Limits to Human Knowledge

[paul]

Sept 22, 2011 19:47:48 GMT 9.5 @tamrin said:

... The living, social, intellectual contexts of these other planes are ultimately impenetrable mysteries to all but the Most High.

Leaving aside the issue of the nature of the Most High, is this statement actually true?

It reminds me of some religious teachings of my youth.

It also reminds me of when I was first taught rising on the planes.

I was quite keen and after a few days decided to access the Buddhic plane. But to my surprise my nervous system did not even try to adapt. It was as if I was being prevented.

Then a few months later when I tried again the access was immediate.

Are there then rules about what humans can learn? If so, how can we know what the limits are?

[paul]

And who sets the limits?

[LorrB]

Our bodies and minds set the limits I would imagine. Just as an unfit, overweight person with breathing problems might have trouble even reaching base camp for a mountain climb, so would it be in the more subtle realms.

[LorrB]

Our lives are our password (See the Keys of Wisdom thread) ... ?

[tamrin]

Please consider the limitations of our hypothetical, transcendental liver cell with regard to understanding our level of existence.

[paul]

I wonder if humans have any qualities that transcend those of a liver cell.

[Deleted]

Sept 23, 2011 16:36:14 GMT 9.5 paul said:

I wonder if humans have any qualities that transcend those of a liver cell.

Of course we have qualities which transcend those of a liver cell. For instance we know how and why to tie our shoe laces.

You must be missing Phillip's point. We are to our "god" what a liver cell is to us.

[paul]

So what are the limitations of the liver cell that apply to humans?

[tamrin]

Both are limited by their own capacities and "realities," beyond the rings of which which they cannot pass while under the illusion of separation. If they only temporarily escape that illusion, when again under its sway, they can speak of and, indeed, only recollect a vague notion of underlying unity (communication is not possible while they are actually in a transcendent state - not only is there a problem of language, there is also the paradox of, with whom else does one communicate when there is but one?).

[paul]

I wonder if the liver cell has the same capacity as humans to transcend its kingdom

[tamrin]

As above, so below.

According to Systems Theory, an organism requires some degree of two-way, inter-level feedback to maintain a dynamic equilibrium (insufficient transcendence may be a factor in the formation of cancers).

[paul]

Sept 25, 2011 13:09:24 GMT 9.5 @tamrin said:

....insufficient transcendence may be a factor in the formation of cancers....

Is that transcendence of the human or of the liver cell?

[tamrin]

Sept 25, 2011 14:09:38 GMT 9.5 paul said:

Sept 25, 2011 13:09:24 GMT 9.5 @tamrin said:

....insufficient transcendence may be a factor in the formation of cancers....

Is that transcendence of the human or of the liver cell?

Sept 25, 2011 13:09:24 GMT 9.5 @tamrin said:

As above, so below.

[paul]

So are you saying that like the human, the liver cell has an Adam Kadmon energy body?

[tamrin]

I am saying there is ONE life, ONE consciousness and, ultimately, ONE mind expressed through every rank and file point in the multi-dimensional, fractal grid, matrix, web of the universe, whatever. All else is vanity, the illusion of Maya, the myth of seperativeness, whatever. The veil of that illusion is heavy enough without weighing it down with further delusions. Ask yourself, are you heading toward or away from unity?

[stewartedwards]

Sept 25, 2011 18:06:31 GMT 9.5 @tamrin said:

I am saying there is ONE life, ONE consciousness and, ultimately, ONE mind expressed through every rank and file point in the multi-dimensional, fractal grid, matrix, web of the universe, whatever.

So, just to be clear:-

Tamrins position - "Bob" is "Bob" no more and no less.
Pauls position - "Bob" is "Bob", but "Bob" may on occassions be influenced by/comprise other forces (God, gobblins, ghosts, sponsors, negative beings whatever)

These two positions are not actually that far apart, especially if you break it down a step further and consider the possibilities in terms of everyday life events:-

Consider (a little simplisticly I know):

1. Bob sees girl, Bob likes girl, Bob wants to ask girl out on a date, but part of him fears rejection. Two different inner pulls of "Bob".

2. Bob wants to steal a car, but part of Bob knows this is wrong. Again two different pulls inside Bob.

How you explain or define these pulls is more methology or paradigm than anything else. What matters is Bob making sense of his life. Having both Tamrins and Pauls methologies are great for it gives Bob a choice, making it easier for him to find one that helps him progress the path of life.

[paul]

With an Adam Kadmon body en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Kadmon the human being has partial isomorphism with the Solar Logos - hence under suitable preconditions the human by intent is able to establish active resonance with many of the dimensions and intelligences within the local Creation.

This is veiled in Masonry by using Jacob's Ladder to access the Temple in the Heavens while armed with knowledge of the hidden mysteries of nature and science.

[tamrin]

I think you are confusing Adam Kadmon withe the Merkabah (chariot). Both are metaphorical attempts to struggle with concepts for which the language of the day did not suffice.

In any case, at every plane of being, at every level of consciousness, if only for the sake of feedback, there is necessarily a method whereby consciousness may transcend or descend.

[tamrin]

Sept 25, 2011 19:13:16 GMT 9.5 stewartedwards said:

Tamrins position - "Bob" is "Bob" no more and no less.

Pauls position - "Bob" is "Bob", but "Bob" may on occassions be influenced by/comprise other forces (God, gobblins, ghosts, sponsors, negative beings whatever)

NO, I am say that ALL consciousness is ONE: Bob, is Bob, IS God. There is nothing else to be influenced by. Goblins, ghosts, etc., etc. are NOT sentient beings as such, they are delusions, part of our mythosphere.

Bob not only is Bob he is also the girl you say he fears will reject him.

The following is ONLY a metaphor for what I am trying to say:

In the beginning there was a single soul. This soul looked around, and saw nothing but itself. It exclaimed: 'Here I am! , From that moment the concept '1' came into existence. Realizing it was alone, this entity became afraid. Then it thought: 'Why should I be afraid, when there is no one but me?' So its fear subsided.

Yet, since pleasure can only be enjoyed in company, this soul lacked all pleasure. Thus it wanted a companion. It was as large as a man and a woman embracing. So it split into two, becoming a husband and a wife. That is why it is said that a husband and wife are two halves of a single being.

The husband and wife had sexual intercourse; and from their union human beings were born.

She then thought: 'Since we came from the same soul, surely it is wrong for us to have intercourse. I shall hide myself.' So she became a cow. But he became a bull, and they had intercourse; and from their union cattle were born. Then she became a mare, and he a stallion; and from their union horses were born. In this way all living creatures were born, down to the smallest insect.

Thus the soul is the common vital entity in every living being. The soul is dearer than a son or daughter, dearer than wealth, dearer than all things. When people recognize that only the soul is truly dear to them, then that which is dear to them, will never perish.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1:4

[paul]

Sept 26, 2011 6:40:02 GMT 9.5 @tamrin said:

I think you are confusing Adam Kadmon withe the ..Merkabah... (chariot).

Perhaps not

Sept 26, 2011 6:40:02 GMT 9.5 @tamrin said:

Both are metaphorical attempts to struggle with concepts for which the language of the day did not suffice.

Perhaps not

Sept 26, 2011 6:40:02 GMT 9.5 @tamrin said:

In any case, at every plane of being, at every level of consciousness, if only for the sake of feedback, there is necessarily a method whereby consciousness may transcend or descend.

This is an interesting topic.

For example, the desk at which I am sitting is composed of wood fibre and laminate. It has a very low level intelligence and as I look at it, I have so far detected neither consciousness nor means of transcendence.

Would you like to specify the types of entity to which your statement may be applied?