/fringe/ - Fringe

It took you this ling to figure it out, and you couldn't summarize it better than that?

Lol bearheart

7 densities are arbitrary

Demiurge is World Soul, Maya.

Matrix is control system arising out of collective mental input.

>>82862

Fringe is more new thought than gnostic.

http://montalk.net/gnosis/171/corruption-of-the-demiurge

Montalk basically says what you are saying here.

>>82863

>Why would the universe need energy from itself, or why would something that created the universe need energy for anything at all.

It's not the Demiurge that created the universe for loosh, it's other beings utilizing it for loosh. Some beings decided to use other beings to create energy for themselves. Even if the Demiurge did create the physical plane to farm loosh, it's not as if he is The All and wouldn't need it. I feel like you're taking "all is mind" at face value. It's the highest truth, but you can't disregard everything else because of it.

>everything exists on the same plane

How can the physical plane exist inside the astral plane if it's not under the lowest layers of the astral that are akin to "hell"? Does it sit above the lowest astral layers? If so, wouldn't those layers be physical as well?

>>82871

Current year /fringe/ is mostly oriental and hermiticsm ala Franz Bardon.

Smiley is newthought and look at how he ended up.

>>82871

Oh? and who are those beings? Archons can easily be replaced for maya. Same as in most mythology describing demons which was representing the demons of our own mind. The beings of the saturnine current would not have an unbalanced world where an entire planet is a petty loosh farm. Montalk thinks that everything is so shitty because loosh is so good, and somehow there is beings using karma exploits behind this. I imagine if it were beings of higher logic, like aliens for example with more intelligent capability they would find a smarter less riskier method for energy, and as for lower astral beings, they certainly aren't controlling our lives universally. Even montalks idea of karma is based on human ideas of moral karma when karma was never that. The divine principle, god, creator, is the nothing that which everything came from, the incomprehensible unknowable. Why would the physical realm need a separate creator, why would the universe need a soul? It has always just been there, there was no beginning, All is mind can be taken at face value. Montalk is the same guy who believes the fourth way is literally trying to form soulless people a soul. When it's obvious Gurdjieff is using the word soul differently then people generally use. Besides soul = astral body. You could call the entire astral realm the soul of the universe I guess.

>How can the physical plane exist inside the astral plane if it's not under the lowest layers

That's what's wrong with that idea, there is no literal high and low, it's not physical directions in the sky in the ground type high and low. Your mental and astral is right where you sit in your body. High and low are just ways to think of it.

A lot of montalks ideas come from the place that the world has a reason to exist, and that light is righteous over dark. His entire view of the universe is one sided actually.

"And yet, reality continues to exist even in our absence. When we stop paying attention to something physical, it does not wink out of existence."

He bases it on this idea, however the mind is more like an overlay on what's really there. The universe needs no mind, no soul, no body and definitely did not need intelligence to exist.

>>82871

>Why is the concept of Demiurge even necessary? Well, we know from the “reality creation” phenomenon that our own minds can shape reality by directly altering the probability of events. Due to the dependence of reality on mind, it would seem that reality is being projected by our minds. And yet, reality continues to exist even in our absence. When we stop paying attention to something physical, it does not wink out of existence. Obviously there must be something other than our own consciousness at work, something that is always there, that functions as the default generator and perpetuator of physicality. This would be the Demiurge.

wtf

this is just called existence

moonfreak

>Plato saw the Demiurge as inherently good, while the Gnostics saw it as intrinsically evil. Meanwhile

Plato was a magician who knew his shit, gnostics, were…. you know…. new agers of the time

>>82870

Your mental input only matters to karma, the universe don't give a fuck.

>Disregard montalk

>Get Bardons

How would the fool who said Bardon was teaching "black magic" be worth any information.

Most of what you are saying seems to be misunderstanding or arguing semantics.

I can't respond to these walls of texts where you aren't sticking to one topic and are just going all over the place. Where you do make sense it sounds the same as what Montalk says when you claim it's different.

>Why would the universe need energy from itself, or why would something that created the universe need energy for anything at all.

> Montalk thinks that everything is so shitty because loosh is so good, and somehow there is beings using karma exploits behind this.

>Even montalks idea of karma is based on human ideas of moral karma when karma was never that.

What are you talking about, have you even read his stuff? Montalk says that negative entities need energy/loosh to exist since they can't get energy from the source. When he talks about karma that kind of as above so below topic you didn't really talk about, just randomly mentioned karma.

He doesn't think the demiurge is bad, just that it is an autonomous thing that got negative influence. Like you said, it's similar to the human subconscious which is very impressionable.

Can you clearly speak about one thing at a time so that we can clarify what things Montalk meant? Of course he can be wrong but first we should accurate in what he means instead of assuming. I've read his stuff and feel like I understand it pretty well so please do show me what doesn't make sense

>>82867

ikr

>>82900

Entities needing energy from the "source" is bullshit occultism. The "source" is literally consciousness, buddha explained everything exactly how it should of been. All beings have consciousness and are apart of the same universe.

No one said it was like the subconscious, no it's literally the human ego not subconscious. The all/monad/one/source = consciousness

ego, mind = demiurge

Like Christianity it's just a story to explain things in mythology and mysticism form. Not to be taken literally. Clearly you didn't read the OP properly. You are just listening to him blindly like every nooby first does. Just read about gnosticism and the demiurge and make the synonymous connections yourself. Replace the words and it all makes sense. All the traditions were explaining the same stories in different ways, human beings are always saying the same stories. Montalk just read a bunch of shit and made this up from himself, he himself abstains from a lot of practices because he believes they are black magick because of his shitty information and moral reasonings. I have read all of his shit, I used to follow them before I actually learned and did actually stuff.

>>82901

Obvious same fag post

>>82900

>>82917

This is why I tried to explain that he ignores the middle way and is one sided, he is stuck in this dualistic view that isn't really correct. That's also why he has ideas like beings are "separate from the source" It's all talking about the human ego that is ignorant of it's origins and believes the illusions (maya, archons) that it is the architect of. If you looked at the pictures you would of saw that. It's the same teaching as buddha hidden in mysticism, same goes for other religions.

>>82917

The source is not literally consciousness. THAT's bullshit occultism. If it were true, then anything with consciousness can just manifest and create universes because that's what the source did.

Do you have any idea what the fuck the human ego even is? There's a difference between ego and consciousness. It doesn't seem like you have any idea what you're talking about. If you think the subconscious isn't the ego, then what is it? Before going on about this stuff you should get your semantics straight, or share your definitions so we can get on the same page

I've been reading about this for years and years, why don't you use some logic and declare some definitions instead of going this = that so derp.

If you really read all of Montalks stuff you would know that he says none of his stuff is made up and all of it is comes from the traditions and stories. No one ever said it was different except those with the accusations

>>82919

I've seen the pictures and it only validates the stuff Montalk says. I'm not saying Montalk is always right but you haven't explained how he's wrong yet. I'd be happy to hear it as it would of course increase understanding of things overall but so far it seems you don't even understand Montalk's stuff. He never says the Demiurge is inherently evil. He clearly talks of a divine source that creates everything, the Nous and the Logos that gnosticism and neoplatonism is all about

>>82925

>The source is not literally consciousness. THAT's bullshit occultism. If it were true, then anything with consciousness can just manifest and create universes because that's what the source did.

But this is the case.

>>82930

to be clear, it's "pure consciousness"

just ordinary consciousness, limited by ego or lower densities, not the same thing

>>82930

semantics is incredibly important, and arguing semantics can be avoided if definitions are declared otherwise the arguing will never be resolved without agreeing on some basics to develop logic from

what do you think of Montalks stuff cube? only asking cause you're such a namefag xD

>>82934

xD lol who kns

>>82939

aha I doubt you've read his stuff properly, but if your at the stage where you think you already everything, or rather where you are satisfied with your knowledge there wouldn't be any point to read his stuff then

>>82941

mby lol XDXD

>>82942

I feel like you're mocking me

>>82943

o rlly

Xd

While it certainly wasn't my intention to mock you I feel this discussion could be a tad more productive if you instead chose to ask what specifics topics he got right or wrong?

Generalizing an author covering a wide variety of topics is detrimental and unfair, if he got one thing wrong why should that discredit the rest of his good work?

It also opens up said author to accusations of purposeful disinformation which can cause initiates to disregard that which he got right.

>>82946

Eh I meant like which ones do you think he's wrong about if you think any of it is wrong? I think his idea of soulless people or portals isn't right, though that could just be me being naive. Also he details too much into aliens and abductions and stuff though that doesn't make it wrong but unneccessary.

Of course this thread is supposed to be about gnosticism and I would say the very similar neoplatonism, so maybe we should stick to that.

I'm a huge fan of his other stuff tho, everything in the matrix and metaphysics sections. The gnosis sections seems legit too but I haven't full grasped that stuff yet. What's most relevant to gnosticism it seems would be the first few pages of the gnosis series. How he relates the universal concepts of Nous Logos and Demiurge to the personal concepts of Spirit mind and soul/ego is quite enlightening and adds to the as above so below concept. He also very briefly mentions Sophia as a personification of Logos. Overall, seems legit

>>82947

Ironically, in that case claiming something to be disinformation itself becomes disinformation. However that being said, I would consider his entire section to be disinformation. It's not wrong, it's just a distraction to what's important. Going to the books section he has two free books, and the first one 'Fringe Knowledge for Beginners' is amazing and I would recommend it to every noob, but under it is 'Discerning Alien Disinformation' and I would recommend everyone to stay away from it. The title makes this even more ironic.

Maybe I'm wrong and speaking from ignorance and it's full of useful information. Though itself even begins by saying that it's own usefulness will be when "public disclosure" happens

>>82948

I'm done talking to you retard, you're beneath me.

>>82951

not me but i decided to watch vegito vs super boo instead.

>>82952

ah when buu gets wrecked by candy ball

>>82955

yea it's definitely something I'll read eventually, but a lower priority for now.

and yea to me it's all for learning. all the different diverse range of experiences possible for consciousness to learn, very empowering to actually learn. Without any limitations the perfect source never had the experience of learning so that's kind of the point

The funny thing about loosh is that it doesn't actually exist. It's just like money, the system only stays afloat when its being supported. You can separate from the system, but it'll still exist if people still use it. Entities that "loosh farm" just lack the understanding that as God they have all the energy they need as its all just nothing. If your core thoughtform(awareness) can overpower the less confident thoughtforms of your own personal immer pantheon, you cam bypass a lot of restrictioms like energy and nutrition. By practicing the system, you draw thay universe to your awareness. Practice Void

>>82961

awareness isn't a thoughtform, you could have just said core awareness. and if loosh doesn't exist then energy doesn't exist. entities that loosh farm may lack understnading, but if they are consciously loosh farming then they probably are cutting themselves off from 'god' or the source since thet are negative beings. but yea, the more attention you give to something the more energy you let out. I wouldn't nitpick about the simplification normally, but this thread is about developing an understanding not advice on how to protect oneself from loosh farmers. good advice anyways though, even if you never touched upon on what "practice void" even means

>>82925

Yes the subconscious is most of the mind, if YOU read montalks stuff you would know he says a lot of it comes from personal experience and hearsay which is the worst way to get knowledge if you don't actually practice the occult. The mind cannot tell you any absolute truth, all parts of the mind are still the ego, still the illusion. People think the absolute truth is about good, but they don't realize egolessness includes what you believe is good. You should study more on these concepts because they are all stolen from the same sources and explained in different ways. Montalk bases what he thinks of traditions and stories on his shitty gnostic beliefs and personal experiences with weird phenomena, nothing static. In fact NOTHING montalk says is provable. He even says himself that a lot of his info comes from channel info, which is NOT any proper source of information. Montalk is shit and he misunderstands everything, his core beliefs are too bias to help him at all. Besides this is unrelated but he is Eurasian, they are known to have mental issues.

The pictures do not validate what he says at all, and NO ONE said anything about the demiurge being good or evil. Clearly you never have heard of analogy because that is how these old traditions and religions all were written in. And you don't know what you are talking about because Plato, who was a better occultist then gnostics, CLEARLY has a different idea a more accurate idea of the analogy of the Demiurge.

>>82932

There are no "lower densities" really, the highest mind is still mind, consciousness is "no mind" or the "essence of mind" the incomprehensible paradox that is out of mind. Which people can also describe as "oneness" because there is no separation or difference between, there is no distinctions. This is egolessness, your ego doesn't literally die, nor are "you" enlightened you fall into a autonomous existence that isn't one way or the other. Not left nor right, not enlightened unenlightened. You guys want to know about enlightenment, oneness, Christ consciousness, godhood. Read the REAL god damn sources and not new age theosophy crap. They literally just made it more confusing for everyone by using alternative explanations.

>>82948

gnosticism and neoplatonisms distinctions are important. They separate them significantly.

>seems legit

See this is a huge problem, none of this shit is static or provable it can't just seem legit. A lot of things relate to mind body soul or whatever fucking labels you want to put on it. We are literally surrounded by these concepts in every way because we are these concepts. As above so below doesn't even necessarily mean that the universe has a god or a body mind or soul. How can you even say there is. What we do know is that there is a god principle, and that the universe literally spawned out of nothing. This nothing which everything spawned from is the akasha principle and it is not a mind. Sophia literally just means wisdom.

>>82955

>significantly more mental capacity

It's good you bring that up, because I wonder why no one questions why logically these beings would even need to use their amazing powers on us. If they are such an intelligent and power race, they have no real gain from us and lots of risk. Imagine these massively intelligent beings, using up all their time to terrorize some special snowflake nerds living alone in their house. Fucking "writing mental programs to get people to kill themselves" like montalk talks about. His reasoning for this being somehow their is some goal to everything and they are a threat to some liberation plot. Which by the way montalk says that these beings were created by humans long ago because of our giving energy to illusion and that the demiurge got corrupt from this. You know what this sounds like to me? The same tale as eden, which is also the same tale of human ignorance. Which is all the explanation of the mind consciousness relationship and doesn't necessarily mean that something like this actually occurred but is rather a analogical story. These same thoughtforms btw he and many other people believe to be archons which people also tend to believe are reptilian. This all again is just synonymous with maya and not actual beings. The same way the devil and demon concepts were used.

>Source is the nondegraded

This is just another colorful explanation of their relationship. "god" has always been the unknowable, before the "big bang" there was literally nothing comprehensible existing, not even nothingness. There were no concepts. The idea that is is for evolution implies there is a real purpose, but people seem to forget entropy. There is no logic behind the truth, logic is an ego/mind concept. The absolute truth is not relative.

What if I told you your awareness was god and the phenomena was everything else. All things would appear the same and you would be uneffected.

http://www.sanskritimagazine.com/indian-religions/hinduism/predictions-kali-yuga-srimad-bhagavatam/

The reason things are the way they are right now is because this is the age for that. Conspiracy is born from the minds habit to find patterns and meanings in things, you will not find real truth chasing that nonsense. The real conspiracy, the real end of the world, is that your mind made those stories up. It's debatable if synchronicity really has any real meaning or if it's just your subconscious making synchs. Everything behaves differently depending on your beliefs, a harmless scene can become a horror story.

>>82989

it doesn't come from anecdotes, but is CONFIRMED by it. big difference.

it's provable by logic, something you don't seem to be using. I saw the pictures and it validates according to my understanding. if you think otherwise, you should take one picture and logically show how it is different from what Montalk says. Just do that and it will be a good start to prove what you are trying to say

>>82994

>the highest mind is still mind, consciousness is "no mind" or the "essence of mind" the incomprehensible paradox that is out of mind.

>They literally just made it more confusing for everyone by using alternative explanations.

surely you see the irony here?

Anyways, you are just saying a bunch of different things without connecting anything, just that 'you don't know! read the source to know more!'

If you know and read the source then why don't you actually explain a single thing????

>>83005

Wow what a troll, are you even reading? wtf do you even think for yourself? It doesn't come from anecdotes but is confirmed by it, if that isn't the dumbest thing I've heard. You are just not thinking at this point.

>surely you see the irony here?

Yes, yes I do and it makes me laugh. I don't think you actually get anything even montalk is saying. And you are already just ignoring a lot of points and details.

>>82998

>gnosticism and neoplatonisms distinctions are important. They separate them significantly.

Do you know the distinctions? Then why don't you explain them? Another claim without any basis provided. Of course I know they are different, but I wouldn't say the distinctions are that important. Your the one making the claim, your the one who has to prove it.

Okay now you are just being retarded and taking what I say out of context

I said seems legit because I hadn't fully grasped all the articles.

Nothing in the occult is provable except through personal experiences or through logic. Tthat's literally why it's the occult and paranormal. Pick up a dictionary once in a while

It's not what labels anyone wants to put on 'it' it's using terms that we agree on to get somewhere and have a meaningful discussion. I have said this many times in this thread yet you keep ignoring this part.

Just for once define some definitions can you??!?!?!?!

>As above so below doesn't even necessarily mean that the universe has a god or a body mind or soul. How can you even say there is.

Yea nothing necessarily means anything. It's called inferring from logic, and it makes sense until it doesn't through contradiction. Actually try to provide contradictions please?

>What we do know is that there is a god principle, and that the universe literally spawned out of nothing. This nothing which everything spawned from is the akasha principle and it is not a mind.

I can literally say the same thing as you said 'x doesn't even necessarily mean that y. How can you even say there is.' I mean that's what you sound like.

But seroiusly what is the god principle? There are many different ideas for what god principle can be. All is one is probably what you meant I'm going to guess. I shouldn't be guessing though, why are you saying so much while being so unclear in your meaning. Realize what you are doing here…

Yes when there was nothingness, there was only god. In it's perfect nothingness, wait why am I explaining for you? And what does this have to do with anything? Are you just blogging now?

>Sophia literally just means wisdom.

Yes, Sophia means intellect, which is what Logos also means. There are nuanced differences between the two terms but I don't think they are relevant here. Care to explain how any of this is relevant, and to what?

>Which by the way montalk says that these beings were created by humans long ago because of our giving energy to illusion and that the demiurge got corrupt from this

What the fuck? This just prove that you haven't read his shit at all. He specifically explains how the priesthood of Moses abused the Ark of the covenant envoking yahweh which corrupts the demiurge, or something like that. It's not at all how you explain it though. And this part has much less to do with gnosticism/neoplatonism than it does with the abrahamic faiths

>You know what this sounds like to me? The same tale as eden, which is also the same tale of human ignorance. Which is all the explanation of the mind consciousness relationship and doesn't necessarily mean that something like this actually occurred but is rather a analogical story. These same thoughtforms btw he and many other people believe to be archons which people also tend to believe are reptilian. This all again is just synonymous with maya and not actual beings. The same way the devil and demon concepts were used.

Your not making any sense here. These same thoughtforms? What thoughtforms? What the hell are you even reffering to.

Nothingness literally means 'no concepts' and there is a great logic behind it all, I'm sorry that you don't see it but it is quite simple. Before everything there was nothing. But because there was nothing, this nothingness itself was 'everything'

Wow that wasn't so hard, and it's logical. Go learn some Combinatorics, well actually just learn how factorials work, why 0!=1 it's incredibly logical

What doesn't make sense is your application of entropy. If there is absolutely nothing, then the state has already reached entropy. When the big bang happened the state went from complete entropy to a state of less entropy. Actually by definition it went from maximum entropy to minimum entropy and then the universe riding out the entropy back to maximum which is how we exist. That's the real purpose allowing evolution to occur.

Again I don't know why I'm explaining back the things you bring up, after you brought up so many different things one after another without explaining any of it…

>>82999

Cogito Ergo Sum. There is me (or something allowing me to exist) and then there is everything else. Only these two things can really be proven to exist, and in fact even those two things might actually be the same one thing. All is one. As above, so below.

>>83001

But that's the point… The mind made these stories up on purpose! It's like a movie. The only real thing is experiences and thats why we exist, to have these experiences and to learn from them. We are god, but forgot on purpose. Because as God in it's perfect nothingness with no existence, it realize that being perfect sucks since there was never any experience of learning let alone any experience at all. Life is about the journey, not the destination!

>>83010

>You can literally go to the wikipedia page on the gnosticism it's not that hard. Even personal experience and logic are limited, understand this, you have to be wiling to make mistakes to make it. Personal experience and logic are different for people.

You don't know how to look at things differently do you? You haven't even read initiation into hermetics and you don't know what the akasha principle is? This stuff is explained.

You can't say if that very nothingness wasn't god itself, the point is the idea of god a creator.

>are you just blogging now?

Nice try, but no dice.

>Care to explain how this is relevant

With this statement I realize you have never understood my point in the first place, which means you aren't thinking. It is once again, synonymous.

>What the fuck? This just prove the you haven't read his shit at all

First of all I have read his shit, probably more of his shit then you have. You are qouting his gnosis section I know of that shitty story once again taking the bible characters and spinning some new age story around it. Why don't you tell me where he got that story huh? Gnostics didn't even believe in all the same things, why the hell do you believe it so blindly? Some shitty sotry about a demon named Y yahweh, or YHVH is literally the four elements. And you can also draw the connection that yahweh in the bible was saturn. This fucking dumb planet eater story.

>You are not making any sense here.

And you don't think, I was referring to an explanation of his that I am only paraphrasing, let me see if I can find it hold up.

>nothingness literally means 'no concepts' and there is a logic behind it all.

derp

You must be playing games, can you not see how retarded this sentence is. I understand where you are coming from with the idea that nothingness itself was 'everything' but that's a misguided judgement. There is no logic behind anything at all. And there certainly isn't any sense behind the universe. These are all things once again of mind and ego, don't expect it to make sense, this is why buddha explained it in the way he did. And to say there is a 'purpose' is an oxymoron. Your purposes are just beliefs.

>>83011

The experiences are phenomena just like everything else. This is a nice fancy story though. Nothingness itself is one sided polarity though, not perfection.

>>83009

>Wow what a troll, are you even reading? wtf do you even think for yourself? It doesn't come from anecdotes but is confirmed by it, if that isn't the dumbest thing I've heard. You are just not thinking at this point.

>it's dumb because I said so!

try again troll

>>83017

Whatever makes yourself feel better.

>>83015

I know what that stuff is but you don't show how any of it is relevant. like I said " why are you saying so much while being so unclear in your meaning."

>First of all I have read his shit, probably more of his shit then you have. You are qouting his gnosis section I know of that shitty story once again taking the bible characters and spinning some new age story around it. Why don't you tell me where he got that story huh? Gnostics didn't even believe in all the same things, why the hell do you believe it so blindly? Some shitty sotry about a demon named Y yahweh, or YHVH is literally the four elements. And you can also draw the connection that yahweh in the bible was saturn. This fucking dumb planet eater story.

confirmed for not knowing what he's talking about

I gave you many chances to explain anything you said. Your confusion shows that you're probably getting loosh farmed and I'm not going to be a part of your circus anymore. I'll be here to talk if you as I said many times, lay out some definitions so we can get on the same page, and then have a meaningful discussion on a single topic. If you want to talk about different things, then you have to connect the concepts and not, as I said, "just saying a bunch of different things without connecting anything"

>You must be playing games, can you not see how retarded this sentence is. I understand where you are coming from with the idea that nothingness itself was 'everything' but that's a misguided judgement. There is no logic behind anything at all. And there certainly isn't any sense behind the universe. These are all things once again of mind and ego, don't expect it to make sense, this is why buddha explained it in the way he did. And to say there is a 'purpose' is an oxymoron. Your purposes are just beliefs.

I showed you the logic. You did not provide any contradictions. I will respond when you do

>it's misguided because I said so

>There is no logic behind anything at all because I said so

>there certainly isn't any sense behind the universe because I said so

You keep saying mind and ego in seemingly contradictory usage. Define the words before you use them as it seems I don't have the same defnitions as you. I've literally said this regarding your usage of mind, ego, subconscious, more than once in this thread.

If all these things are just mind and ego, then where did they come into play when 'nothingness' turned into the big bang? How can I expect it to not make sense when it already makes sense to me? Why limit my perception just because a stranger on the internet said so?

The purpose, even according to buddha is nirvana. In nothingness all everything was in nirvana, then the big bang happened creating and propagating samsara. I can use any ideology to explain this very logical thing.

Well actually it's weird that you are using bhudism now when you mentioned big bang earlier (all you bringing things up without responding to anything, you might as well be blogging) but there is no big bang in bhudism. there is no beginning and end. so according to what I said, the universal nirvana into samsara, itself is an aspect of samsara as bevore the universal nirvana there was samsara > nirvana. Kind of like the entropy thing I was saying earlier

anyways, I'm ready to have a discussion with you if you are willing to actually explain anything you say. I'll repeat myself " I'll be here to talk if you as I said many times, lay out some definitions so we can get on the same page, and then have a meaningful discussion on a single topic. If you want to talk about different things, then you have to connect the concepts and not, as I said, "just saying a bunch of different things without connecting anything""

>>83024

All you are saying is, you aren't explaining things. I don't undestand what your confusion is.

>Your confusion shows that you are probably getting loosh farmed.

You realize how ridiculous drawing that conclusion is. It isn't based on any fact, this is why montalks ideas are dangerous for people to just blindly believe. Are you just going to deny my explanations and say I'm not explaining things the whole time? I'm being pretty clear.

You want definitions? Okay ego and mind in this context is the human brain and everything in it. All the senses, thoughts, memories, beliefs, personality everything. Spirit can also refer to this same thing depending on what source.

>I showed you logic.

The contradiction is logic is a fucking concept. Everything is a fucking concept. Whatever concepts you try to apply to something that is out of concepts(which exist in mind/ego) is obviously not it.

>then where did they come into play when 'nothingness' turned into big bang

Nothingness didn't turn into anything, the nothingness is the akasha principle, everything comes from the four elements which came from the akasha. Which means the universe didn't really have a beginning, there is no real way to define a beginning moment of the universe, there is no logic behind it. Everything is still within concepts and senses.

>in nothingness all everything was in nirvana then the big bang happened creating and propagating nirvana

Okay you don't understand buddhism.

samsara, the suffering we live in. Is not the universe, it's in the mind. The realm of the senses, this is explained carefully. Look there is a reason the 8 fold path is said to be the saints path. A saint is one sided, being attached to enlightenment, attached to freedom. How can you be free from all attachments, nirvana, if you are attached to non attachment? This is the paradox of enlightenment. Samsara = nirvana, nirvana = samsara. All the moral ideas of buddhism are misunderstood, you have to read a lot more about buddhism to get passed the surface misconceptions that people have. Always have the middle way in mind.

Explaining every detail would make this almost impossible. But I went into this expecting you to have read more material. The only reason I have to explain so much is because it seems at least you haven't read enough information perhaps.

>>83032

>The contradiction is logic is a fucking concept. Everything is a fucking concept. Whatever concepts you try to apply to something that is out of concepts(which exist in mind/ego) is obviously not it.

If you can't even admit that logic isn't real then there is no point in any discussion. If you are the OP, then why did you even make this thread if there is no logic? Why haven't you killed yourself if there is no logic?

Logic is building upon agreed presuppositions. Literally everything is a concept. Literally. Everything. Prove me wrong.

>samsara, the suffering we live in. Is not the universe, it's in the mind. The realm of the senses, this is explained carefully. Look there is a reason the 8 fold path is said to be the saints path. A saint is one sided, being attached to enlightenment, attached to freedom. How can you be free from all attachments, nirvana, if you are attached to non attachment? This is the paradox of enlightenment. Samsara = nirvana, nirvana = samsara. All the moral ideas of buddhism are misunderstood, you have to read a lot more about buddhism to get passed the surface misconceptions that people have. Always have the middle way in mind.

Fucking really? When did i say the universe isn't in the mind? And what does the rest of what you said have anything to do with anything?

The only thing that isn't a concept is the subject of experience. But that itself is a phrase, a concept referring to the idea itself of a subject of experience. Literally everything is a concept

Wow what a shitty troll, are you a loosh farmer? You are just repeating what I am saying, I'm amazed I got trolled, you got me man. Look loosh isn't that hard to get harvesting it is a waste of time, you can easily develop your own energy.

Who is talking about real or not real, I'm talking about mind and not mind. You literally just said what I was trying to say.

>And what does the rest of what you said have anything to do with anything?

I'm trying to give some context, it has to do with buddhist philosophy and the idea behind the stories.

I didn't say you said the universe isn't mind, saying the creation of the universe propagated nirvana doesn't make sense.

>>83036

Literally what I was saying, but if you want to make it really specific. Everything is thought, including all senses. Everything is thought, and thought doesn't exist. However that doesn't mean things aren't there, it's more like the mind is an overlay if you want to look at it that way. AKA the matrix. But it's mind not a fucking ridiculous control system, that's taking a analogical story literal.

>>83037

>Whatever concepts you try to apply to something that is out of concepts(which exist in mind/ego) is obviously not it.

what does this mean if everything is a concept

>>83037

I said "I showed you the logic. You did not provide any contradictions."

And you replied with

>The contradiction is logic is a fucking concept. Everything is a fucking concept. Whatever concepts you try to apply to something that is out of concepts(which exist in mind/ego) is obviously not it.

How is that a valid refutation or response? You literally make no sense and contradict yourself in the same sentence

>>83038

>>83040

This means that it doesn't make sense, all concepts are in the relative. The truth is an incomprehensible paradox, realizing this is apart of enlightenment but only an insight into it.

You said that "there is a logic behind no concepts", but logic is a concept. I was pointing out that contradiction. Buddha was very logical, but there isn't logic behind everything.

>>83046

I said nothingness is a concept and there is a logic behind it. of course nothingness is a phrase to refer to the lack of concepts

(all words are concepts that's the point of language to allow effective communication)

so this concept of no concepts, or rather this state of no existence, it is refereed to as nothingness.

There is no contradiction here.

The truth can be considered a paradox, but it's not incomprehensible. Buddha's model of the universe was that there is no beginning and no end. There is logic behind this. Denying this logic is denying the logic of Samsara. Saying Samsara is not logical is like saying curves, circles, coils, feedback loops, are not logical. Of course they are logical. Existence and Samsara go hand in hand. They are codependent. If you have existence, physicality, you have samsara.

This does not mean that they are real though. It is all an illusion. Existence itself is an illusion. To achieve Nirvana is to stop existing.

It is logical. What is there incomprehensible about this?

>>83050

hahahahaahah no way

Look dude, no concepts does not mean nothingness, you just said nothingness is a concept. That is the contradiction, no concepts means no concepts including nothingness. This is where the incomprehension is. You cannot understand this truth with mind, which makes it "incomprehensible" read zen/chan buddhist text it explains it way better. I reccomend foyans Instant Zen. Stick to the old chan masters, the new guys kinda suck. You keep misunderstanding. Existence does not = samsara, you think enlightened people aren't among us? You don't exist, then you fall into nothingness, you exist then you fall into existence. It's not either. Nothing is codependent, and the idea that physicality is the reason behind suffering is another dumb thing that makes montalk wrong. Samsara is the realm of senses, this includes the non physical senses as well known as the 6th sense, mind. The overlay that is your mind is the illusion. The distinctions are illusion. All enlightened person is, is someone who doesn't pick or choose.

>>83053

nothingness is a concept referring to the idea of "no concepts"

if you replace the term nothingness with "no concepts" it will be for all intents and purposes the same thing.

I was implying that physical and nonphysical, all existence is some form of Samsara. I never said that physicality is suffering. You are the one saying that according to your interpretation of Samsara. Yes Samsara does technically mean suffering, but suffering is required to live. Nirvana is liberation from Samsara. You don't go back to Samsara from Nirvana. That's now how it works. An enlightened person may have achieved some level of Nirvana but has not achieved total nirvana. Nirvana in the traditional sense means permanent liberation from Samsara.

>>83054

It is clearly not the same thing, nothingness is still a concept. What you are not putting into it is, there is no nothingness without thought, without concept. So don't fall into it, I understand you may feel that it's nothingness but it's still not that. Yes nirvana does mean liberation from samsara this is true, however suffering isn't required to live, that is just a belief. You can do anything, you can come back to samsara to nirvana, of course you can argue back but at his point if you aren't enlightened what can you really say on that. Understand that the real concept here is attachment, so being attached to freedom, is still attachment, understand that the ego is made up of concepts so it will never be the absolute it can only reflect it like everything does. So complete enlightenment is neither being attached to nirvana or samsara and realizing they aren't any different. Yeah things get confusing in this type of conversation because of the ways you can look at it. So what I can do is direct you to someone who explain it better. Waaaay better than I do, an actual smart person. You will like him more than me.

http://www.ugkrishnamurti.net/

U.G was actually enlightened, the only thing he says that is wrong is that you can only be lucky to attain what he has. What this means is that it isn't by any calculable forces that you attain enlightenment. So it's "random". He explains it better than me, disregard what I say and just read his shit. I just wanted to point out problems with believing in montalks shit.

>>83056

I understand it perfectly myself. It's you who has failed toe explain yourself.

Like I said, if one replaces the word "nothonginess" with the phrase "no concepts" then it will work. Here I'll do it for your lazy ass

Before everything there was no concepts. But because there was no concepts, this 'lack of concepts' itself was 'everything'

Wow that wasn't so hard, and it's logical. Go learn some Combinatorics, well actually just learn how factorials work, why 0!=1 it's incredibly logical

video related

What doesn't make sense is your application of entropy. If there is 'no concepts', then the state has already reached entropy. When the big bang happened the state went from complete entropy to a state of less entropy. Actually by definition it went from maximum entropy to minimum entropy and then the universe riding out the entropy back to maximum which is how we exist. That's the real purpose allowing evolution to occur.

Again I don't know why I'm explaining back the things you bring up, after you brought up so many different things one after another without explaining any of it…

>>83057

You may understand yourself, but you don't understand what I am saying. If there is no beginning and end, then how does "before everything there was no concepts" make sense. That implies a past. We are not even arguing on the same thing. The point is, there isn't a logic behind the universe because there isn't a mind behind the universe. There isn't a purpose.

>>83058

Your the one who brought it up!!!!

>>83057

and ffs at least check the recommendations.

>>82998

> before the "big bang" there was literally nothing comprehensible existing, not even nothingness.

that's you. But you also go on and on about Buddha.

And now you accuse me of the contradictions that you yourself made

>>83059

Yes to explain the mind and consciousness relation story that is in all the mythologies and religions. Buddha happened to explain it in the simplest and most direct way.

>>83061

From the beginning I was saying the same thing, I did not make the contradiction I accused you of.

>>83061

>>83062

You are arguing about the way to put together words. This topic isn't even about that. You are just going on about how to explain this. What I am saying is that you can't with words with concepts. That is why I seem to be making a contradiction in the first place, to prove the point.

>>83063

You are making a contradiction on purpose to prove that you are right? That's not how this works.

Jesus christ dude, if you can't be logical this discussion is pointless and I'm done

ebonics/10.

But if I get your shit right, then he didn't have to catch himself being wrong since his argument follows the same line of thought. You're the one seeing a contradiction in it.

If anything the mistake he's making is to define "entropy" as "a state of complete decay" instead of "the process through which decay occurs", but other than that the reasoning in itself stands.

And I think you're high.

>>83069

for

>>83067

>>83069

That wasn't the point I don't think at all.

What are thoughts on Samael Aun Weor and gnosticteachings.org

Basically its a lot of semen retention, self transmutation, and then transmutation via the sexual act ala tantra without spilling the seed. Also lots of kabbalah

semen (male and female) is the power to create and therefor you save it and create solar bodies and other bodies I don't remember what they call them

personally I recommend listening to their radio they have on the site and also reading their works. just use the search option to find what you want to read about, and they will have their translation of it.

>>83684

tao has the same concepts

stop emissions

clear emotions

build yourself

have sex but dont cum

its universal

its what works