lazarus

greetings everyone my name is lazarus, I´m from brazil and so far in the way I´ve been focusing on learning about alchemy, tarot and qabala. but for this first topic I thought it would be appropriate to talk about an experience I had when meditating on the 47th chapter of the Tao. the first time I read it, for some reason I started to think about the distance between one point and another and how endlessly it would be possible to divide the units of measure of this particular space. from that reasoning I drew two premises: either I could never get from point a to b; or there would be no actual distance between them - I´d be already there and where I was at same time, ergo, everywere. for obvious reasons (I believe) I readilly dissmissed the former, so my conclusion was that a big 'static' would be the answer of all. then, 'I am that I am' flashed in my mind...how does it sound to you guys? cheers

I guess we only become aware of being 'the all'. a friend of mine took the ayahuasca tea and told me one of his experiences was that he saw and was at the same time a boundless lake of 'starry water', and even though knowing nothing whatsoever about Alchemy he described exactly what alchemists call the prima materia, which is perceived at the moment of enlightenment/at-onement. so I would say inside or outside simply cease to exist when this happens - there is just 'there is', you know? and I guess that´s when one becomes able to say 'I and the father are one' or 'before Abraham was, I AM'. about this what I´ve learned is that when the event happens the person gains full and unobstructed access to the memory of nature, the so called akashic records, where all the answers 'dwell' so to say. so it looks like you simply become able to know whatever you want, meaning you still have to ask, which sounds quite reasonable, once god´s plan for us seems to be we become 'like unto Him', not He Himself - Who knows all by definition. hope this makes sense. I´m more or less convinced this is almost it but beyond the Limitless Light, I believe its like Marblehead said, its out of our league to grasp.

I guess it all depends on the perspective. From the point of view of maya, I guess every ‘here’ you mentioned is perfectly acknowledgeable and this matters as long as we decide to keep living ‘here’. The thing is your question - as does the perspective from which Lao-Tze says what he says in the 47th chapter, the experience I had meditating on it or the paradox recalled by Michael - belongs to the world of causes rather than to the world of effects, and it always strikes me how so many philosophers or mathematicians through time have insisted in approaching this stuff from a materialistic point of view, trying to come up with solutions to those questions based upon the observable universe, time and space, you know? I mean, from the maya perspective, it is granted we can get from a to b. from the Tao perspective, looks like we ARE a, b and everything/everywhere/everywhen (is that a word? 😊) in between, don´t you think?

gotta be everywhere/now. (fingers crossed )

haha indeed I´m not. but then it means I must always know where I am, and that can´t be right

Thank you for the warm welcome and responses, guys! I´ve been reading around and I´m really excited and impressed about the topics and the high level of discussions. What a great place you have here! cosmic consciousness, right? that´s quite interesting concept, Fa Xin, looks simple, but to be honest, I couldn´t get my mind around it yet. Unless it’s a joke, then I got it hi Marblehead, I believe what Lao-Tze writes in that chapter comes from a sense of being everywere all the time, the same feeling which enables Hermes (if I remember correctly ) to say ‘think of a place and you are there’. And ‘I am that I am’ sounds to me the best way to describe the experience other than through silence... Oh, that´s exactly it Michael! I knew I had been exposed to the concept before! Thank you for the reference! And even more interesting, scrolling down the article there is this: “A similar ancient Chinese philosophic consideration Ancient Han Chinese philosophers from the Mohist School of Names during the Warring States period of China (479-221 BCE) independently developed equivalents to some of Zeno's paradoxes. The scientist and historian Sir Joseph Needham, in his Science and Civilisation in China, describes an ancient Chinese paradox from the surviving Mohist School of Names book of logic which states, in the archaic ancient Chinese script, "a one-foot stick, every day take away half of it, in a myriad ages it will not be exhausted." Several other paradoxes from this philosophical school (more precisely, movement) are known, but their modern interpretation is more speculative.” I´ve seen your post about Alchemy, this is gonna be fun thanks everyone!