The Empty Verses: As Above, So below.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

As above is below

What is bound on earth is bound in heaven, what is released on earth is released in heaven.

What is in the mind is in the heart.

If you love material possessions that cannot love you what have you gained? You bound yourself to material possessions in your mind, your heart has been set on the path of materialism by the mind.

When the mind above is set upon Brotherly Love, you have bound yourself to the Light. If you are bound to the Light in your mind you will also be bound to it in your heart.

When the mind is set on Love, As above is below.

a reply to: MKMoniker

When learning about religions, looking for what is underneath the surface of those religions is important. Just because you don't know what other religions teach doesn't mean that certain things are not taught.

For instance, in one religion they teach, once you are deep enough into its teaching, levels of knowledge - up to control of the environment around you and how to utilize nature and the elements for the good. To my knowledge and from what I have been able to gather, it is the same types of teachings the Ancient Druids and Native Americans had..

Yet, it is not in an ancient religion, its in a very modern one which is practiced today.

Most people aren't going to advertise every single belief, or every single teaching as it is believed some teachings are for initiates to the religion.. and not for public consumption.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Understandable! I enjoy my individuality and cannot abide those who want to erase such individuality!

Well I guess I'm a little late in this...but you talk about, albeit negatively, something that has been on my mind for a while...about something I have a sort of compulsion to study and contemplate...

And that is symbolism. I have wanted to make a thread on the topic, but wasn't sure what exactly I wanted to say, or if others would even relate. The Tree of Life, Kabbalah, all of the esoteric 'correspondences,' basic symbols or units of information which are supposed to underlie the Universe. In the Tree of Life system, it all reduces to 32 units. 10 sephiroth, 22 paths. Everything is supposed to relate to these symbols.

But it comes down to what you are saying, about the symbol having so little meaning in and of itself. In the system I'm referring to, all of it can be reduced to a number, letter, or word. So using only numbers or words, and letters, each individual one representing a lot, you are supposed to have all of the forces of the Universe and human consciousness. So I can say, this letter is, all of this stuff. But if you don't know all that stuff, it's just a letter. It has basically no meaning. But as you study and understand it better, that letter takes on greater and greater depth of meaning. Yet it is difficult for someone who is gaining this depth of meaning to relay to others, because ultimately the bare symbol is really the representative of that information. And so with all descriptions I depart from the symbol, and perhaps misrepresent it.

So does that mean it is actually meaningless? Or it only has the meaning the individual gives it? And if it does only have the meaning the individual gives it, does THAT mean it's meaningless? Or is that the point? Is a bare system which allows the individual mind to interpret and give meaning meaningful for just that reason, it gives a platform for the person to work that part of his mind in a creative way.

a reply to: onequestion

The fractal nature of the material world is visible all throughout nature and the universe.

You have no clue what your talking about.

Oh it’s about fractals. Right, right. Hermeticists were speaking about fractals this whole time.

Obviously you think the saying is sacred enough to warrant a shoe-horn into something completely unrelated. Let me guess, you pull out this beauty to make completely arbitrary connections, and then say “we’re only just figuring out what the ancients knew all along”. Sounds profound.

a reply to: OpinionatedB

YOU also use yourself to argue your own existence. "I think therefore I am" Using thing to prove thing is a philosophically valid proof in and of itself.

As far as the saying "As above so below" when the entire saying is seen in light of what he was attempting to expound upon in light of the mentality of his day... he was pretty intelligent and progressive for that day if you ask me. But that is me, you might have a different opinion - which is the exciting fact of life, everyone gets to have their own opinion and no one can take yours away.

But as far as many people wanting to sound profound, when the reality is often not so, is a simple fact of life we must learn to live with, shake our heads and move on.

I never agreed with the Cartesian principle. I am therefor I think sounds better. Existing comes before thinking.

Using same thing to prove same thing is not “philosophically valid”.

I’ll shake my head and move on.

a reply to: TheJourney

So does that mean it is actually meaningless? Or it only has the meaning the individual gives it? And if it does only have the meaning the individual gives it, does THAT mean it's meaningless? Or is that the point? Is a bare system which allows the individual mind to interpret and give meaning meaningful for just that reason, it gives a platform for the person to work that part of his mind in a creative way.

In certain linguistics, the symbol (signifier) is arbitrary. The word apple does not resemble an apple, and so on. If meaning was universal, we’d all speak the same language. The symbol is merely a convention, deriving meaning only in its use and context to other symbols. Yet, in symbolism, and I think religion, people often give meaning to the signifier rather than what is signified. Case in point, this thread. In my musings I attempted to show that this particular saying (signifier), means very little when applied to the real world (signified). Yet people are willing to perform intellectual backflips in order to maintain its so-called importance to them, its “meaning”, simply because at one point or another, it has been deemed sacred. The same can be said of a crucifix or a crescent moon. We cannot use a swastika anymore without being stigmatized because of its historical use, despite it being quite a beautiful symbol. This is an attempt to give supernatural causative powers to what amounts to scratches and marks on paper. Superstition of language is the base superstition that humans as a species have yet to overcome. People will kill and die for these symbols, rather than live and die for what they signify.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: OpinionatedB

YOU also use yourself to argue your own existence. "I think therefore I am" Using thing to prove thing is a philosophically valid proof in and of itself.

As far as the saying "As above so below" when the entire saying is seen in light of what he was attempting to expound upon in light of the mentality of his day... he was pretty intelligent and progressive for that day if you ask me. But that is me, you might have a different opinion - which is the exciting fact of life, everyone gets to have their own opinion and no one can take yours away.

But as far as many people wanting to sound profound, when the reality is often not so, is a simple fact of life we must learn to live with, shake our heads and move on.

I never agreed with the Cartesian principle. I am therefor I think sounds better. Existing comes before thinking.

Using same thing to prove same thing is not “philosophically valid”.

I’ll shake my head and move on.

lol... don't worry I used to think the same way as you concerning that principle of Descartes. I used to think how stupid can you get? And shook my head and walked on.

But then I had the argument... the one in which the conclusion was "I think therefore I am" and found in the end I answered the same way. It makes a bit more sense, when you have a debate which leads to such a conclusion. Because that IS what it is.. a conclusion. (Never ever give your philosophy professor your opinions unless you want a very long and drawn out debate of it!)

You appear to take pieces, and you find nothing in the small pieces you found - when others learn about the whole and the origin of the piece, and take it for what it is as a whole.

Similar to the tortoise and the hare... do you know its origins? Bad math! Yet... in ignorance we still use it as an example... had people learned the whole, perhaps they wouldn't use that particular example in light of our knowledge today.

What I see in you, is ignorance of the whole - and judging only a piece. I could be wrong... but its what it seems like on the outside because your critique is a few terse words, rather than an explanation which shows you understand more about it than one small part.

Accordingly, seeing that our senses sometimes deceive us, I was willing to suppose that there existed nothing really such as they presented to us; and because some men err in reasoning, and fall into paralogisms, even on the simplest matters of geometry, I, convinced that I was as open to error as any other, rejected as false all the reasonings I had hitherto taken for demonstrations; and finally, when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams. But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be somewhat; and as I observed that this truth, I think, therefore I am, was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I read all the post and the quote that continually went through my mind was,

I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.

originally posted by: MKMoniker
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

This originally came out of ancestral religions in Mesopotamia. People believed that Earth and the heavens were interconnected, and had a mirror or reflective effect. So if something "big" happened in Space - it would soon be reflected on Earth. And vice versa. Thus kings were careful when and where to start wars, in case it triggered a catastrophic "war in the heavens."

This gave enormous power to the priests, to try and correctly interpret "sky signs", since a war in the heavens might mean a coming war/attack on Earth. (And there IS evidence for nuclear destruction of ancient, pre-historical cities in the Indus Valley and in Mesopotamia.)

Enter the Chaldeans, who started keeping records of moon phases and the positions of the other planets (then known) in our solar system. They laboriously interpreted the data, in relation to events on Earth. And from this came Chaldean Astrology.

one of the post I enjoyed

a reply to: OpinionatedB


I suppose then I am your inverse. I used to hold Descartes’ platitude with great reverence until I aged enough become tired of hearing it. First, in what context would I ever need to prove to myself that I exist? In order to prove to myself that I exist, I must first exist. It is redundant. Second, Descartes doubted everything except his reasons for doubting. He doubted everything, his body, his senses, his environment, but not his doubting mind. Why? He assumed his foundation before he even began looking for it.

In my travels, I’ve always found those who think they know the whole to be those who have seen the least of it.

You'll see in me what you wish to see.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

I read all the post and the quote that continually went through my mind was,

I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.

The most beautiful book in the whole Bible. I do not quite share the same outlook, however. I love everything under the sun except those who speak ill of it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I totally disagree with you. These four words : "As above so below" are the most effective way of describing the workings and patterns of the manifested Universe. They have been used throughout the ages; from Genesis's 'God created man in his image' to 'Microcosm and Macrocosm'.

You even see it in the elements of our physical body (blood, bones,lungs and body heat) viv a vis the natural elements of our planet (Water, earth, air and fire). A little bit of attention here would have made scientists realise that beings from planets or stars are in fact made of the same element as their hosts but sadly they are focussing in the wrong direction.

Contemplate and meditate on these words and insights and revelations will pour in.

These words easily link associate themselves to everything around us, revealing the patterns upon which our "physical universe" rest.

In fact these four words say more than thousand of words can say.

I personally treat the understanding of "As above so below" as a first initiation. All those who have had the As-above-so-below penny dropped will know exactly what these four words mean and share the same profound understanding.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke
The answer is water....its a riddle right....

Some more thoughts, on another aspect of what you seem to be getting at. Namely, people taking short and vague statements allegedly made by ancient 'spiritual masters,' and attributing great and deep wisdom to it, despite the fact that the quote itself doesn't have much information and thus might not even have any significant meaning. Well, I understand where you're coming from, and have had similar thoughts. On the other hand, to me, that is the fun of religious and spiritual study. It really is sort of, you just accept that there is probably a lot of wisdom in some source, and then you try to find it. You take a statement or passage, and interpret it, and find deep meaning in what is said, despite the fact that how you are taking it may not have been explicitly stated.

But again, that is really the fun. And it's also just how you interpret the whole thing. So, some ancient 'sage' says some thing that technically is quite short, and lacking detail. So you can just say that's all it is, it really has no meaning, and just disregard it. And you're taking the view that there is little to no wisdom to be found in these alleged ancient sages, and you're not going to give them credit for something they themselves did not make explicit. And that is fine, even reasonable, but at the same time I feel you're depriving yourself. But it's really about personal dispositions. I enjoy the idea that there were very wise people in ancient times, who have left hints of their profound wisdom in sacred texts. That perhaps everything was not exactly written explicitly, but they said things that open themselves up to interpretation, and through that interpretation we ourselves can find the wisdom. Can I prove definitely that these people really were wise, and had something to offer? No, I can't even prove that these individuals actually existed historically. But at the same time, I can interpret their words in profound ways, such that they really may have meant that. And in this way I can be illuminated, and seemingly find verification from a sage. Through this method I find wisdom in all sorts of places. Even Jesus had serious mystical and philosophic illumination, despite the fact that Christians seem to almost universally miss it. But to think that there is something to be found, and to find it through personal interpretation and comparative study, is very enjoyable and fulfilling to me.

a reply to: TheJourney

That is an honest approach to spirituality if I've ever seen one. Honesty is what is most lacking in these regards. Your word are wise, and I could get behind them.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

What you speak of is for the most part beyond most human comprehension, it is easy to understand, why this is not understood. As I was discussing this matter, with someone the other day, in the true depth of this subject, it is almost taboo.
He who speaks does not know, he who knows does not speak.

This is not, such that a person could just pick up a book, read it and say oh, that was easy. It could take years, decades, life times. Some would just give up on first attempt, a person with much zeal, might try for decades, only to give up and lose faith in there being a true higher order to life.

As said, until this is really experienced, it is hard to comprehend, something that is incomprehensible. Like never having tasted a pineapple, and having someone try and explain, what the pineapple taste like.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
That is an honest approach to spirituality if I've ever seen one. Honesty is what is most lacking in these regards. Your word are wise, and I could get behind them.

I have a feeling,
You have a feeling,
The honesty that is we,
Is not the tale that we weave.

The tale that we weave,
Is the starvation of the we,
You have a feeling,
I have a feeling.
# me.
But not you, I only mean she.
She, who only sees # me.

I don't see how words or phrases that originate in religion are any less meaningful than any other words!

I mean, they are meant to stimulate in the listener an idea as close as possible to that which the speaker has in mind, but that is never 100% reliable.

I can refer to an apple- but is the meaning communicated to the other accurately ? I see a green apple in mind, maybe they see a red one.... I have flashes of memory from my life experiences with apples, which are different than the ones they have. I say that to french person, they have a big blank. The word carries no meaning at all for them. (or they'd think I was refering to Gwyneth Paltrows kid....).

That is meant to signify an object that is material. it is still only meaningful to some and not others. What about a verb, like "eat"?? All different types of experiences and judgements are stimulated with that word, depending upon the individual!

I can think of many ways one could apply the example in the op. It is descriptive of a pattern or dynamic that exists in many things- which is why I think it calls to the intuition as meaningful for many people- though they might direct it at different things.

I tend to feel pulled to direct at internal processes- I will first think of it that way-
the way that what is in our thoughts (which I consider as coming from my head)
are manifested through my bodily actions- (my hands, my feet).
That even acts that seem to be inconsistant with my present ideals, goals, intents, perspectives,
Are still sourced from me, and my previously held ideals, goals, intents, perspectives.
They just have been integrated deeply and become subconscious drives... still coming from my brain.

That if you want to question, why I did that, why my body did not seem to obey my mind, that is just an illusion,
My acts are always a reflection of my mind.
That which is below is always a reflection of that which is above.
You say that phrase to me and it means the dynamics of mind and body, of word and act, of personal responsibility and power. Which get called "psychobabble" in places like this, but to me, is some of the most important roots of spirituality.

That makes for a funny conversation between me and a religious person who is thinking about heaven and earth,
but often it still carries on, as those also signify for me the mind and body. I can use their words, talking about mind body relations, and it still works! There is a parallel in the dynamics we perceive.

What these "objects" are literally differs, but the ways they interact, the relationship, is the same.

a reply to: Bluesma
I will be true,
The fact you are Blue,
Means nothing to me.

Seniora Pewrong!
We plead your Perón,
Means empty to we.