How Did the Creator Create Himself?
- Thread starter AlexE
- Start date
Re: How did creator?
Laura and team ultimately decide which question(s) get picked to be brought up during a session, so in that sense it's not really placing too much of a burden on them, OSIT.
AlexE, if you search the transcripts, you will find quite a few references to the Creator. Here is one from:
RyanX said:
Laura and team ultimately decide which question(s) get picked to be brought up during a session, so in that sense it's not really placing too much of a burden on them, OSIT.
AlexE said:
AlexE, if you search the transcripts, you will find quite a few references to the Creator. Here is one from:
Session 951212 said:
Psalehesost
The Living Force
creator question
It exists; as such it exists in all time - always was and always will be - and so there is no need for it to be created. And as for Creation, it it none other than the Creator - every stage of creation in all "time" existing simultaneously with the Union of the One.
In addition to that posted by Vulcan59, here's some on the issue of time, beginning and end:AlexE said:
session 950617 said:
It exists; as such it exists in all time - always was and always will be - and so there is no need for it to be created. And as for Creation, it it none other than the Creator - every stage of creation in all "time" existing simultaneously with the Union of the One.
Buddy
The Living Force
creator question
I think that's a good point, Csayeursost.
It may be that we simply con ourselves into thinking that because symmetry can be found at some scales in the universe, that the idea of symmetry (dualism?) must also be applied to the 'One who is also the All'. In other words, just because we dig a hole in the backyard and see that our pile of dirt balances the hole, then there must be something outside the universe to balance its existence as well, but I think the universe is a unified, self-consistent whole in and of itself.
The problem may be the difficulty in seeing that logically, the universe is asymmetrical. If there were something outside the universe that could balance the fact of its existence, then that fact would be a truth outside the universe and could never be known to us since our viewpoint is inside it. In that case, we have to accept that the universe (creator) simply is as a starting point.
If one were mathmatically inclined, it might be helpful to take a look at G. Spencer-Brown's "Laws of Form" published in 1969 [1], that is said to straddle the boundary between mathematics and philosophy. The gist of it is that below the layer of True/False, on/off, black/white, etc., there's a layer that goes unnoticed - an layer of "no distinction - everything is unified". That seems to be why boolean logic can be done with only a single state marker. I'm not particularly mathmatically inclined, but the ideas in "Laws of Form" make sense to me if you substitute Spencer-Brown's 'void' with 'the universe as a whole'.
Hope this didn't muddle the issue further.
--------------------------
[1]
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Form
Csayeursost said:
I think that's a good point, Csayeursost.
It may be that we simply con ourselves into thinking that because symmetry can be found at some scales in the universe, that the idea of symmetry (dualism?) must also be applied to the 'One who is also the All'. In other words, just because we dig a hole in the backyard and see that our pile of dirt balances the hole, then there must be something outside the universe to balance its existence as well, but I think the universe is a unified, self-consistent whole in and of itself.
The problem may be the difficulty in seeing that logically, the universe is asymmetrical. If there were something outside the universe that could balance the fact of its existence, then that fact would be a truth outside the universe and could never be known to us since our viewpoint is inside it. In that case, we have to accept that the universe (creator) simply is as a starting point.
If one were mathmatically inclined, it might be helpful to take a look at G. Spencer-Brown's "Laws of Form" published in 1969 [1], that is said to straddle the boundary between mathematics and philosophy. The gist of it is that below the layer of True/False, on/off, black/white, etc., there's a layer that goes unnoticed - an layer of "no distinction - everything is unified". That seems to be why boolean logic can be done with only a single state marker. I'm not particularly mathmatically inclined, but the ideas in "Laws of Form" make sense to me if you substitute Spencer-Brown's 'void' with 'the universe as a whole'.
Hope this didn't muddle the issue further.
--------------------------
[1]
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Form
creator question
Hi Volcan59, Csayeursost, and Buddy
Thanks for your responses.
Putting together what you've said, the Creator didn't need to create him/herself as Prime Creator always was, is and will be, and always existed. If Prime Creator or a being at 7th density were to ask itself how it came into being, possessing all knowledge, and nothing being outside itself(since if there was something outside of itself it would know about it and be a part of itself), then it would say to itself that there was no origin to its existence, "there is no outside of me, I just am, though I perpetually recreate myself, I am whole onto myself, without an origination"?
I guess I ask this because I've contemplated the beginning and end of it all. That there is nothing outside of God, being self-contained and yet at the same time viewing God as separate from me, there is a loneliness, and surrealness, to something that has no origin, an outside, something to contrast itself with, something to delineate its existence from something higher or other then itself. Or, to contrast God with nothingness, the "boundary of nothingness and God", sort of. I don't know if this helps convey something of the meaning in my questions a little better.
Hi Volcan59, Csayeursost, and Buddy
Thanks for your responses.
Putting together what you've said, the Creator didn't need to create him/herself as Prime Creator always was, is and will be, and always existed. If Prime Creator or a being at 7th density were to ask itself how it came into being, possessing all knowledge, and nothing being outside itself(since if there was something outside of itself it would know about it and be a part of itself), then it would say to itself that there was no origin to its existence, "there is no outside of me, I just am, though I perpetually recreate myself, I am whole onto myself, without an origination"?
I guess I ask this because I've contemplated the beginning and end of it all. That there is nothing outside of God, being self-contained and yet at the same time viewing God as separate from me, there is a loneliness, and surrealness, to something that has no origin, an outside, something to contrast itself with, something to delineate its existence from something higher or other then itself. Or, to contrast God with nothingness, the "boundary of nothingness and God", sort of. I don't know if this helps convey something of the meaning in my questions a little better.
Buddy
The Living Force
creator question
I don't know the answer. I just ask a lot of questions and consider the impressions that come to me before formulating a theory or hypothesis.
What if that essential loneliness comes from having drawn a boundary where there is none, yet it was necessary to do in order to create the conceptual buckets that we could then deny we created so that we could believe in going about struggling in the world in order to learn lessons?
Sounds far out I know, and may not even be a good question.
In Erwin Schrödinger's epilogue to "What Is Life?" (1944), he seems to be trying to express the idea that he simply IS that part of the universe that he IS.
Here is more:
For the sake of argument, let me regard this as a fact, as I believe every unbiased biologist would, if there were not the well-known, unpleasant feeling about 'declaring oneself to be a pure mechanism'. For it is deemed to contradict Free Will as warranted by direct introspection. But immediate experiences in themselves, however various and disparate they be, are logically incapable of contradicting each other. So let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, non-contradictory conclusion from the following two premises:
(i) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws of Nature.
(ii) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take full responsibility for them.
The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think, that I — I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say, every conscious mind that has ever said or felt 'I' — am the person, if any, who controls the 'motion of the atoms' according to the Laws of Nature. Within a cultural milieu (Kulturkreis) where certain conceptions (which once had or still have a wider meaning amongst other peoples) have been limited and specialized, it is daring to give to this conclusion the simple wording that it requires. In Christian terminology to say: 'Hence I am God Almighty' sounds both blasphemous and lunatic. But please disregard these connotations for the moment and consider whether the above inference is not the closest a biologist can get to proving God and immortality at one stroke.
In itself, the insight is not new. The earliest records to my knowledge date back some 2,500 years or more. From the early great Upanishads the recognition ATHMAN = BRAHMAN (the personal self equals the omnipresent, all-comprehending eternal self) was in Indian thought considered, far from being blasphemous, to represent the quintessence of deepest insight into the happenings of the world. The striving of all the scholars of Vedanta was, after having learnt to pronounce with their lips, really to assimilate in their minds this grandest of all thoughts. Again, the mystics of many centuries, independently, yet in perfect harmony with each other (somewhat like the particles in an ideal gas) have described, each of them, the unique experience of his or her life in terms that can be condensed in the phrase: DEUS FACTUS SUM (I have become God).
To Western ideology the thought has remained a stranger, in spite of Schopenhauer and others who stood for it and in spite of those true lovers who, as they look into each other's eyes, become aware that their thought and their joy are numerically one — not merely similar or identical; but they, as a rule, are emotionally too busy to indulge in clear thinking, in which respect they very much resemble the mystic.
[...]
The only possible alternative is simply to keep to the immediate experience that consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown; that there is only one thing and that what seems to be a plurality is merely a series of different aspects of this one thing, produced by a deception (the Indian MAJA); the same illusion is produced in a gallery of mirrors, and in the same way Gaurisankar and Mt Everest turned out to be the same peak seen from different valleys.
There are, of course, elaborate ghost-stories fixed in our minds to hamper our acceptance of such simple recognition. E.g. it has been said that there is a tree there outside my window but I do not really see the tree. By some cunning device of which only the initial, relatively simple steps are explored, the real tree throws an image of itself into my consciousness, and that is what I perceive. If you stand by my side and look at the same tree, the latter manages to throw an image into your soul as well. I see my tree and you see yours (remarkably like mine), and what the tree in itself is we do not know. For this extravagance Kant is responsible. In the order of ideas which regards consciousness as a singulare tantum it is conveniently replaced by the statement that there is obviously only one tree and all the image business is a ghost-story.
Yet each of us has the indisputable impression that the sum total of his own experience and memory forms a unit, quite distinct from that of any other person. He refers to it as 'I'. What is this 'I?
If you analyse it closely you will, I think, find that it is just a little bit more than a collection of single data (experiences and memories), namely the canvas upon which they are collected. And you will, on close introspection, find that what you really mean by 'I' is that ground-stuff upon which they are collected. You may come to a distant country, lose sight of all your friends, may all but forget them; you acquire new friends, you share life with them as intensely as you ever did with your old ones. Less and less important will become the fact that, while living your new life, you still recollect the old one. 'The youth that was I', you may come to speak of him in the third person, indeed the protagonist of the novel you are reading is probably nearer to your heart, certainly more intensely alive and better known to you. Yet there has been no intermediate break, no death. And even if a skilled hypnotist succeeded in blotting out entirely all your earlier reminiscences, you would not find that he had killed you. In no case is there a loss of personal existence to deplore. Nor will there ever be.
Source: _http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/schrodinger/
Other info:
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_Life%3F_(Schr%C3%B6dinger)
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger
--fwiw
AlexE said:
I don't know the answer. I just ask a lot of questions and consider the impressions that come to me before formulating a theory or hypothesis.
What if that essential loneliness comes from having drawn a boundary where there is none, yet it was necessary to do in order to create the conceptual buckets that we could then deny we created so that we could believe in going about struggling in the world in order to learn lessons?
Sounds far out I know, and may not even be a good question.
In Erwin Schrödinger's epilogue to "What Is Life?" (1944), he seems to be trying to express the idea that he simply IS that part of the universe that he IS.
Here is more:
For the sake of argument, let me regard this as a fact, as I believe every unbiased biologist would, if there were not the well-known, unpleasant feeling about 'declaring oneself to be a pure mechanism'. For it is deemed to contradict Free Will as warranted by direct introspection. But immediate experiences in themselves, however various and disparate they be, are logically incapable of contradicting each other. So let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, non-contradictory conclusion from the following two premises:
(i) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws of Nature.
(ii) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take full responsibility for them.
The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think, that I — I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say, every conscious mind that has ever said or felt 'I' — am the person, if any, who controls the 'motion of the atoms' according to the Laws of Nature. Within a cultural milieu (Kulturkreis) where certain conceptions (which once had or still have a wider meaning amongst other peoples) have been limited and specialized, it is daring to give to this conclusion the simple wording that it requires. In Christian terminology to say: 'Hence I am God Almighty' sounds both blasphemous and lunatic. But please disregard these connotations for the moment and consider whether the above inference is not the closest a biologist can get to proving God and immortality at one stroke.
In itself, the insight is not new. The earliest records to my knowledge date back some 2,500 years or more. From the early great Upanishads the recognition ATHMAN = BRAHMAN (the personal self equals the omnipresent, all-comprehending eternal self) was in Indian thought considered, far from being blasphemous, to represent the quintessence of deepest insight into the happenings of the world. The striving of all the scholars of Vedanta was, after having learnt to pronounce with their lips, really to assimilate in their minds this grandest of all thoughts. Again, the mystics of many centuries, independently, yet in perfect harmony with each other (somewhat like the particles in an ideal gas) have described, each of them, the unique experience of his or her life in terms that can be condensed in the phrase: DEUS FACTUS SUM (I have become God).
To Western ideology the thought has remained a stranger, in spite of Schopenhauer and others who stood for it and in spite of those true lovers who, as they look into each other's eyes, become aware that their thought and their joy are numerically one — not merely similar or identical; but they, as a rule, are emotionally too busy to indulge in clear thinking, in which respect they very much resemble the mystic.
[...]
The only possible alternative is simply to keep to the immediate experience that consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown; that there is only one thing and that what seems to be a plurality is merely a series of different aspects of this one thing, produced by a deception (the Indian MAJA); the same illusion is produced in a gallery of mirrors, and in the same way Gaurisankar and Mt Everest turned out to be the same peak seen from different valleys.
There are, of course, elaborate ghost-stories fixed in our minds to hamper our acceptance of such simple recognition. E.g. it has been said that there is a tree there outside my window but I do not really see the tree. By some cunning device of which only the initial, relatively simple steps are explored, the real tree throws an image of itself into my consciousness, and that is what I perceive. If you stand by my side and look at the same tree, the latter manages to throw an image into your soul as well. I see my tree and you see yours (remarkably like mine), and what the tree in itself is we do not know. For this extravagance Kant is responsible. In the order of ideas which regards consciousness as a singulare tantum it is conveniently replaced by the statement that there is obviously only one tree and all the image business is a ghost-story.
Yet each of us has the indisputable impression that the sum total of his own experience and memory forms a unit, quite distinct from that of any other person. He refers to it as 'I'. What is this 'I?
If you analyse it closely you will, I think, find that it is just a little bit more than a collection of single data (experiences and memories), namely the canvas upon which they are collected. And you will, on close introspection, find that what you really mean by 'I' is that ground-stuff upon which they are collected. You may come to a distant country, lose sight of all your friends, may all but forget them; you acquire new friends, you share life with them as intensely as you ever did with your old ones. Less and less important will become the fact that, while living your new life, you still recollect the old one. 'The youth that was I', you may come to speak of him in the third person, indeed the protagonist of the novel you are reading is probably nearer to your heart, certainly more intensely alive and better known to you. Yet there has been no intermediate break, no death. And even if a skilled hypnotist succeeded in blotting out entirely all your earlier reminiscences, you would not find that he had killed you. In no case is there a loss of personal existence to deplore. Nor will there ever be.
Source: _http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/schrodinger/
Other info:
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_Life%3F_(Schr%C3%B6dinger)
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Schr%C3%B6dinger
--fwiw
The issue is the term "The Creator." That amounts to anthropomorphizing the "Divine Cosmic Mind."
Try, if you can, to imagine Absolute Nothingness. This No-thing is intense and contractile AND... imbalanced. This imbalance leads to a reaction: the possibility of ALL. Thus, there is an initial split - No Thing and All Things. In the interaction between No Thing and ALL Things, the Cosmic Mind is "born" with all knowledge including knowledge of the state of NO knowledge or thing. Picture it as a yin-yang symbol if you like. It is in the interactions between these two states: No Thing/All Things, Negative/Positive, Female/Male, Off/On, that the worlds come into being.
A good book to read on this topic is William Chittick's "The Sufi Path of Knowledge," where he describes ibn al-Arabi's cosmology that begins with this postulate and describes the step-down levels of creation/manifestation.
When such books exist that talk about these things, and they mesh so well with the material from the Cs, I don't see much reason to be asking these questions. You can do the reading yourselves.
Try, if you can, to imagine Absolute Nothingness. This No-thing is intense and contractile AND... imbalanced. This imbalance leads to a reaction: the possibility of ALL. Thus, there is an initial split - No Thing and All Things. In the interaction between No Thing and ALL Things, the Cosmic Mind is "born" with all knowledge including knowledge of the state of NO knowledge or thing. Picture it as a yin-yang symbol if you like. It is in the interactions between these two states: No Thing/All Things, Negative/Positive, Female/Male, Off/On, that the worlds come into being.
A good book to read on this topic is William Chittick's "The Sufi Path of Knowledge," where he describes ibn al-Arabi's cosmology that begins with this postulate and describes the step-down levels of creation/manifestation.
When such books exist that talk about these things, and they mesh so well with the material from the Cs, I don't see much reason to be asking these questions. You can do the reading yourselves.
Tigersoap
The Living Force
Laura said:
It is an incredible book to read but not easy to grasp at first imho, the images that ibn al-Arabi's use are so poetic and so profund, a true unveiling :D
I actually started to re-read this book because the first time I tried there were too many things I did not understand and I put it aside for later, now that I've read and learned a bit more, it suddenly seems much clearer, well for the first few pages I've re-read so far ;)
ana
The Living Force
Well seems to me the first question is contradictory, what creates cannot created himself...
About the second question as Laura have told us there is really a need for us to make our own research if we want to get the answer, seems to me there are great sources where we can contemplate the hidden treasure we are looking for, sufism is a great one but also in the TAO, in Jesus parables, in ancient Indian poetry, in the Upanishad, and the Cass have given some clues.
Maybe what is realy needed are the eyes to see and ears to hear, wich is why we are working here, isn't it?
About the second question as Laura have told us there is really a need for us to make our own research if we want to get the answer, seems to me there are great sources where we can contemplate the hidden treasure we are looking for, sufism is a great one but also in the TAO, in Jesus parables, in ancient Indian poetry, in the Upanishad, and the Cass have given some clues.
Maybe what is realy needed are the eyes to see and ears to hear, wich is why we are working here, isn't it?
Let me try another way of phrasing the question, and explain a little about it, so as to communicate the meaning of the question. Rephrasing it: How did God/God Himself/ the One Entity come into existence?
Explanation: this is similar in vain to asking what came/happened before the Big Bang? Did God just appear out of nothing? If there is a supreme being/ultimate reality, how did that reality engender itself into existence. If I define God as everything existing and non-existing and anything else as well, how did all of this(as a single unit) come into being/existence? what came before God? Basically what, if anything, came before God existed.
Explanation: this is similar in vain to asking what came/happened before the Big Bang? Did God just appear out of nothing? If there is a supreme being/ultimate reality, how did that reality engender itself into existence. If I define God as everything existing and non-existing and anything else as well, how did all of this(as a single unit) come into being/existence? what came before God? Basically what, if anything, came before God existed.
anart
A Disturbance in the Force
AlexE said:
Hi AlexE, you seem to be trapped in linear thought. Try to consider the idea that there is no 'before' - there is no time - all that ever was and ever will be, all that exists, in all its infinite variations and permutations IS and always 'was' and always 'will be' - time doesn't exist, so there can be no 'before'. It is only from our incredibly limited perspective that time moves in one direction, thus providing a 'before' and an 'after' in one line - linearly. I don't mean for that to sound like 'word salad' - it's just that from our perspective, it is very easy to get trapped in the idea of linear time, when - in objective reality - time does not exist, not the way we think of it. If you can apply that idea to what Laura wrote about ' no things and all things' you'll get closer to the mark.
However, first you have to try to push your mind past limited linear thinking - not easy, but worth the effort!
Al Today
The Living Force
AlexE said:
Howdy AlexE. Speaking for myself, I will explain how I see the answer. How can one understand how a simple AM radio works if they've lived in a cave all their life? That radio would appear to be be magic. An engineer could explain to them all the concepts and components until they are blue in the face. If the cave dweller does not have a rudimentary knowledge base to understand advanced concepts, that radio will always be "magic". Personally, I don't KNOW that answer for sure either. I think I need to understand more rudimentary concepts for background before I could even BEGIN to comprehend. Does this make any sense?
Gotta start somewhere and I think you found a good place to start, HERE. An opportunity is present, but it's up to YOU to chose what path to follow. There is no free lunch and perhaps you need to read some more to build a knowledge base. And watch out for those sacred cows...
John G
The Living Force
Yeah it's kind of like let's join our regularly scheduled cosmic mind all that is already in progress. All the places and times to go to are already there and there are multiple possibilities to go to for what the places and times can look like. All the baby universes springing off from ours are already there, some of those babies and babies of babies , etc. are also our ancestor universes. Everything is connected loop-like.
The Ibn Arabi stuff is nice cause it takes this eternally there all that is thing and describes its information. Starts with an empty set then goes to a yin-yang bit. Like a computer program you can kind of create anything with a zero and one just by reusing it... but the information has more patterns as you go on such as the strangely interesting 8-bit byte known as Bott periodicity aka the 8-fold Clifford Algebra periodicity...
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/Sufiphysics.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week105.html
The Ibn Arabi stuff is nice cause it takes this eternally there all that is thing and describes its information. Starts with an empty set then goes to a yin-yang bit. Like a computer program you can kind of create anything with a zero and one just by reusing it... but the information has more patterns as you go on such as the strangely interesting 8-bit byte known as Bott periodicity aka the 8-fold Clifford Algebra periodicity...
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/Sufiphysics.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week105.html
