"All" Or "Nothing" Presented By KJFX
I've been doing a lot of thinking on these concepts of the "All" and the ideas of "naming & un-naming". I mean I feel a lot of us have been
searching and seeking these concepts for many years, but it seems that many of us are moving more quickly into these ideals here of late (from last few years to the last few weeks). It seems to happen much more
easily when an individual releases them self from the grip of trying to find "the answer" to all of this and just allow themselves to have understanding from within guide them to even better awareness, with out
having to find the actual "one answer" that fits all situations. An example would be that many feel you have to choose to believe there is "a God(s)" as in higher power over you and all things, or you have to
choose there is not. For many, saying that there may be a form of this in a way that we don't yet understand fully, and no one else's concept of such quite fits it, in totality, or may be flat out wrong, is usually not considered an answer. It is considered a state or point from where you "have to find the answer". Here is where I disagree, to me the later
is the "answer de facto" through continued understanding, and any conclusion that effects an end to growth of understanding may only serve to be a wall that we throw up within our self. Seriously limiting further growth. Now to me this is where an important part of un-naming & un-labelling comes into play with my own concepts of "understanding over
answering".
Let's keep with the example I started above using the example of God(s),
because this is where most peoples' thoughts of "All" stem from, mine
included at the moment. Even if it is someone's belief in the absence of
God(s) that causes them to describe the "All" of their environment
around them. So here, for this little exercise I would like anyone
wishing to participate in it, drop all "labelling & naming" of any such
diety or concepts of such. Be them beliefs of existing or not. Not an
easy task... it's like telling you to go into a dark closet and think
about anything but "purple unicorns." More than likely you are going to
sit there and tell your self "...don't think about purple unicorns,
don't think about purple unicorns..." thus you are still thinking about
them. In the same way you may be sitting there now saying "...un-name
God, un-name God..." hence naming it. As well, once you learn 2+2=4, it
is much harder to un-learn it. So the best way I can think of helping to
solve this problem is by using an analogy.
Think of white light, in it's purest form it is actually clear, it is
only "knowable" by our perception when it is reflected upon and off of
something. If light was shown in total emptiness, then you would not see
the light and you would not see the emptiness. The "Void" would cancel
the light out. Look at it this way, 1+0=1, and having one of something
added to nothing, would cancel itself out because there is no balance to
it. So enter in "dark matter". Dark matter is sort of the "opposite" of
light. Dark matter is the stuff that sort of comprises the universe and
we can't actually see it, only it's effect on things. But due to photons
(the particles that are light) and dark matter, giving substance to what
is considered the "void of space" it helps to create this existence as
we know it. A true knowable "light & dark" balance. So you can view this
as (-1)+(1)=0 Here you can begin to see that paradox & balance must
occur if anything is to have substance within this reality.
Now for the second part of this analogy I want to concentrate just on
the "light" aspect of this concept. White light, or pure clear light, is
what gives us the ability to see all things as we do. Light reflects off
of objects so we see color and or form. We see the colors only because
the light that strikes these objects contain all color. It is the "All"
of the light that allows us to formulate perspectives of that which
exist around us. Let that soak in for a second... OK, with light we have
the unique ability to take a prism and cause it to split into all of
it's spectrum of color that makes it as a whole. The primaries of red,
yellow, & blue, and all conceivable combinations of such, as well as the
invisible spectrum outside our ability to see such as infra-red, x-ray,
etc...
So take this and apply it to the world around you. Where does the
un-naming or un-labelling come into play? In the second half of the
analogy we can view the "white light" as a perception of this state. The
white light as a whole is in an essence, "nothing", neither white nor
clear is a color. It is the nothing, however, that comprises the whole
of it, all colors. We can now know nothing, and become enlightened by
the understanding of it. This applies in the same way to our concepts of
God(s). After we understand that light is un-namable as color and is in
pure essence, nothing, we can now view colors in a new "light" (bad
pun). We know light is responsible for our perceptions of colors, and is
in essence nothing, but this does not stop us from viewing them and
choosing favorites for certain things, or using forms of it, such as
x-rays, in the world around us. If we were to stop at the point of
realisation that we only see color cause it is from "nothing", hence
color has no bearing, then we would no longer continue to grow. So how
do we now move past this with it's enlightenment in tact. One word,
"CHOICE."� We now make the choice to wear all green, because that is
simply our choice and has no bearing on the fact that it is only part of
the "ALL" of light. It is only the best way to personally express my
self with in this all of light. The same would go for picking a red car
or saying purple is my favorite color. These are mere expressions of the
all of color, or light, and are my choice with in it. Here choice still
being the keyword. Because now that you understand "everything" adds up
to "nothing", you become the master over your decisions of choice and
they do not control you. The colors you choose are not an "end all"
because regardless they all add up to the same thing. But here is where
you move beyond the concepts of "un-naming" and move back into the realm
of "re-defining", still enlightened by the fact that they all add up to
the same thing. Bring this back into the concepts of God(s), you can see
that we have the ability to choose in what way the belief in them or
absence of them, still make up the whole of the reality of it. Or in the
aspect of the reality of the "All". But keeping in mind that ultimately
we have the power over how we choose to express this, and all others
have the same right to expression, because they only add to the "All" of
it. With in that, when we have a better understanding of everyone's'
views of this, we only come to a better understanding of the all that
comprises this belief. We don't have to agree with each others
expression, it just helps to have understanding and learn from this
understanding. Thus we learn something about ourselves as we are part of
the "All". This applies across the board as we learn to un-name then
re-define as both master and student over all concepts.
Here though, this is still not an "answer" to everything, it is still a
mere understanding. I understand that it takes all things conceivable
and not yet perceivable, to comprise only that which I have learned and
believe to know thus far. In this understanding, I have learned that a
key element to further growth and understanding is that all things have
an opposite attribute that allows the other to come into existence, one
could not exist with out the other. Thus all things add up to zero,
nothing. But from there I can allow my self to choose those things in my
best interest to describe myself as I so choose as master over them.
Keeping in mind that all others choose as well, and this adds to the
ultimate idea of infinite zero, which is infinite change and creation.
Here we as individuals also work as part of the whole, through the
concepts of "will & intent" as well as part of the ordering effect of
affinity, from the chaos of non-affinity. Our strongest expression of
this affinity we share with the "All" of things, is that of "Love", to
exact order from chaos.
From this we all can move forward in growth knowing we are only parts of
each other. Even if you think someone else's choice of expression for
their beliefs or God(s) is poor. It should not bear on your own. Even if
they have a severe misunderstanding within their own perceptions of
such, this should not bear on your own. If they ask for guidance and you
feel the want to assist through your own thinking, then so be it.
Knowing and expressing that it is only through a continued understanding
of your own beliefs, can you continue to grow with in the knowledge and
wisdom of it. However, I feel for the moment, the ultimate expression of
a singular God orn All concept would be nothing and everything at the
same time. Going back to the first part of the analogy of light and dark
maybe we can find the actual mathematical equation for "God" and/or the
"All" of existence, known and yet un-known. Dealing with that, infinity
to the negative and infinity to the positive would only forever continue
in our concepts of mathematics, only always cancelling each other out
and simultaneously "creating" everything. With in that concept it would
look something like this (...-a)+(...a)=0 thus God=0, both theist,
polytheist and atheist would be correct in saying either God is
everything or nothing at all...
Peace............KJ
|