Hermeticism

[FoxTracks]

I enjoyed the Kybalion and the seven principles for the most part hold up for me. There are just two iffy points for me:

1.) in the principle of Mentalism, stating that everything exists in the mind of the All, should we truly say we exist in the MIND of the All? Could we consider that we live in the Heart or the Body of the all? Is consciousness truly a “Mental” property? For myself, I believe that everything has a spirit. All things, with or without a mind as we know it, are alive and have consciousness. A mind, to me, implies a brain, which is a physical construct. Would the all even have a mind, separate from our own, as we know it? Perhaps this is just semantics, but this stuck in my tooth like a popcorn kernel!

2.) The way the principle of gender is presented, although it is stated to be a seperate issue from physical sex, could perhaps be construed to be more male dominated? Which I do not believe the divine is (not necessarily saying that the divine is female dominated either, they are both simply parts.) I also wonder about how this principle would strike a race that is androgynous (am I using the right term?), or possessing both sexes in one organism, or which changes sex throughout the life cycle, both of which have occurred in nature on this planet.

As far as dual or non-dual goes, my gut instinct is to call hermeticism in the sense that we are discussing it here, based on the Kybalion, as non-dual, because it states that opposites are simply polarities of the same thing. However, I see the perspective that something truly non dual wouldn’t posit polarities.

Hermeticism is full of fun things to consider. I could go on about the principle of rhythm as it relates to polarity (are we moving from stillness to extremely rapid rhythm and back again?) but it is all just an exercise of the mind. The wisdom if the heart is what interests me more, but my heart says that things are not so simple as concepts like duality and non-duality. To me, we are both separate and one, in time and out of time, composed of nothingness and yet with substance — and this seems, at first glance, to jive with the idea of being “beyond” duality and non-duality. Does non-duality truly imply duality because it implies the existence of something dual? Hmmm.

I hope none of this was beyond the scope of the thread.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

What? I have Yogi R books. They are great! Who was this guy? An amazing man, obviously! Btw, New Thought is "my thing", changed my life!!!

Hi Miss H.

Yes, he was a very interesting character.



There is a good biography of him by Philip Deslippe in New Dawn magazine at

https://www.newdawnmagazine.com/arti...son-his-legacy

Philip Deslippe also produced what he calls the definitive edition of The Kybalion. From the blurb:

The Kybalion: The Definitive Edition presents the first full- scale analysis of this work of practical occult wisdom. It features the complete text of The Kybalion and the first-ever publication of Atkinson's previously unknown post-Kybalion work: The Seven Cosmic Laws.

In an engaging introduction to this unique volume, religious scholar Philip Deslippe surveys the work's context, history, and impact ..., and provides a biographical sketch of its elusive author, the New Thought pioneer William Walker Atkinson.

And yes, the New Age of today owes a great deal to these New Thought pioneers.

Peace

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by FoxTracks

2.) The way the principle of gender is presented, although it is stated to be a seperate issue from physical sex, could perhaps be construed to be more male dominated? Which I do not believe the divine is (not necessarily saying that the divine is female dominated either, they are both simply parts.) I also wonder about how this principle would strike a race that is androgynous (am I using the right term?), or possessing both sexes in one organism, or which changes sex throughout the life cycle, both of which have occurred in nature on this planet.

Perhaps we have to make allowances for the era in which such teachings were presented. The use of masculine terms was then much more acceptable when referring to human beings and the Divine.

Theosophy presents some interesting teachings on human history, the transition from ethereal human forms to dense physical forms, and the separation of human beings into two separate sexes:

Modern theosophical literature views human beings as innately sexless consciousness-centers which express themselves through material forms suited to their ever-growing awareness. Reproductive methods have altered very greatly as mankind has expressed itself through very different types of bodies under widely varying terrestrial conditions.

Early stages of human evolution on this globe in this planetary cycle form a progression over millions of years from ethereal nonsexual beings, to more material androgynous ones, to today's sexual mankind.

After all, the different forms of reproduction in nature are variations on one theme. All consist of an individual separating off a portion of itself which then evolves independently into a similar individual, whether through fission, budding, spores, seeds, or eggs hatched within or outside the body. Eggs may be self-fertilizing (containing both reproductive elements) or require fertilizing (containing only one element); in the latter case, the other element may be contributed by the same individual (hermaphroditism) or by a different individual (sexual reproduction).

Peace

[Goldcup7]

Originally Posted by FoxTracks

1.) in the principle of Mentalism, stating that everything exists in the mind of the All, should we truly say we exist in the MIND of the All? Could we consider that we live in the Heart or the Body of the all? ... For myself, I believe that everything has a spirit.

I see Spirit, Mind, and Consciousness as the same 'thing'. You could say it's the life force in which everything appears. I sometimes distinguish between mind and Mind, using a capital first letter, to distinguish between the seemingly separate human mind and the Whole Mind. But that's a conceptual distinction only, not a real one imo. It's a bit like saying a river is separate from the Great River (the ocean). There's no real divide or separation.

I wouldn't say that we have Spirit or Mind or Consciousness, but rather that we are Spirit/Mind/Consciousness.

[FoxTracks]

Originally Posted by Goldcup7

I see Spirit, Mind, and Consciousness as the same 'thing'. You could say it's the life force in which everything appears. I sometimes distinguish between mind and Mind, using a capital first letter, to distinguish between the seemingly separate human mind and the Whole Mind. But that's a conceptual distinction only, not a real one imo. It's a bit like saying a river is separate from the Great River (the ocean). There's no real divide or separation.

I wouldn't say that we have Spirit or Mind or Consciousness, but rather that we are Spirit/Mind/Consciousness.

I see. Still, mind doesn’t seem like the proper term to me. I would prefer consciousness. However, I certainly respect that you like the term mind!

I would agree that we ARE a spirit. However, I think to say that the body is simply an illusion is also inaccurate. To me, that is something like, from a physical perspective, saying that I am a brain and saying that your toes are not a part of you. As long as you are living this particular life, this body is a part of what makes up… you! And that’s fine, even if your truest identity is soul, or spirit, or the divine spark, or whatever you subscribe to. I said how I think we are separate yet one — to me, the whole point to this journey is that we DO have an individuality (our soul) which is developing through experiences. That does not mean that we are not also One, connected inextricably with, what surrounds us. Just my thoughts on the matter, though. I don’t really intend to start a deeper discussion on this here, goddess forbid an argument. But I have enjoyed this discussion and thank you all for creating this interesting thread!


If anyone does wish to discuss this further, we could start a new thread or do so by PM.

[Goldcup7]

Originally Posted by FoxTracks

I don’t really intend to start a deeper discussion on this here, goddess forbid an argument. But I have enjoyed this discussion and thank you all for creating this interesting thread! If anyone does wish to discuss this further, we could start a new thread or do so by PM.

We've had plenty of discussions about individuality on this Non-Duality forum.

[J_A_S_G]

Originally Posted by FoxTracks

If anyone does wish to discuss this further, we could start a new thread...

You should start a thread on consciousness.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

Mike, who is Huang-po? Thanks :)

Huang-po was a Chan Zen Buddhist monk

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by Starman

We can look at duality as competing opposites, we can say
there is no duality, we can embrace opposites as the same in
nature but different in degree, we can view it as polarity like
a magnet has different poles, but it is not dual, etc., etc.
There are many ways to look at it.

Yes, exactly.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by FoxTracks

There are just two iffy points for me:

1.)... A mind, to me, implies a brain, which is a physical construct. Would the all even have a mind, separate from our own, as we know it? Perhaps this is just semantics, but this stuck in my tooth like a popcorn kernel!

2.) The way the principle of gender is presented, this principle would strike a race that is androgynous (am I using the right term?), or possessing both sexes in one organism, or which changes sex throughout the life cycle, both of which have occurred in nature on this planet.

1.) I think understanding mind by relating mind to brain and this mindset is the issue. The same is true for thought. Perhaps mind has to do with or is intuition of the heart and/or spirit, thus the real issue could be that we not awake enough to perceive or experience it.

2.) Gender is beyond sex. Everything is both male and female. Gender has a polarity, and can be moved on the polarity scale by choice. Male and female are the same, yet different in degree.