Well, we certainly filled up this thread quickly.
Erynn said:
Unless you're using a different system than the standard base 10. In binary, that equation can't even exist. Just ask any mathemetician
Right, but then 10 + 10 = 11. Or glab + glab = shamb, in glabsham base, but they are referring to the same things. If I have glab apples and and glab apple, I'll have a tota of shamb apples, in glabsham base, 11 in binary and 2 in decimal.
I was under the impression that this view of the universe went out with the Victorians? From what I understand, Einstein's theories, and the developments of subatomic particle physics, quantum physics, chaos theory, and string theory have left science in one of those "there are more things than are dreamt of..." states of understanding. I mean, string theory postulates multiple universes, wherein the rules may be different in each.
You mistundertsood me because I am talking in favor of Einstein.
String theory, is just that, theory.. We are not 100% sure on that, but yes, there can be a machine that exists within multiple dimensions, according string theory, it is 11 dimensions. Occording thesophy, it is seven dimensions.
So you're suggesting that non-monogamous, non-heterosexual people practicing sexual magic are like drunks?
No. I am just saying that we attract what we are becase we become magintized by those things we are involved with. This is both good and bad. We have already concluded we disagree with what is good and bad, what I am saying here is that, yes, indeed, the body acts like a magent. Not a physical magnet, a psychological magnet.
But we are able to perceive things that are "not real" according to common wisdom -- dreams, the images of vision, and such like.
But dreams
are real. The Astral World is real. In the Astral World, what we think (dream) of becomes a reality in front of our eyes. We daydream all the time, but because we are in our physical bodies, we cannot see the realities of our dreams, during the day. At night, we become lost in them. We never question if we are dreaming or awake becase we always assume we are awake, even when we are dreamign. The is the unawakened consciousness.
Would it surprise you if I said that my experience of the universe is different? That I have experienced a multiplicity of deities, a multiplicity of universes that seem parallel and not quite like this one, that I believe that dream in many cases has as much reality as the computer I touch as I'm typing here?
Not at all! I am sorry for being so hard to understand. Obviously, I have already said that dreams are real. So we are on the same page, there at least.
Why is your experience more valid than mine or other people's? I think you have taken your personal revelatory experience and are applying it as though it governs every other thing in existence. Leg and trunk of the elephant and all that. I'm not even sure human beings are capable of perceiving the entire elephant, to be honest. And for all we know, there may be more out there than just the elephant -- jaguars and palm trees and oceans and clouds...
I can refer to a scripture or other acient text of wisdom for everything I say, but then people think I am just reapeating what I have memorized. Many times, I choose to speak from my own voice, even if it is no more valid than anyone else, as you have correctly pointed out.
For you, what you have experienced is absolute and monistic.
I am not monistic. A monistic religion is a dead religion because there is nothing for it to procreate with. A religion without Gods and Goddesses is retardant of its own proliferation.
Modern Christianity merely converted them Virgins or Angels, etc.. and this well known.
But it is also a part of the spiritual worldview that I share with many others, that the triadic is more stable and more active than the dualistic -- where duality is a static balance, triplicity is balance in motion. There are three "cauldrons" with in the body wherein energy is gathered and processed in both a spiritual and magical sense. Energies may be physical, emotional, or spiritual, and sexuality can be expressed on all three of those basic levels. Strict dualism isn't really a principle in our system. Where we acknowledge both day and night, the true time of power for us is in the liminal state of dawn/dusk -- the places between -- and so it can be argued that sexuality falls into this liminal between place, where gender (the "night" and "day" of male and female bodies at least -- the metaphor doesn't extend to intersexed or otherwise hermaphroditic bodies ) is irrelevant because what is important is what takes place in the interstices, in the ambiguous and the transgendered, in the transcendence of duality.
Neither am I a dualist, although I perfectly understand why this has been incorrectly assumed.
The Matrimony is a trimony between three: Man, Woman, and God. That is a Trimony.
3 Binah, Holy Spirit, Jeh-Hova, Father-Mother, Sex (reconciliation of opposites)
3+3=6 Tiphereth, The Son of (At)Man (sexual)
3+3+3 = 9, Yesod, Foundation (Everything that is created has its orgin in sex)
Not everyone in this world, or even in this forum, is monotheistic. Not all of us live by the same set of assumptions or the same guiding texts. Not all of our religions regard homosexuality (or eating shellfish and wearing a cotton/linen blend, for that matter) as an abomination, or non-monogamy as a sin.
But I did not say otherwise.
The framework you have chosen to work within, and the worldview that you accept as correct is not the same as mine. To me, the "truths" of monotheistic religions are no more than another opinion on the nature of reality. I regard their texts as interesting and sometimes useful, but not reflective of absolute reality. It's no more to me than any other text on philosophy, and by the limited nature of human perception, it cannot reflect any "absolute" reality or truth, merely some corner of it. Each text is the preserved, and often mistranslated record of the opinion of other human beings. By the nature of human experience, there can be no genuine "objectivity," for everything is processed through our senses, and our senses can be fooled -- or expanded.
With todays degenerate mind there can be no objectivity. The mind should be a perfectly clean mirror, so it can perfectly reflect Tao, but through time and lovely evolution we have made our mirror very dusty. The truth still does exist and it is still attainable, as it is stated in every religion, because that is what a religion is: to reunite with the truth.
Physics tells us that "solid matter" conists almost entirely of the space between atoms and subatomic particles. This is supposedly "objective" reality. Yet the human hand still generally stops when it impacts a wall, and that's another form of "objective" reality. When we get to the level of subatomic particles, we are dealing with far more than just positively and negatively charged protons and neutrons. We deal with things like light appearing to be both a particle and a wave, with particles that have "charm" and "strangeness," with the idea that everything that is might be one subatomic particle speeding around the entire universe and transcending time and space in the most astonishing and incomprehensible manner.
In the face of such things, I don't dare declare an Absolute Truth that applies to every person in every time and every place. In a worldview like this, there is room for the realities of the intersexed, of the hermaphroditic, of the androgynous. There is room for homoeroticism and pansexuality in this liminal twilight.
Physics is a great science, but, it is still a science, so by definition it is incomplete. Theories are displayed to us like women's fashion, "Look at the new theory! It is amazing!"
We should not fall into the danger of confusing science and what is regarded as "facts" with the Truth, because most of our facts are nothing more than the three dimensional aspect of something larger. Every time a new theory theory comes out, it connects more dots, but it finds more dots too...
And when approached lovingly and responsibly and with regard and respect for all involved, it's all good.
"Love is law, but conscious love."
Ignorance is the root of all error, even ignorant love.
Conscious love is just that: Wisdom + Compassion, Will + Imagination, Man + Woman, this is Tantra.
Taoism and Buddhism tells us again and again that one without the other leads to error.
But whose scriptures, and by what criteria are they to be judged valid? Are they holy and true because they say they are? If so, isn't that rather self-referential and arbitrary? What about all the other, contradictory scriptures, that also claim they're holy and true?
The Vedas, the Bible, the Upishands, the Koran, the Zend Avesta, the Book of the Dead, the works of Homer, the Sibylline Books, the Edda, the wisdom of the Native Americans, the "Gnostic" works, the Dao De Jing, I Ching, the writings of the Kabbalah, the cult of Mithra, the dancing Dirvisha, the Greek, Roman and Egyptian writings...
I fail to see wisdom in hatred and the eternal damnation of homosexuals, though I'll agree I can't comprehend it. This isn't a philosophy I can ascribe to in any good conscience at all.
The very fact that the words of the scriptures or my words is seen as hatred (I am not talking about the ignorant Christians, because they do hate) is where you should be begin if you wish to understand. If it is pointed to me, then I must say, I never said I hated anyone.
In fact, I deeply love everyone.
Personally, I would not waste my time talking about something I hate. Rather, I would meditate on that fact until I found its source..
For some of us, sexual magic does not include the mixing of bodily fluids within the body at all, and safer sex practices such as the use of condoms is done to help prevent the potential spread of disease. There doesn't seem to be any effect on the efficacy of the magical work because of it.
Honestly, I whole hardedly disagree. I found it absolutely retardant. Contraceptives are nothing more than an excuse to justify many things, and I was completely mistaken to have ever used them.
I thought you never praticed?
