being/non being

Adaryn

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I'm somewhat struggling with the concepts of being/non being in higher densities. In union with the One, no polarity, all is one, so what is that state ? neither being nor non being, or both at the same time, or Being ?
I was thinking of the Buddhist philosophy, where the Nirvana is seen as a state of pure nothingness, complete vacancy, void... thus, is it total non-being ? Can we say that embracing the buddhist philosophy here on earth and at that time is to choose the non-being path ? Would it be STS, here in these heavy distorted planes ?
 
G

Guest

Guest
I moved this from the "Ultra-terrestrial" section where you originally posted the question.

Prayers for rain said:
I'm however struggling with these concepts of being/non being in higher densities. In union with the One, no polarity, all is one, so what is that state ? neither being nor non being, or both at the same time, or Being ?
I was thinking of the Buddhist philosophy, where the Nirvana is seen as a state of pure nothingness, complete vacancy, void... thus, is it total non-being ? Can we say that embracing the buddhist philosophy is to choose the non-being path ? Would it be STS, here in our heavy distorted planes ?
This is, of course, my personal view on the matter.

The way we approach divinity and its encompassment depends on where we are. For example, for some people the idea of God is a universal Patriarch, an authority setting rules for our own good, and demanding prescribed behaviours or else. For others, gods are just powerful beings who can do what they want with us.

So the god-concept is often a relative assessment, and refers to a number of states between us and the Absolute. I think one problem is confusing all these intermediate states, which can have aspects in and of themselves with the absolute. So we clump good/evil, being/non-being, yin/yang, male/female, into this absolute idea, when in truth they may be sub-sets of that.

I think it helps to look at our divine archetypes and distinguish, which are those that are more absolute, and which fall into subset groups. I think we can agree (unless anyone has a better suggestion) that being/non-being are pretty much up there as far as the Absolute is concerned. So the true Primal Absolute would be a unified state incorporating both these polarities. That would be the state of Existence without differentiation between being and non-being, even beyond oneness. This idea trancends experience I think, but at least we can approach the concept as a model.

It is tempting to associate being with manifestation/creation and non-being as something else. However, by referring to Being we are talking about an absolute state. Absolute Being, which is a state of existential Unity. It is also posited that Unity incorporates an inherent polarization, because without polarity there can be no movement or dynamism WITHIN being. Dynamism, evolution and purpose within being require the ability to variate within itself, and that means to incorporate dynamics based on polarity.

This polarization of Being has been called Yin/Yang, Nature/Spirit, Dark/Light, Goddess/God etc. Here we again have room for confusion, because we consider Non-being also "Dark". Non-being, however, is absence, a state that is a non-state, and "darkness" is only a metaphore for absence of light, which is associated with Spirit, and sometimes with Being. Hence a confusion can arise identifying Spirit exclusively with Being, and Nature with Non-being.

Again, Being transcends light, and Non-being transcends darkness, because darkness is defineable as a perceptual state. Light, Yang or Spirit is best viewed as one side of Being, and Nature, Yin and Dark as the other side. "Nature", however, is a misnomer, IMO, because it implies manifestation and form. This formed Nature contains presence of Spirit. To think otherwise is to create an erroneous dichotomy and consider our own Spirit nature as something outside of Manifestation/Creation, and polarized to it.

A more balanced view would be that Manifest Nature is Creation, and Creation requires both polarities, the Womb and That which fertilizes the Womb (which is Spirit). So Yin, in its essence is an undifferentiated field of darkness that absorbes and contains, and Yang is an undifferentiated field of light that radiates. The two tend to merge into the unity of Being.

Now let us think about this, and here is where my view can approach the heretical. Absolute Being is a state of Static Perfection. For Being to Become, a state of dynamic (open-ended) polarization takes place, followed by a re-merger. Yet, if there only were these two states of Being, the symmetry involved would demand that fission into Two, would lead to re-merger back into One. What is that necessarily Absolute Element that catalyzes reality so that re-merger results in Creation and not Fusion into One. In other words, how does Being make the Two into the Many, and the Many distinct from each other?

Mystics have suggested that this is done through a kind of deception or play, where the One pretends it is Two and the two similarly pretend they are Many. This is true in a sense, because the Origin of Being is Unity. What we often forget, however, is that these views stem from the perspective of created or manifest beings, who can easily overlook the catalytic X factor that allows for the transition from Two to Many upon re-merger of the Two (Spirit and the Divine Womb).

And often these people cleave to one aspect of Being, calling it God or Goddess. So we can posit that creation is not an endless multiplication of One to Two to Four etc, but a Sacred Fission of One to Two followed by a Sacred Marriage of the Two to birth the Many, instead of a Fusion back into One (although this One has a role to play in Creation for it to be complete).

So if there is a divine play here then how does it take place? How does Sacred Marriage result in distinct entities? I believe it is through the catalytic incorporation of Non-being into the Creative process. Let us define Existence as incorporating both Being and Non-being, which we can call the void, or voidness. This voidness is a state, just as being is a state. It is an unalterable state, while being is alterable.

I think Spirit and Nature can create form and variance, but not distinction and contrast. These imply boundary states. A boundary is a separation, a divide where there is nothing. So being can be separated from itself only by something that is not it. It has also been suggested, however, that the womb essence is actually the dividing line, and that separation is simply selective unconsciousness.

This sounds reasonable, until you consider that the goal of dynamic becoming is to emerge the One within the Many, so that all contain the One but are distinct unto themselves at the same time. This is obviously not our current state (yet). And we need to consider that the magnetic draw between the womb aspect and spirit is great (the essence of love leading to the unity of beinig), so there would be no parts of the womb that would forgo being united with their other half.

Hence, I posit that what separates is something whose nature is free of being and becoming, but can weave within being and becoming as a non-state within a state to create distinction and contrast. The non-state is the essence of all negation, while the state is the variable essence of all affirmation. (And we need to consider that even primal polarization into yin and yang incorporates a dividing line between the two inducing and maintaining the tension of their separation).

Another argument is that if a micro-layer of non-being is incorporated in the dynamics of being, why is not everything permanently isolated from everything else? Because non-being is not a solid block, and because just like it can be present in being, being can be present in it. Otherwise the very idea of non-being would not exist, or rather we could only affirm and not negate.

Consciousness can be in the void, but not of it. The womb can be an essence of being latent in non-being. So a dividing line is a line of distinction, but not necessarily a line of insulation. Being encounters non-being and experiences pause in its movement and vibration at that level, but there is nothing in non-being to stop being from presence in it (affirmation surrounded by negation, but not of it).

This might very well be Nirvana, a state of complete non-attachment, where one's pure nature is unalterable since there is no "room" for becoming. Nirvana was never said to be a merger with Unity, which is a different experience altogether, IMO.

All in all, we end up with an interesting combination in Creation. We have Spirit and the Womb. We have the presence of direct fusion of Spirit and Womb, which is the Unity of Being, moving to become the center of organized systems, and we have the presence of non-being incorporated in the sacred marriage of spirit and the womb (just as it was incorporated in their original separation) to result in the differentiated aspects of creation, within which the presence of Unity seeks to emerge.

One way to test this hypothesis is to examine how much it explains. In other words, if it answers more questions than it creates. One such question is that of evil in the world. Actually, this is a complex issue, and goes beyond the scope of your question.

More fundamental would be the question of entropy. Entropy is a process where creation unravels from the complex to the more fundamental. Entropy is a process, while I would call evil a state of contridicting the essential nature with which the reality (that engendered creation) is seeking to identify. In entropic process the sacred marriage is reversed. This reversal is death when non-being is involved because we have the ellimination of complex states into it (the negation of life).

Let's look at this another way: If all potential exists, and if we choose one possibility over another, where does that other path go? For us, it is not. By making the choice we specialize reality into specific states of being, and everything we do not choose is NOT (in terms of the whole creation not choosing it). If it still WERE, we would never be free of it.

If this reality chooses to be free of psychopathy, where does that possibility go? It becomes the path not taken, we say, but if there is nothing to take the path, then it is difficult to imagine a domain where empty paths of being reside. These paths exists, but as negated being or non-being, and reality becomes more specialized in accordance with the chosen. If reality is more specialized it can still be infinite and open-ended. If it chooses creative possibilities, it can still enjoy an infinitude of those, and it still can emerge non-creative ones, because reality is free, but if it unilaterally chooses only creation, the destructive universally enters non-being as undifferentiated contrast potential (the dividing line between beings).

As you can see, there is a great variance and interweaving of aspects into combinations to express freedom, so reality in evolving and becoming, transcends itself into states beyond its experience. These new states it must learn to master. It must learn to make choices. And it must learn to address possibilities that it allows because it is not familiar with their ramifications (possibilities that represent unwanted/destructive relationships between being and non-being), and in doing so it must discover its nature through discovering its choices.

Then it can come into differentiated focus, with the essence of being at the center of differentiated systems, which connect through relationship. Without non-being interactions would result in fusion between beings. With non-being interweaved in creation, interactions result in relationship.

Such a differentiated system is the human being, and I believe the soul is a presence of the fusion creating the unity of being within a differentiated system (the human matrix), as the essence of its total presence. You can loosely associate, I think, the essence of Unity as the Divine Image, and the aspect of differentiated form as the Divine Likeness.

One can take this even further, and posit that if a human being, containing all the fundamental elements of creation can bring those elements into originally intended relationship through right choice, then an alchemical weaving results, and the human becomes a microcosmic fulfillment of macrocosmic nature, and can transfer the pattern to the macrocosm, thus becoming its redeemer.

A lot of deep food for thought here, but since you asked, I figured I would give this explanation a shot.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Well, it's an abstract presentation in any language, and trying to get into something like this in a page doesn't begin to clarify it. So if you have questions, I'd be happy to elaborate. It helps me think about it as well.
 
Top Bottom