical flame war unless you want to risk it.

Original post: Raal

Why was she banned? Too high maintanance and swearing?

Anyway, this is a good thread, also artistically well written, one can always critizise one point here and there but as was said, in Tantra and in relating to gods one neednt stick to the standard myths at all; the myths are the heirloom of us all and everyone has the right to interpret them anew and make them shine again through the filter of ones own being and imagination; in order to make them actual again and also incorporate them, give them flesh cause we are all these gods and characters ourselves if we can draw the parallel from our experiences and lives to the eternal stories of myth. Only then can we fully understand them, and this is how they ought to be used in my view. That is also why the poetic method has the say when it comes to relating and communicating these stories, and not for example the psychological or scientific one. This is what magic is about, basically.

Original post: Solerus Silver

preciesly besides many things may not make senses, the purpose is to deliver certain images to the mind that convey certain priniciples.

Original post: Cool Smoothness

[QUOTE=corbin_israfael;288443]I am not here to argue dogma only discuss topics. You disagreed with my statement on the basis of dogma and I merely spoke what I thought at the moment. However you must first establish in effect that such is established dogma. All beliefs are in essence dogmatic to various degrees based on the individuals point of view.

In the conventional sense it would mean I blindly quote and believe based on text and teachings. For me this is not true...indeed the helped shape the way and I have merely come to the conclusions I have on my own...they share similarities with various sects and such but not within the definite structure that can be called dogmatic. I am open to dispute of beliefs and further investigation into said beliefs with no reservations though I have my own personal opinions about things.

As I have said before we are only limited by our finite understand and I base all things on my own personal veiws and experience. Simply because they are similar to established beliefs means little...all things are similar in nature...

To simplify things here is a definition of dogma:

Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas, Greek δόγμα, plural δόγματα) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted. While in the context of religion the term is largely descriptive, outside of religion its current usage tends to carry a pejorative connotation â?? referring to concepts as being "established" only according to a particular point of view, and thus one of doubtful foundation. This pejorative connotation is even stronger with the term dogmatic, used to describe a person of rigid beliefs who is not open to rational argument.[/QUOTE]


Notice how the subject now employs more dogmatic tactics in order to defend his use of dogma. He does this by asserting the universality of dogma with the following statement...

"All beliefs are in essence dogmatic to various degrees based on the individuals point of view."

So, in essence, he is defending the use of dogma by claiming that everything is dogma. This tactic is very similar to many logistical strategies employed by right-wing theologists.

Original post: corbin_israfael

[QUOTE=Solerus Silver;288468]hmm well not quite kether is called the maintainer it stands behinde the creation not in it the first manifestation is chokmah which is considered a channel, not a real state.



now darling listen closely at what i will say because i think it is really sick and annoying what you do,

obviously you are hurting to make an aquaintance on this site so dont be pushy about it and let go we dont need to hear boring crap about how people put their fucking words, and i think i addressed it in the first place, he was too important to spar with you anyway,

and as i said before stop the crap about how everybody writes, no one will think you cool and smooth if you do that, besides as lady H said, most of us dont give a fuck anyway, now lets us not turn her thread into some philosophical flame war unless you want to risk it.[/QUOTE]I should have perhaps said gained the potential for manifest. A transition from passive to dynamic.

Haha...even I don't want to turn this into a flame war. I merely wish to voice my opinions as Yoga and the Eastern Arts make up the focus of my study. I do disagree with much that is said because of my personal opinions but I atleast try not to be aggressive or mean about it. I find that discussion of a topic with opposing sides often leads one to further explore their own feelings by forcing them to truely think about the subject to refute the denials of the opposing veiw point. Also to present the other side of the arguement for those who may be reading along...