Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Nested Dolls, etc.

Expand Messages
  • hey_market
    The part or divine spark existing within a whole is confounding, especially when we become conscious of its flickering, because it does seem that it ought to
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 14 11:44 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      The part or divine spark existing within a whole is confounding,
      especially when we become conscious of its flickering, because it
      does seem that it ought to be a conflaguration.

      And in truth, it is, though we simply don't see it. However, we may
      come to see more of it over time, but it will occur in time precisely
      because we are time-bound. We are bound in many other ways as well,
      which is why the spark remains something of votive candle while we're
      housed in our bodily temple.

      True, there are those numinous moments when we bathe in the ultimate
      light, but then we go back to the worldly interplay of light and
      dark. Of course, we shouldn't go back exactly the same as we were--
      although we can fall from the light, one might say--the pallete
      should become ever brighter in the chiascuro canvas of reality as an
      emerging inner light of wisdom sheds a greater light of understanding
      upon a less shadowy world.

      Adn yet, again, the parodoxical thing is that the fullness, an
      unlimited canvas, was there all along. And this fullness is not
      limited by time, which is main obstacle to coping with the parodox.

      Here's one perspective to cope with it, which pretty much echoes what
      I was trying to say earlier, though with some difficulty. It's really
      nothing more or less than the idea of a duality of consciousness:

      An individual possesses a flawed temporally-bound consciousness which
      exists here and now in the present and which seeks to correct itself,
      and since it is flawed here and NOW, this implies that the correction
      must take place in the future.

      And yet, juxtaposed against this temporally-bound consciousness is a
      deeper, divine consciousness, which does not merely exist within the
      present within that same individual (although being temporally-bound
      as well, he or she does not realize it yet), but it is atemporal,
      which is to say, beyond time.

      Thus, concepts of past, present and future eventually vanish. Once
      the correction has been made by the individual and the fullness of
      consciousness has been realized, the temporally-bound self is exposed
      as being a part of the whole and the parodox is resolved.

      In other words, on this side of the box, it's a parodox box, while on
      the other side, it is undivided and continuous reality.


      --- In gnosticism2@y..., "Gerry" <gerryhsp@y...> wrote:
      > Reply to Hey_Market's message #5770:
      >
      > I think it will remain a near impossible task to find a single
      means of explaining all this such that all people will find it
      readily digestible. While Wilbro may use "present" to designate that
      transcended state, apart from the bounds of past and future, it may,
      to others, still represent one's location in the temporal moment.
      Your own use of "continuous" to depict the eternal could yet make
      more sense to someone else as coinciding with evolving, linear time.
      We can do our best to capture and relate our experiences to one
      another, "but," as Gloria Estefan says, "the words get in the way."
      >
      > >>The best we might say is perhaps that it is nothingness (as the
      Buddhists do, though this is meant only relative to worldly
      somethingness) or fullness (as Gnostics do) and as such, in either
      case it knows no discontinuitities.<<
      >
      > Exactly! I suppose I should delight in the fact that we can view
      such questions from multiple perspectives. While I seldom have
      difficulty changing viewpoints in that way (and yes, my difficulty
      often lies in maintaining focus on ONE point!), I've garnered
      throughout the recent discussion some interesting, new ways of
      looking at this phenomenon of self-realization—or -dissolution.
      >
      > >> That said, one might ask, and perhaps you're wondering, what
      happens when the fullness emanates into the world of limit and
      becomes, so to speak, a nested doll? Well, Gnostics would hold that
      continuously residing within and beyond such a nested-doll-emanation
      is the spark of divinity, which is to say, fullness.<<
      >
      > I have to admit, H_M, that last part did throw me for a brief
      second—certainly not because I hadn't encountered mention of
      the "spark" before, but simply because I allowed myself a moment to
      actually ponder that paradox.
      >
      > After proceeding to explain that "the fullness never became less
      than fullness," you further added, "This seems paradoxical, because
      it implies that whole resides within the part."
      >
      > Yes, that very "part" gave me pause. It does seem odd to refer to
      a part of a whole when it never actually became separated from that
      whole in the first place. Surely, one can offer the example of the
      hand or the foot, but while indeed part of a larger body, they remain
      different from one another. As the Divine should not appear divided
      by such dissimilarity as hand from foot, or left from right, or mine
      from yours, I suddenly found it odd that we refer to it as a "spark"
      at all. It seems to diminish Its infinite wholeness when we
      compartmentalize it into our temporal sensibilities.
      >
      > Just as we access and interpret the world around us by filtering it
      through our physical senses, it seems only natural (or supernatural?)
      that we would "access" the non-temporal in similar fashion, or at
      least, descriptively so. For instance, when looking inwardly with
      our higher vision, why expect to find only some "spark" of Divine
      Light, some mere wisp of a greater fire?—for even when we gaze out
      through the limitations of our physical eyes, we recognize that we
      can only glimpse a meager portion of the physical universe at a time.
      >
      > With that in mind, when approaching the world of the non-worldly,
      we need not bother with individual sparks awaiting kindling into
      greater conflagrations. One can imagine the indwelling spark as
      simply a tiny glimpse of the Infinite as perceived by each of us
      through a small tear in the fabric of our own temporal selves—just
      enough of a glimmer to shine the path for our journey home, once we
      finish ripping the hell out of that darned veil and, in unison, truly
      see the Light—in toto.
      >
      > So, regardless of the method that gets us there, if in the course
      of your journey you should look through and see someone crazily
      waving back—don't worry—it's probably just me—or more to the point,
      it's just WE—and we swear, we haven't touched a drop all day!
      >
      > Gerry
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.