Beauty in darkness

[Jyotir]

Hi ketzer,

Originally Posted by ketzer

Yet, when one is stuffed full, eating becomes unpleasant.

So too with the excessive, errant, and irrelevant use of metaphor!

Originally Posted by ketzer

If there is no hunger, there can be no satisfaction of it.

Yes!
This is a good reiteration of the main point. The necessity and satisfaction are related in that the possibility of the satisfaction is implied by the necessity. But beyond that, there is an important or even essential qualification…

Originally Posted by ketzer

Light is inherent in darkness, just as darkness is inherent in light. Both are expressions of the same thing. Perhaps all experiential realities are conditional on separation of dualities. Without the separation of dualities and the fluctuation of imbalance from one to the other, the universe and life would stop.

…But consciousness wouldn’t ‘stop’.
This is where the apparent duality of materialism fails as a philosophy because it is partial, incomplete, false, and illusory.

The dual relativity of light and dark are features of a conditional reality in the physical, but consciousness transcends both. And that consciousness is Truth as symbolised by Light. It is easy to forget or not see the circle which contains both yin and yang when looking at the seductive symmetricality of those components exclusively as relative to each other. Meanwhile…

Darkness has no original inherence.
Darkness is a condition imposed by the Transcendental Will, which subsumes the Cosmic physical reality.

There is only light, infinite light - except in the appearance of the Cosmic physical. All experiential realities are not “conditional on separation of dualities”, but rather on the unconditional Truth, Will, and Light infinite of the Transcendental, which created that apparent duality as a condition which is simply a superficial appearance that veils the greater One Truth of ITSELF. The “separation of dualities and the fluctuation of imbalance from one to the other” is a false or incomplete picture as that represents an illusion as described by materialism and or dualism.

Originally Posted by ketzer

What do you mean by the "false completeness" of darkness?

"Although light is inherent in darkness, it is not expressing."
The purpose of the Cosmic reality is for the ultimate fulfillment of the Transcendental Will, which means that Light has to express, emerge, evolve - because by nature it is infinite and eternal. If in the physical, light simply remains a potential veiled within darkness that is an immutable feature, obviously the Transcendental Will is not being fulfilled, even if the Cosmic Will supports that appearance.

It is an illusion for instance (and an unfortunate by-product of materialism and duality) that pain and suffering are necessary to grow into light and truth and delight. They are not. Light and truth are not dependent on darkness, even if they emerge from it. That is the false completeness; the prevalence of darkness is a false appearance. The real completeness and true essential dependence is on the Transcendental.

In the conditional case, which is the Cosmic reality, the darkness is simply instrumental - a conditional instrument for the emergence of the essential light. Light is not dependent on darkness.

Originally Posted by ketzer

I suppose so in total darkness, but one never finds such a thing in expression (nor in concept when it comes down to it).

Correct, for the reasons expressed previously.

Originally Posted by ketzer

Yet, even the dimmest of lights, that cannot be seen in the bright of day, becomes a beacon in the darkness.

Those “dim lights” are not “beacons” in your inapt metaphor because of their distance and the more important implication of their multiplicity.

Originally Posted by ketzer

It is light that renders itself indistinguishable, darkness just makes it more apparent.

That they are “indistinguishable” is (again, per relevance) due not to darkness but to their distance and multiplicity. The real beacon is our own externally eminent, imminently urgent, and internally immanent Sun - truly a beacon - which not accidentally is not only a superficial contrast from darkness, but significantly doesn’t at all need, and in no way is dependent on the darkness to shine. Its light is transcendent and independent of the darkness which if anything, that darkness is due to the constant turning away from (and toward) the light by the conditionally ignorant Earth.

Originally Posted by ketzer

Light relies upon darkness for its very existence.

Not true, although you may continue to assert by facile rationalizations and metaphors.

Originally Posted by ketzer

The idea that there can be one without the other is perhaps a definition of "false completeness."

Only in the mind, which by nature may cleverly and incessantly argue such ideation, even proving the “truth” of its own falsehoods.



~ J

[running]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Hi ketzer,


So too with the excessive, errant, and irrelevant use of metaphor!


Yes!
This is a good reiteration of the main point. The necessity and satisfaction are related in that the possibility of the satisfaction is implied by the necessity. But beyond that, there is an important or even essential qualification…

…But consciousness wouldn’t ‘stop’.
This is where the apparent duality of materialism fails as a philosophy because it is partial, incomplete, false, and illusory.

The dual relativity of light and dark are features of a conditional reality in the physical, but consciousness transcends both. And that consciousness is Truth as symbolised by Light. It is easy to forget or not see the circle which contains both yin and yang when looking at the seductive symmetricality of those components exclusively as relative to each other. Meanwhile…

Darkness has no original inherence.
Darkness is a condition imposed by the Transcendental Will, which subsumes the Cosmic physical reality.

There is only light, infinite light - except in the appearance of the Cosmic physical. All experiential realities are not “conditional on separation of dualities”, but rather on the unconditional Truth, Will, and Light infinite of the Transcendental, which created that apparent duality as a condition which is simply a superficial appearance that veils the greater One Truth of ITSELF. The “separation of dualities and the fluctuation of imbalance from one to the other” is a false or incomplete picture as that represents an illusion as described by materialism and or dualism.


"Although light is inherent in darkness, it is not expressing."
The purpose of the Cosmic reality is for the ultimate fulfillment of the Transcendental Will, which means that Light has to express, emerge, evolve - because by nature it is infinite and eternal. If in the physical, light simply remains a potential veiled within darkness that is an immutable feature, obviously the Transcendental Will is not being fulfilled, even if the Cosmic Will supports that appearance.

It is an illusion for instance (and an unfortunate by-product of materialism and duality) that pain and suffering are necessary to grow into light and truth and delight. They are not. Light and truth are not dependent on darkness, even if they emerge from it. That is the false completeness; the prevalence of darkness is a false appearance. The real completeness and true essential dependence is on the Transcendental.

In the conditional case, which is the Cosmic reality, the darkness is simply instrumental - a conditional instrument for the emergence of the essential light. Light is not dependent on darkness.

Correct, for the reasons expressed previously.

Those “dim lights” are not “beacons” in your inapt metaphor because of their distance and the more important implication of their multiplicity.

That they are “indistinguishable” is (again, per relevance) due not to darkness but to their distance and multiplicity. The real beacon is our own externally eminent, imminently urgent, and internally immanent Sun - truly a beacon - which not accidentally is not only a superficial contrast from darkness, but significantly doesn’t at all need, and in no way is dependent on the darkness to shine. Its light is transcendent and independent of the darkness which if anything, that darkness is due to the constant turning away from (and toward) the light by the conditionally ignorant Earth.

Not true, although you may continue to assert by facile rationalizations and metaphors.

Only in the mind, which by nature may cleverly and incessantly argue such ideation, even proving the “truth” of its own falsehoods.



~ J

i think to make any sense of this debate its good to look beyond the third eye. beyond the third eye is simply bliss and silence. irrespective of whatever ideas may float and lights or no lights seen. which is why everything dissolves into it.

Originally Posted by running

i think to make any sense of this debate its good to look beyond the third eye. beyond the third eye is simply bliss and silence. irrespective of whatever ideas may float and lights or no lights seen. which is why everything dissolves into it.

I think perhaps you are right. My third eye seems to be getting rather red and blurry all of a sudden. A bit of simple bliss and silence is starting to sound pretty good right about now.

........

And after thinking about it some more, I think there is more wisdom in that suggestion then I first realized. It is surprising (though perhaps in should not be) how fast the beauty, whether in darkness or not, fades into the background once the intellect comes to the front and tries to explain how the beauty comes about. Sometimes words, no matter how grandiose they may be, serve only to take us away from understanding, the more we use them, the further away we get. Somethings, sometimes.

Originally Posted by django

I found going into the deepest dark was the way through to the light, and now there is balance between light and dark within myself, both are required and have their purpose and work together to heighten my consciousness.

Well put.



And some more extraneous characters here because the system won't allow such a short post.

[django]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

Hi ketzer,


So too with the excessive, errant, and irrelevant use of metaphor!


Yes!
This is a good reiteration of the main point. The necessity and satisfaction are related in that the possibility of the satisfaction is implied by the necessity. But beyond that, there is an important or even essential qualification…

…But consciousness wouldn’t ‘stop’.
This is where the apparent duality of materialism fails as a philosophy because it is partial, incomplete, false, and illusory.

The dual relativity of light and dark are features of a conditional reality in the physical, but consciousness transcends both. And that consciousness is Truth as symbolised by Light. It is easy to forget or not see the circle which contains both yin and yang when looking at the seductive symmetricality of those components exclusively as relative to each other. Meanwhile…

Darkness has no original inherence.
Darkness is a condition imposed by the Transcendental Will, which subsumes the Cosmic physical reality.

There is only light, infinite light - except in the appearance of the Cosmic physical. All experiential realities are not “conditional on separation of dualities”, but rather on the unconditional Truth, Will, and Light infinite of the Transcendental, which created that apparent duality as a condition which is simply a superficial appearance that veils the greater One Truth of ITSELF. The “separation of dualities and the fluctuation of imbalance from one to the other” is a false or incomplete picture as that represents an illusion as described by materialism and or dualism.


"Although light is inherent in darkness, it is not expressing."
The purpose of the Cosmic reality is for the ultimate fulfillment of the Transcendental Will, which means that Light has to express, emerge, evolve - because by nature it is infinite and eternal. If in the physical, light simply remains a potential veiled within darkness that is an immutable feature, obviously the Transcendental Will is not being fulfilled, even if the Cosmic Will supports that appearance.

It is an illusion for instance (and an unfortunate by-product of materialism and duality) that pain and suffering are necessary to grow into light and truth and delight. They are not. Light and truth are not dependent on darkness, even if they emerge from it. That is the false completeness; the prevalence of darkness is a false appearance. The real completeness and true essential dependence is on the Transcendental.

In the conditional case, which is the Cosmic reality, the darkness is simply instrumental - a conditional instrument for the emergence of the essential light. Light is not dependent on darkness.

Correct, for the reasons expressed previously.

Those “dim lights” are not “beacons” in your inapt metaphor because of their distance and the more important implication of their multiplicity.

That they are “indistinguishable” is (again, per relevance) due not to darkness but to their distance and multiplicity. The real beacon is our own externally eminent, imminently urgent, and internally immanent Sun - truly a beacon - which not accidentally is not only a superficial contrast from darkness, but significantly doesn’t at all need, and in no way is dependent on the darkness to shine. Its light is transcendent and independent of the darkness which if anything, that darkness is due to the constant turning away from (and toward) the light by the conditionally ignorant Earth.

Not true, although you may continue to assert by facile rationalizations and metaphors.

Only in the mind, which by nature may cleverly and incessantly argue such ideation, even proving the “truth” of its own falsehoods.



~ J

"The dual relativity of light and dark are features of a conditional reality in the physical"

I disagree, the dual relativity of light and dark are features of a non-conditional reality in the physical. The conditioned light and dark are a mess and non-functional as an energy system, but when they return to the non-conditioned state they are constant and interactive and support our highest consciousness.

Oneness is beyond dark and light, but it is informed by and supported by the dark and the light operating seamlessly together.

[Jyotir]

@ running: OP topic is “beauty in darkness”; never mentioned 3rd eye

@ ketzer: I get it. But 5 minutes? That’s the best you could do?

@ django:

the dual relativity of light and dark are features of a non-conditional reality in the physical. The conditioned light and dark are a mess and non-functional as an energy system, but when they return to the non-conditioned state they are constant and interactive and support our highest consciousness.

Oneness is beyond dark and light, but it is informed by and supported by the dark and the light operating seamlessly together.

Relative to my pov, that statement seems to indicate some fundamental confusion. But obviously that's ok if it works for you.


~ J

[django]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

@ running: OP topic is “beauty in darkness”; never mentioned 3rd eye

@ ketzer: I get it. But 5 minutes? That’s the best you could do?

@ django:
Relative to my pov, that statement seems to indicate some fundamental confusion. But obviously that's ok if it works for you.


~ J

It is different to your pov, but not ipso facto confused

[Jyotir]

like I said, "...that's ok if it works for you."
...ipso facto

Originally Posted by Jyotir

@ running: OP topic is “beauty in darkness”; never mentioned 3rd eye

@ ketzer: I get it. But 5 minutes? That’s the best you could do?

@ django:
Relative to my pov, that statement seems to indicate some fundamental confusion. But obviously that's ok if it works for you.


~ J

Perhaps you are assuming a temporal sequentiality that did manifest as perception would imply. It can be like that on these forums.

Yes, the OP topic did not mention the 3rd eye, that was perhaps serendipity or maybe just a subconscious freudian omission, rather than something deliberate on my part. But of course people will look at things with whatever eye(s) they do, and I suppose they will see what they see, yet all points of view are useful in one way or another.

I know how much you enjoy my metaphors so I will give you one more.

Even a compass that always points south can still be useful for navigation. As long as we know this, it does not lead to confusion. Ipso facto, north is the other way.

[running]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

@ running: OP topic is “beauty in darkness”; never mentioned 3rd eye

@ ketzer: I get it. But 5 minutes? That’s the best you could do?

@ django:
Relative to my pov, that statement seems to indicate some fundamental confusion. But obviously that's ok if it works for you.


~ J

you were speaking from the level of the mind. i was attempting to bring your attention to whats beyond the mind. to be fair with the debate one should consider.