Escaping from the Tree of Life?

foolMoon

The reason I mentioned the not answer certain questions thing is because you seemed to respond to more than one person with criticisms about a system you yourself said you had little knowledge of and that you were happy to listen to another (on youtube ) who appears to have little knowledge of it as well, people bought up questions related to that , you didnt answer but changed tack and then flung more criticism and said again you didnt understand the subject.

Just pointing out that it if you dont follow the conversation and Q and A systematically and logically, you may not get the knowledge you wanted ... and some people will stop communicating with you.

Which I had better here now, as this is going too OT.


You seem to make song and dance about petty things, and try to turn them into some sort of main negative topic in the thread. Please read your own postings, where you keep asking without even knowing the flow of the thread, why I had to post when I am not interested. Even in here, you are making out, and trying to turn it into some sort of huge negative issues on my comment on little understanding on the topics and trying to debate about it.

Also pointing out why I am not replying to some points ... etc, when there might be 1001 reasons on why, however, I don't think anyone would be interested in these points in the threads.
 

foolMoon

But the very use of the term "spiritual world" implies a spiritual/material dualistic mindset. With a monistic world view, it is not necessary to effect a consciousness change in order to shift from the "earthy mundane" to the spiritual, since everything is spiritual.


But this is only because the average "Joe Sixpack" has been brainwashed (directly or indirectly) by that same church mentality into dualistic thinking.

Yes, I agree with you.The spiritual / material world are all conceptual views anyways. Without mind, there would be no world, be it spiritual or material.

Quite naturally, to a person who is only interested in mundane material world, the spiritual world would not be visible - to him that material world would be the only world available, so his awareness will have to turn into somehow spiritual in order to see the spiritual world. But it does not automatically presuppose that all material world is also spiritual world without the process of the transformation of the consciousness.
 

Richard

Yes, I agree with you.The spiritual / material world are all conceptual views anyways. Without mind, there would be no world, be it spiritual or material.

Quite naturally, to a person who is only interested in mundane material world, the spiritual world would not be visible - to him that material world would be the only world available, so his awareness will have to turn into somehow spiritual in order to see the spiritual world. But it does not automatically presuppose that all material world is also spiritual world without the process of the transformation of the consciousness.
Thanks for the clarification. I think we are in substantial agreement. Perhaps you are leaning more toward Berkeleyan idealism than I.
 

ravenest

It still sounds like dualism. I can easily say the non dualist spiritual person, seeing this world as a spiritual place and 'reality' as spiritual reality and a continuation of a spiritual creative process, with no 'fall' or 'sin' involved will not see your material world, to see it he has to do the same acrobatics described above.

He assumes the world is spiritual in the first place ... just as you have assumed it is material. And his awareness would have to ' turn into somehow' - material .

I realise it is a hard thing to comprehend if one has never experienced it.

And why does the 'process of transformation of consciousness' need to occur, to see it, if he is already in that consciousness ?

He needs to change his consciousness and to split it in two and see what is claimed by others as the 'natural state' of this material / spiritual dual reality
 

ravenest

I better add these are not just my mental postulations ... as well as others mental postulations and writings on the subject I find intersteing ... also I know shamanic indigenous elders here who think like this .... but they have the influence and mind set and teaching of an extremely old culture.

The landscape is a spiritual creation - heaven, if you like. Environment is the equivalent to some type of heavenly garden, by being born , they have come into paradise . This world is not real and solid, the way we think it is, it is plastic and changeable, ' physical laws' can bend and blend, we are still, in a way, in the dreamtime. When we die, we dont go anywhere else, we stay here and become embodied in 'country' we never leave, we die and become part of it. There is no heaven to go to .... this is it.
 

Zephyros

I think this duality is also expressed in terms of method. One could call the Tree of Life the "science" part, in essence, the rules and definitions which make up the model through which we observe. That, in turn, is processed and and interpreted by the reader and translated into something useful. In a sense I find difficult to grasp the concept of "using" the Tree vs. not using it, as it is always there. I may not express myself using kabbalistic nomenclature, but I do use it for both "does he like me" readings as well as the spiritual kind. What is the Tree of Life but a method, a machine, a simple way of ordering ideas and analyzing causal chains? This works even for looking at whether Mrs. X will win the lottery.

In a way, it is like saying you don't use science when frying an egg. You may not know the science behind the solidification of the egg's proteins, but the biological and physical qualities that cause the egg to behave in such a fashion are present whether one uses it or not. However, the science is limited in the sense that you still have to translate lists of amino acids into the idea of "egg" and then do something with it. Even if you deny the science, or challenge it, unless you do something special to the egg it will always follow the rules of what it is made of, and will harden in heat. Just as a chemical description of the egg's chemical processes isn't a recipe, a Tarot reader using the Tree of Life must know how to make it work, to know how to make the cogs in the Tree turn.

Someone who spouts off nonsense about Sephiroth and paths to a person asking about their love life simply isn't good, and I think therein lies the fault of assuming the Tree is not applicable to day to day life.
 

foolMoon

Dualism on the spiritual and material world makes clear division between the two, as if you leave the mundane material world, open the door, and walk into spiritual world believed by most religions.

Idealism is saying that nothing exists but only minds. Materialism would say, nothing exists but only material things, and minds are just functions of complex material entities. When body dies, mind will disappear and stop functioning.

But spiritual world does not have to be separated world or entity from mundane world. It could been hidden way in the darkness or above, below or behind the mundane world.

Could it not be seen as expansionism of the different worlds, which reveals itself to the person, when someone starts to see, feel, think and believe in certain metaphysical worlds by transformation of the mind through study, learning, reading or experience ...etc?

The concept of world is, after all, a view of consciousness, not something which exists out there alone without the minds thinking, seeing and believing about it.

In case of the Tree of life too, are all the Sephiroth, Abyss and the deity readily visible to normal people? Are they not supposed to be hidden as sacred metaphysical knowledge, which is only knowable by adepts who learned, practiced and enlightened?

I am certain that if I asked my brother-in-law about TOL, who have never heard about it in his entire life, would say "Tree of Life? Which garden centre would have it?"
 

Richard

.....In case of the Tree of life too, are all the Sephiroth, Abyss and the deity readily visible to normal people? Are they not supposed to be hidden as sacred metaphysical knowledge, which is only knowable by adepts who learned, practiced and enlightened?.....

The use of the Tree in Tarot reading may be superficial compared to its significance in the Rosicrucian grades.

For example, consider the Hermit. Its position on the ToL is path 20 joining Sephirot 4 and 6. Thus it not only has the letter Yod and zodiac sign Virgo, but it is associated with Chesed (Mercy), Jupiter, the pips of denomination 4, and Tiphareth (Beauty), the Sun, the pips of denomination 6, and the Princes. There is even more that can be considered. For example, path 20 is adjacent to paths 15 (Emperor or Star) and path 24 (Death), and it is opposite path 22 (Justice). Moreover, the Hermit is associated with Sephirah 9, and thus it inherits the foundational characteristics of Yesod. Anyhow, there is a huge amount of information related to the Hermit which is provided by the ToL, and this can enrich its divinatory significance in a spread and suggest all sorts of associations which might not be seen otherwise, without necessarily involving an excursion into the deeper esoteric aspects of the Tree.
 

ravenest

The concept of world is, after all, a view of consciousness, not something which exists out there alone without the minds thinking, seeing and believing about it.

I am starting to think part of the communication issue is also use of English ?

If I read your above rightly ; that is A concept of the world ... not THE concept. The hermetic concept includes 'Anima Mundi' and the 'soul of the world' how 'separate' from that 'our soul' is , is also subject to conjecture.

In case of the Tree of life too, are all the Sephiroth, Abyss and the deity readily visible to normal people? Are they not supposed to be hidden as sacred metaphysical knowledge, which is only knowable by adepts who learned, practiced and enlightened?

I am certain that if I asked my brother-in-law about TOL, who have never heard about it in his entire life, would say "Tree of Life? Which garden centre would have it?"


It must be the language , because that statement doesnt seem to make any sense ?

If I try to relate it to the conversation going on here, I have to come up with;

I ask one of these Aboriginal people I mentioned above the same question, I might get the same answer. Or they might say " That tree used to grow down south near the coast, we know that story . " and then tell it to you (because we do have that story here ) .

First it would seem a 'typical' simple mythological story, as it went on one might see (if they understood such things) hidden wisdom and analogy that relates to the ToL principles ... some of them. It would be a very mostly a very different comparison but in some cases of other stories and comparisons with western esoterica ( like astrology) I have found startling and interesting comparative 'coincidences' ( considering there is no evidence of contact with western astrology of any type when they developed these stories) .

Each type or level of human consciousness we operate from has a 'location' within our human organism, the highest level is said to be 'non local' ... here 'mind' or consciousness isnt divided, separated , 'owned ' or 'distracted from its singularity - by either human or anima mundi 'distractions' of 'separateness'.
 

foolMoon

I am starting to think part of the communication issue is also use of English ?

If I read your above rightly ; that is A concept of the world ... not THE concept. The hermetic concept includes 'Anima Mundi' and the 'soul of the world' how 'separate' from that 'our soul' is , is also subject to conjecture.


'The concept' of the world - concepts of world we were talking about, not a concept. The issue has been more to do with your inappropriate ideas and applications of philosophical terms rather than 'A' or 'The' issue. I admit English is not my strong subject, but I don't believe that is the issue.

Anyway, isn't the Anima mundi totally different entity from the world we have been talking about? We are talking about the views rather than connection.

It must be the language , because that statement doesnt seem to make any sense ?

If I try to relate it to the conversation going on here, I have to come up with;

I ask one of these Aboriginal people I mentioned above the same question, I might get the same answer. Or they might say " That tree used to grow down south near the coast, we know that story . " and then tell it to you (because we do have that story here ) .

I do not see what does not make sense, and what it has to do with language. If anything, I find your posting unclear - I am not sure actually if its your language, style of writing or ideas. I understand other people's postings clear, but not yours.



First it would seem a 'typical' simple mythological story, as it went on one might see (if they understood such things) hidden wisdom and analogy that relates to the ToL principles ... some of them. It would be a very mostly a very different comparison but in some cases of other stories and comparisons with western esoterica ( like astrology) I have found startling and interesting comparative 'coincidences' ( considering there is no evidence of contact with western astrology of any type when they developed these stories) .

Is it not the case of seeing a few 'coincidences', and then generalising?

Each type or level of human consciousness we operate from has a 'location' within our human organism, the highest level is said to be 'non local' ... here 'mind' or consciousness isnt divided, separated , 'owned ' or 'distracted from its singularity - by either human or anima mundi 'distractions' of 'separateness'.

Is it a proven theory, facts or your guess? What is source of this claim?