[Opinion] Fragmented Consciousness

[Lemongrass00]

Hello all, through my dreaming practice I had an interesting thought/ discussion I’d like to share,

Human beings are said to be reflections of the Source, part of the axiom, “As Above So Below”,

many cultures and occult practices hold the view that we are fragmented consciousness from this source, experiencing life from a very particular point of view, but have gained the illusion of individuality through the growth of our ego,

I have had some personal experiences that can reflect that. This can be experienced first hand even with a slightest amount of dream practice.

There are “entities” that exist as part of your own consciousness (after all they are in your own dream) that seem to act wildly distinct from yourself, some even seeming to demonstrate having knowledge completely outside “yourself”, with some seeming as separate from you as a person on the street.

I have come to the opinion, that due to our own inharmonious nature, we have many fragmented shards of our own consciousness, similar to how we are all fragmented from “God”, “Source”, whatever terminology you want to use.

these fragmented conscious entities can be interacted with and probed in the dream environment, they exist in our minds always, but can become human representations in our dreams (and they are not even always human)

the goal on the microcosmic level, is the same as the macrocosmic level, to reintegrate. Which is why shadow work, dream therapy, etc has remained such a popular practice for thousands of years.

but I firmly believe that the nature of these fragmented consciousness beings in our dreams is an indicator of our own fragmented consciousness, which may point to part of the reason why eastern practices experienced such early success and growth.

what are your thoughts on this?

 

[Pyrokar]

See, not knowing much about dream practice as far the occult goes i woulda/coulda/shoulda keep my mouth shut
but if we all thought that then we would have no growth or any conversation at all now would we.

It seems to me that your logic relies on these beings ...being what you say, fragmented consciousness
But what if they are not? Certainly we have had claims of the opposite, the shadow people being one,
I am also undecided if dreams are our own "microverse" or is dreaming and the dreamscape an existance on a different plane
an umbra like place which is the closest to our physical realm, which would make dreaming and astral travel as neighbours
(i think it's both, you are dreaming in a closed off mental space, BUT have the ability to go further or be approached from the outside)
On the other hand as a psychology nerd who loves Jung i do subscribe to the grand consciousness idea that is fine.
The further breaking up of consciousness is what gives me pause, i might not understand you clearly

So, we are all shards of the big consciousness observing it self, but then we are shards ourselves. It's viable, i guess
But i would not go that far. Sure for the most part dreaming and what happens in them is subject to our own consciousness
but weather or not it is limited to only our own - that's the make or break of your hypothesis as i see it.
and in that case, i would say no. Instead i think what you consider different shards of a singular mind to just be the
subconscious.

 

[Ancient]

I started considering the notion of multiple selves a while ago, and it seemed to fit quite nicely for a time. I began trying to put different selves "in the drivers seat" for different circumstances and noticed some benefits occasionally. My inner dialogue became enriched, with new ideas coming up that went against my usual grain, some useful, some that didn't quite fit my moral compass. I ended this practice after about 6 months when I noticed that dialogue coming up when I wasn't looking for it. Felt I was getting close to tinfoil hat territory and decided to call it an interesting psychological experiment that wasn't suitable for me to continue with.

I don't have any instances of dream characters acting out of the ordinary, so I'm not sure we're talking about the same experience, but my determination is that yes, what we've been raised to believe is a unique, isolated "individual" is actually comprised of many parts possessing or containing some form of consciousness. These parts often work so well together it gives an appearance of a single entity.

 

[Lemongrass00]

It seems to me that your logic relies on these beings ...being what you say, fragmented consciousness
But what if they are not?

To me it makes more sense that we are, especially with practices such as Buddhism and Qabbalah supporting that, but it’s not something you can intellectually grasp, it’s something that must be experienced to be found as true, which is why personal practice is so important

the shadow people being one,

Could you elaborate on this, to me shadow selves are evidence of our fragmented nature

BUT have the ability to go further or be approached from the outside)

The question is what you consider outside? Lon Milo DuQuette has a quote that says, “It's all in your head -- you just have no idea how big your head is”.

singular mind to just be the
subconscious.

and you think the subconscious is unified then?

I see where you’re coming from but if you haven’t already I would implore you to go into practice, the mind can never comprehend things of this nature, only your being can, and for me when I started actually practicing instead of reading/ studying these things, it changed my worldview radically.

The human psyche is highly fragmented, if it were not how would there be so much illness and suffering in the world? it comes from a place of divisiveness, not unity.

Post automatically merged: Nov 7, 2023

I don't have any instances of dream characters acting out of the ordinary

It’s just different methods to come to same conclusion, I think

 

[Yazata]

It's probably the most logical approach to the idea. I'm not sure if I read it somewhere and am butchering the concept but the demons from the Goetia (for example) are thought by some to he simply parts oy yourself while others think they are external gods. It could very well be that they are both and that we are in them as well as them being in us. Like a sort of Möbius strip or any other thing that leads back into itself (a Leiden bottle?)

 

[Pyrokar]

I don't do dreamwork but i am experienced with the mind it self, but first the shadow people.
They are a phenomenon documented all over the world which is activated when a person lucid dreams without control
But you can't lucid dream without having control? sure you can. it is a state where you wake up but your body is effectively still asleep
so you are paralised and then out of the corner of your eye you start spotting these shadowy figures that scare the hell out of you
but you can't move, apparently it's possible to die out of the amount of fear. It is the easterners themselves who thought these figures to be wandering lost souls or evil spirits who want to enter your body. i will add a trailer for a movie based on the very real experiences people had documented. I had a couple of those experiences and boy, the fear... it's really something.

it’s something that must be experienced to be found as true

i fully approve of this, and as i have not experienced it my opinion should rightly be judged as less relevant than your own
or of others who do practice for some length of time.
The subconscious is unified yes, all my experience points to that being true, it moves with clear goals but acts on it's own
without our conscious vote.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Ziran]

what are your thoughts on this?

Reflection? I have many thoughts about it ~virtually points to my avatar to the left~.

Human beings are said to be reflections of the Source, part of the axiom, “As Above So Below”,

The key, from my point of view, is to fully apply the concept of "reflection" to this context. The "reflection" is in many ways accurate, but it is also deceptive. It is a flat 2-dimensional inversion of a 3-dimensional object. The mind auto-corrects this image and skips over the inversion by default. A lot of misconceptions are produced from this auto-correction without realizing that details are being washed out, and the image that is produced could be a complete flip-flop of the phenomena presented in the "mirror" of the mind.

Regarding "as above, so below", in my tradition we do not link up the idea of the "reflection of the source" with this idea. Also we phrase the axiom a little differently.

In my tradition, the reflection of the source is "a shadow of a shadow of an image", thrice removed from the source. "As it is below, so it is above" is generally a version of monism, but, as usual, it's quite a bit different from conventional non-dual monism.

There are “entities” that exist as part of your own consciousness (after all they are in your own dream) that seem to act wildly distinct from yourself, some even seeming to demonstrate having knowledge completely outside “yourself”, with some seeming as separate from you as a person on the street.

I have come to the opinion, that due to our own inharmonious nature, we have many fragmented shards of our own consciousness, similar to how we are all fragmented from “God”, “Source”, whatever terminology you want to use.

From my point of view, these "others" could be a reflection of myself, but, if I fully apply the concept of a reflection to them, they are not inharmonious at all. They are distinct from me, but also similar in key ways. They are my partners. Where we are congruent, this reinforces myself. It is encouraging. Where there is discord, this brings defintion to myself. It is humbling or it could be encouraging too. Complete integration is acheived from the realization that the congruence and discord can shift moment to moment and that's OK, while simultaneously maintaining an attitidue of fluidity about fluidity itself. This produces the best of both worlds. Being fluid about fluidity means that sometimes it's good to be rigid about valued principles. That is an anchor for the self-identity without being too rigid. It's the overly rigid self-image which produces conflict in myself and in my interactions outside of myself.

Regarding the "knowledgebase", if that's a proper word, that these "others" possess and potentially share: if these others are a reflection of myself then, I think the knowledge is coming from my own subconscious mind. My subconsious is far from perfect, but, can be a tremendous resource. Although, I do not think that all the others are reflections of myself. Some are, some are not. I think there is an opportunity to learn from "others" outside of myself. If they are not flesh and blood, the learning opportunity is from the impressions ( which are a form of reflection ) that exist in the here-and-now.

the goal on the microcosmic level, is the same as the macrocosmic level, to reintegrate. Which is why shadow work, dream therapy, etc has remained such a popular practice for thousands of years.

I'm not familiar with "dream-therapy". Shadow-work is true and useful in my judgement, but exploring these "others", and their "other-worlds" is not without great risk. Unless a person is greatly troubled, I think it's probably good to "keep the cork on the fork" ( movie reference -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

). In my opinion, exploring these other-worlds, in depth and in detail, is one way of interpretting the famous nietzsche quote about gazing long into the abyss. A person might become someone/something else, perhaps lose touch with reality altogether, producing much more conflict and disharmony.

Hopefully at the end of the process they are able to completely reintegrate themself such that they are much better than they were prior. But, maybe not. On the other hand, if one is able to understand the reflective quality in their own psyche, and their own subjective perceptions, this understanding can be applied to the "others" beyond the inner-subjective experience who possess great volumes of knowledge. Because of this, there is a great incentive to "pop the cork" and give it "swirl" and a "swish" and "swallow", but maybe not chugging it down like a drunkard. Chugging it down would be like gazing long into the abyss.

Further, these impressions, in theory, can be traced back layer by layer, layer by layer, all the way back to the first reflection of the "source". That is a magnificent lofty resource. However, the reflective quality of each and every layer along the way would need to be interpretted properly. Doing that correctly and consistently for the many layers involved would take a lot of practice, innate talent, assitance from the source itself, or some combination of all three.

... the reason why eastern practices experienced such early success and growth.

I take a different view. I don't think they were doing shadow-work. Maybe it's a "dreaming" practice. I would describe it as training to deny any and all objective phenomena outside the mind and cease all determinate thought. Their growth was more of a, forgive me, pyramid scheme of gurus and wanna-be gurus. Not that it was malicious in any way. Whether or not they are considered successful depends on what is considered success.

They are brilliant at relieving suffering. Amazing. Along the way, they developed some techniques which reliably produce "sit-chat-ananda" / "consiousness-truth-bliss". That's supposed to be a wonderful, albeit potentially addictive, experience. From my research it's not all champaigne and roses. The peace loving tibetan buddhists got stomped. Gurus have a bad repution for assaulting the female disciples. There's the story in the buddhist cannon of the mass suicide of monks triggered by buddha guatama's discourse. The buddha could not have cared less, and repeated the lesson causing more death. There's also meditation sickness, chi-deviation. The "caste" system is reinforced by the "guru" culture.

What I've seen happen in the "eastern" practice is, the individual does expereince of a relfection of themself, but they end up falsely placing themself at the center of the universe as a god. But they can't really do anything like a god. Many have developed some verbage such that they can argue that they're god and challenge anyone to prove they aren't. And this argument also produces a sort of "sit-chat-ananda". Maybe that's considered a success. But I don't think it means anything other than the individual has acheived a supreme level of attachment to themself while simultaneously deying their own attachments. They evven call god "Self" capital "S".

Just like anything, the eastern philosophy and practice needs to be applied using some common sense. In our own occult context, their techniques can be leveraged and exploited for our own purposes, so, maybe that's considered success. But it's growth seems to be that it checks a series of boxes in the human psyche which makes it appealing and rewarding, not that it is neccessarily successful.

 

[Pyrokar]

Jesus Christ Ziran , why you never bring out this much content to my threads!? Where's your god now xD
just kidding of course, you know you my homie.
I was just coming back to add how for a long time psychologists have made the conclusion
that bilingual people or just people in general who know multiple languages show different
personalities when they use a language that is not their native.

Also i support this claim as english is obviously not my primary language
I have very often spoken in my mind as "We" and very rarely as I. Like, a full Venom situation (the antihero movie/comic character)


Last but not least as a toddler i was caught by grownups talking to my self as imaginary friends,
i would rather say those to be thoughtforms or tulpas since my imagination as a youngster was a freak of nature
but maybe it's relevant?

 

[Ziran]

what we've been raised to believe is a unique, isolated "individual" is actually comprised of many parts possessing or containing some form of consciousness.

Could this be a part of a shared genetic memory?

 

[Lemongrass00]

The key, from my point of view, is to fully apply the concept of "reflection" to this context. The "reflection" is in many ways accurate, but it is also deceptive. It is a flat 2-dimensional inversion of a 3-dimensional object. The mind auto-corrects this image and skips over the inversion by default. A lot of misconceptions are produced from this auto-correction without realizing that details are being washed out, and the image that is produced could be a complete flip-flop of the phenomena presented in the "mirror" of the mind.

Regarding "as above, so below", in my tradition we do not link up the idea of the "reflection of the source" with this idea. Also we phrase the axiom a little differently.

In my tradition, the reflection of the source is "a shadow of a shadow of an image", thrice removed from the source. "As it is below, so it is above" is generally a version of monism, but, as usual, it's quite a bit different from conventional non-dual monism.

Interesting take, and I like the way you worded it. I meant reflection more from a metaphorical sense than a literal, to me it is not as important to know exactly how we are, whether it be thrice removed or so on, but more so the common origin we have

Being fluid about fluidity means that sometimes it's good to be rigid about valued principles. That is an anchor for the self-identity without being too rigid. It's the overly rigid self-image which produces conflict in myself and in my interactions outside of myself.

I think we are more or less visualizing the same thing, but maybe phrasing it differently. Reintegration to me also means learning to fluidly work together will all these different forces or entities influencing the overall psyche.

Their growth was more of a, forgive me, pyramid scheme of gurus and wanna-be gurus. Not that it was malicious in any way. Whether or not they are considered successful depends on what is considered success.

That is definitely a unique perspective...

What I've seen happen in the "eastern" practice is, the individual does expereince of a relfection of themself, but they end up falsely placing themself at the center of the universe as a god.

I think one can argue this is one of the most widely misinterpreted spiritual meanings, it happens in western culture as well. For instance, I think one of the biggest misconceptions of the teachings of Jesus was Jesus was trying to demonstrate the divine nature of humanity by using himself as an example, but we misinterpret it by thinking he was literally God, instead of a reflection of God, like all of mankind is. Nevertheless, I think it is important to separate the religious teachings from its followers.

but your body is effectively still asleep
so you are paralised and then out of the corner of your eye you start spotting these shadowy figures that scare the hell out of you
but you can't move

Yes, this is sleep paralysis and I have both experienced it and have induced it before a wake-induced-lucid-dream (WILD). They are manifestations of your subconscious mind. Like in the astral, your expectations and emotions become your reality. When you wake up paralyzed in the middle of the night and you feel fear coursing through your body, all of your fears become manifested in your sphere of sensation since you are teetering the line of wake and sleep. I do not think these "shadow people" are spirits or whatever, but is just a common fear that is experienced by humans, some also see bugs or demons. Similar to how people who trip off benadryl see "The Hatman". I do not think he is an actual entity, but a fear/expectation that becomes actualized by the experiencer. If you control the sleep paralysis state and are aware of it, then you can see these 'shadow people', 'bugs', 'demons', etc dissolve in front of you. Your perception becomes your reality.

Also I do not quite see the relevance of that to my original point, maybe you could further explain it to me, I am really enjoying the discussion

 

[Roma]

There are various dimensions to fragmented consciousness. Even the term "consciousness" is complex. For example when I become conscious of a background sound, I often realize I have been aware of the sound for some time before the experience entered my consciousness.

There are many more awareness zones in the human lightbody than there are consciousness zones.

So, using the term "consciousness" to include awareness, consciousness is fragmented/separated variously by:

• webs placed to separate levels of the lightbody until proper skills are developed
• lack of coordinated subplane matter
• trauma in chakra substance and intelligences
• energy interference lines
• attached etheric/astral/mental entities
• suppression of memories/trauma
• structures disturbing the inflow of divine light to the brain and heart
• personal and group karmic structures
• planetary karma implicit in the substances used in the human format
• belief systems
• astral/mental attack
• etheric/astral implants
• etc

Still, for all the dark effects, this is a positive situation. The human is forced to demonstrate self-control and thereby qualify for higher tasks

 

[Pyrokar]

I was trying to find an example of something we could call an "outside" entity while keeping it dream related
But deep down i also knew they were likely of our own "shard"
I also agree with Yazata who brought up the Goetia's being parts of the brain/psyche as suggested by Crowley
So.... i guess i do agree. We are shards x2. Both from the source and within ourselves.

but just because i can't disprove it , i don't have to like it
I don't know. Something isn't clicking for me. I am introduced to the original concept very well
and as i said before i find it to be legit. My final conclusion is that i don't even comprehend your observation, so i can't argue effectively
which in turns make me act up looking for far fetched excuses.
Your thread is giving me a headache. I hope you're happy.
I didn't come here to be philosophically tortured. Im gonna go and take out my frustration on the crystal and pendulum nerds.
Good day sir.

 

[Konsciencia]

I know for sure, that we are fragmented Sparks of the Infinite Consciousness. This Consciousness is experiencing itself through us. I call it "God" and even though we are It. God tends to put other masks. And what I mean by masks, I mean appearances. Now, I am going based on my experiences with this Being!

 

[Lemongrass00]

I know for sure, that we are fragmented Sparks of the Infinite Consciousness. This Consciousness is experiencing itself through us. I call it "God" and even though we are It. God tends to put other masks. And what I mean by masks, I mean appearances. Now, I am going based on my experiences with this Being!

Exactly. God essence experiencing itself through a myriad of forms. It’s beautiful.

 

[Ziran]

I meant reflection more from a metaphorical sense than a literal, to me it is not as important to know exactly how we are, whether it be thrice removed or so on, but more so the common origin we have

For me, it's not the number of steps removed, but, the fact that each and every"thing" that exists ( you referred to them as forms ) are different and distinct from the source in some very important ways. One of those distinctions is the reflective quality which includes distortions / inversions of the source. Another important distinction is that these forms / "things" are cascading from the source, one to the other to the other to the other, etc.

These are important distinctions IF, big IF, one is seeking to establish a connection with this source and/or if one is seeking to understand how this source is reflected in themself and in others, and/or who "we" are and what "we" are. If these distinctions are ignored or denied, I think there is potential for misconceptions of the "source" and/or of ourselves and others. In most cases a misconception of this is ... mostly harmless. In extreme cases there's potential harm.

A lot of misconceptions are produced from this auto-correction without realizing that details are being washed out, and the image that is produced could be a complete flip-flop of the phenomena presented in the "mirror" of the mind.

At a very basic level, one of the misconceptions that can be produced from ignoring or denying the layering of the reflections and the cascading inversions is a misconception of the "source". This isn't a problem unless accurate conception is one's goal. If these inversions are not taken into account and applied properly, then, one's investigation will naturally and through no fault of their own, produce a conclusion about the source which is flip-flopped. The source could be perceived as "nothing-ness" when it is actually "everything-ness". The source could be percieved as "Time-less" when it is actually "Time-full". The source could be perceived as "masculine" or "feminine" when it is actually "simultaneously both".

To be clear, I'm not intending to argue that my own conclusions are correct, although, I do reserve the right to prefer them. What I'm trying to convey is that evaluating the merit of any of these sort of conclusions requires an accurate interpretation of the media/medium which is producing these specific types of awareness.

Are the data coming from a mirror image? How clear is the reflection? How deep is the awareness? Is the perception of depth accurate? It appears that way reaching towards the looking glass, but, what happens when I touch it? When looking into the pool, it's like glass. Making contact produces ripples and turbulence in the surface of the water. Is it even possible to gaze into the pool without causing a ripple effect? And, most important, are the answers to these questions the same for both an inward directed awareness compared to an outward directed awareness? If they are different, how different are they?

Understanding the underlying mechanics of awareness answers all these questions and presents a significant opporutinty. Unless the seeker is very-very lucky or blessed, misunderstanding them will produce, obstacles, potentially a fool's errand, or worse.

Reintegration to me also means learning to fluidly work together will all these different forces or entities influencing the overall psyche.

Agreed, but what does it mean to "work together"? Should all of these forces / entities be permitted to "influence" the psyche? Are they all "beautiful forms"?

It's not that I do not appreciate the beauty, splendor, magnificance of reality. It's not that I do not passionately love the diversity. Ignoring any sort of intentional design and intentional purpose coming from the mysterious "source" , from my perspective, if there is a fragmentation, and if there is benefit coming from reintegration, complete reintegration includes a proper interpretion of the edges, the splits, the borders on the fragments.

When two fragments join together, their border, their edges are doing their job, but they are insignficant to the inner-essence of union which results from both fragments working together. When putting together the puzzle, at the end of the process, one is aware of the division that produced the division, but the focus is not on the edges, it's one the big picture.

In this context what are these edge-cases? They're the others, the entities which produce division, annihilation, or erasure of the inner-essence of the fragments in part or in total. There's overt manner of accomplishing this sort of division and annhilation. Rape, murder, theft, deception, colonization+domination, etc... Those are obvious. There's other manner of accomplishing this which are more subtle. Denial and distraction can also erase the inner-essence if the focus of the mind can be consistently drawn away from the briliant core of signficiance within the fragments in part or in total, redirecting the focus to the edges, the borders, the shells. This too erases the inner-essence, because, as you wrote in another thread, perception is reality.

This connects back to a proper interpretation of the media of awareness, because, misnterpretation of the media permits the seeker to be easily distracted. This produces a rather common phenomena which was descrribed by one of the other contributors in this thread.
Understanding that these others are not describing oneself but defining oneself via negation dampens and eventually silences the uninvited cacaphony. This realization is difficult if these other entities are misunderstood too simply as fragments of the divine instead of the fragmentation and negation of what is divine. That is a very big difference.

If rape and murder and theft are considered fragments of the divine, then one can convince themself they are holy, permitted, or worse encouraged. The same can be said for any of these other entities if they are misunderstood. Some are fragments. Some are fragmentation. Some are positive assertions of what should be, and what could be healthy. Some are negative assertions of what shouldn't be, and cannot be healthy.

That is why I take a strong postion on interpretting the reflections properly. Reflection is a profound concept in my own personal practice, philosophy and moral code. I take it very seriously.

 

[Lemongrass00]

If rape and murder and theft are considered fragments of the divine, then one can convince themself they are holy, permitted, or worse encouraged.

God encompasses all things. Good and evil are merely subjective labels we put onto actions, not that those things should be encouraged but they are all part of God, for God is balance, I don’t subscribe to the idea that God is just this polarized being, he is balanced. For one to truly integrate they must rise above labeling experiences and simply just experience them.

One of my favorite verses that illustrates this balanced nature of God:
“ I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” - Isaiah 45:7

One of the magicians who heavily influenced my practice is Damien Echols, he describes an experience where after spending hours invoking all these divine forces, he gazed on the face of God, and the longer he looked, the more it looked like “The Devil”, and then too when he stared at the face of the Devil, it turned back into God.

It’s a hard pill to swallow, but if God is the universe experiencing itself, then all experiences are God, nothing can be outside of it, and by experiencing both the good and the evil we become more balanced beings, again, I do not expect you to agree with this viewpoint but it’s the one I take and I greatly respect your position aswell.

 

[Roma]

if God is the universe experiencing itself, then all experiences are God

"God" is a very new word - apparently derived from a German word meaning "to invoke". Invoking would seem to mean that the entity is not present. That would be contrary to the religious belief that God is everywhere.

It may be better to use the term "The Source of All"

So The Source of All experiences separateness through various manifested universes.

Those experiences of separateness are neither good nor bad for TSoA. On the other hand, intelligences that contain an active thread of the TSoA probably are expected to use their intrinsic authority to smooth the out-breath and in-breath.

Interfering with the smoothness could be considered as evil

 

[Ziran]

God encompasses all things.

Respectfully I consider this to overly simplified. In what way does God encompass all things? Are you assuming that God is limited to one energetic valence? How is God producing a material existence from itself?

Good and evil are merely subjective labels we put onto actions

A point of view that has not experienced objective evil?

, not that those things should be encouraged but they are all part of God, for God is balance,

A balance of what?

I don’t subscribe to the idea that God is just this polarized being, he is balanced. For one to truly integrate they must rise above labeling experiences and simply just experience them.

Experience rape and murder?

One of my favorite verses that illustrates this balanced nature of God:
“ I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” - Isaiah 45:7

Yotzer ohr uvorei hoshech, oseh shalom, uvorei es harah. YHVH oseh chol eileh.

It's a famous verse. The key points here are the distinction between yotzer, vorei, oseh. It's usually discussed using the root forms in a different order: bara, yotzer, awsah.

Notice that evil is created something from nothing all on its own separate from the others. Light is formed from YHVH itself. Darkness is created in the same way as evil, something from nothing, but darkness is distinguished from evil. Darkness is not evil. Evil is something else.

Awsah.. to make and to do. In this form it is oseh. It is the end of the creative process. Making peace, the end of the process involves creating evil and separating it. Evil is being created and cursed simultaneously.Energetically it is being created and pressed down. Light is different.

One of the magicians who heavily influenced my practice is Damien Echols, he describes an experience where after spending hours invoking all these divine forces, he gazed on the face of God, and the longer he looked, the more it looked like “The Devil”, and then too when he stared at the face of the Devil, it turned back into God.

Sure, that's a reflection a form. It is defining via negation. If it has a form, it's not YHVH.

Deuteronomy 4:15
ונשמרתם מאד לנפשתיכם כי לא ראיתם כל־תמונה ביום דבר יהוה אליכם בחרב מתוך האש׃

Take therefore good heed to yourselves; for you saw no manner of form on the day when the Lord spoke to you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire;​

It’s a hard pill to swallow, but if God is the universe experiencing itself, then all experiences are God, nothing can be outside of it, and by experiencing both the good and the evil we become more balanced beings, again, I do not expect you to agree with this viewpoint but it’s the one I take and I greatly respect your position aswell.

"It’s a hard pill to swallow"

It's not a hard pill to swallow.

"if God is the universe experiencing itself"

That's an assumption I do not share. YHVH is much much more than that.

 

[Pyrokar]

Avenge me Ziran!!!!!
@Xenophon , get in on this i wanna see the clash of titans

 

[Lemongrass00]

Respectfully I consider this to overly simplified. In what way does God encompass all things? Are you assuming that God is limited to one energetic valence? How is God producing a material existence from itself?

That's fine, define God a more complex way that satisfies your mind then. To me this definition does it justice. The mind/ego will always seek to understand God in an intellectual way, but truly it can only ever be experienced by your being, which reaches far beyond the intellect. I understand this will not be satisfactory for you though, but for me it is more than enough.

A balance of what?

A balance of experience, which is just being, even using the word balance taints the experience because we are already arbitrarily labeling things as good or bad. An experience is, our interpretation of that experience is not the same thing.

Experience rape and murder?

Yes, that is part of life. It happens in the animal kingdom as well, all of life is God experiencing itself. These experiences happen, is it considered tragic in a world where life is constantly in a cycle of change? Only if you create a separate identity for every being, if you forget that all of creation is God essence experiencing itself.

Darkness is not evil. Evil is something else.

and light is not the same as peace. Perhaps it is pointing that peace comes from light, and evil from darkness. The word origin is not terribly important to me, as the broad concept that God is all, which includes, our arbitrary groupings of things good and evil. I understand you have an eye for technicality, and that is good thing if it solidifies your beliefs and enhances your practice, but its not terribly important for me. I prefer to explore broad concepts and have my experiences lead me to my conclusions.

That's an assumption I do not share. YHVH is much much more than that.

That's fine with me, I wish you the best