Wow. This was a wonderful video. I wonder who taught you these things, but at the same time I love to be taught. Illuminating and confirming. Just wonderful.
Thank you so much for this. Being born into Islam and being taught "what was" never ever made sense to me, I questioned all religions and all things growing up. Your lecture makes complete sense and your video shows up in such a fascinating way in my phase of life now. THANK YOU! P.S your giggles and laughs made me laugh 💚
No quibble here just dropping in my 2 cents worth. As this is deeply into “German Idealism” at 33 minutes in I take this opportunity to mention that this branch of philosophy is actually a direct continuation of so called “Neo-Platonism” which is no mere penchant for rational categories as it is so often presented in the milieux of modern and postmodern academia -- as you’ve certainly indicated. You’ve hinted at Kants notion of “inter-subjective validity” so subjectivity generally may not be so radically different but your mileage will vary. And he did a rather good job of refuting radical idealism in favor of transcendental idealism. You also might get a real kick out of a work “Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition” by Glenn Alexander Magee.
Nice Catch. This is a bit of a misnomer on my part. I ought to have elaborated more and corrected myself. The mention of God (albeit different names in Hebrew) occurs 32 times In Genesis Chapter 1 (implying the unspoken 1 previous to the story's beginning). Elohim, specifically though, occurs 3 times Chap. 1.
@@cgdahlin you were looking for a word where they choose one god from a plethora of gods . It is henoism I believe. You could argue the movement from elohim to Yhvh is this. Also judaism could be described as pagan or polyistic because of shekhinah the sacred feminine. And Ruach pronounced ruakh, breath spirit, in others cultures is feminine. Great work
The biggest mystery is accepting that we will never actually know. Truth is bent and shows in all things but can only be fully experienced from the other side of the veil. it takes both perspectives and still can never yield full truth
Awesome lecture bro, really enjoyed your breakdown and how in depth you went in. What book do you recommend for kabbala? I bought practical kabbala by Gareth night 2 vol set
The "ether" or "abysmal waters" can be thought of as pure substance, like what matter is prior to taking on form or structure. Like water, it takes on the form of whatever container or structure it is poured into. The Logos can be imagined as the commanding power that orders the structure (based on idea or nature of being) that the "ether" will dress with objective form of being. The Monad is represented symbolically by the manifested, formed being through its individuality, it's one-ness. The unformed ether is what surrounds and limits formed ether, allowing for the perception of a beings individuality, just like space is the distance between objects, giving the separation.
In the beginning God was in unconscious state(darkness),so he brings forth his conscious(light,ego,Christ) to relate to himself(self aware)...The light couldnt accept the darkness and there was a war between them("Yahweh-Christ"),from this war a third power(energy,holy spirit) comes out and brings the union(higher consciousness).. So now we have the conscious God (holy trinity, or kether, or orphic egg fanitas erotas, or brahma etc ). And from this point starts the creation with the same sequence, he splits again in two and after in many... In the same way we were also hermaphrodite but unconscious like God,so for the sake of gaining consciousness our psyche splits in two, Adam(conscious) and Eve(unconscious).............. [God has only one disadvantage ,he cannot create anything but himself. We are God and we have to do the same thing (know thyself)…] -Awesome channel mate,with great material!
The answer really depends on what tradition we'd use to answer it. As with this, the Western esoteric tradition, the soul (individual essence) will inevitably, through participation on various planes, return to the realm of Spirit (collective essence) and subsequently de-individuate. "Join with 'God.'" To say the Kabbalists or the Manichaeans, etc. this is the ultimate goal. A drop of water returning to the ocean. But in animism and older traditions, it seems the individual soul eternally maintains its essence in the realm of the ancestors, they are collective there in the sense that humanity is collective here, but still seem to maintain their core essence and can be called upon accordingly. Even if we maintained the more substratum eternal reincarnation theory of the different shamanistic groups, this would also imply a continuous and eternal retention of spiritual individuality. Hope this helps.
Our perception of our self as an individual existent is the reality of our perception. Perception is like perspective, it's a point of view and not necessarily the true truth. I have come to understand that there is only one true self that sees through the eyes of all that see, experiences through the experiences that all things experience, etc. Of course at the worldly level of reality where our perspective is of subject and objects, of self and others, Individuality exists.
@cgdahlin Can you do a video on origin of angels and devils, heaven and hell. Are they real or made up psychologically by humans? Similarly on the idea of afterlife. or have you done it already in case I missed it.
A tricky question to answer. It very much seems to depend on what tradition we're referencing. In a number of paganisms, 3 is linked with maiden, mother, crone, the 3 cycles of life and the intricacies therein, innocence, to the loss of innocence, to the regaining of hope, nourishment, all the way to the wisdom and secrets of death in the crone. To the ancient shamanic traditions, the upper realm, the lower realm and ours, the middle realm, 3. All that encapsulates that which is above and below. Father son and holy spirit, or in other words, the source, the creation, and the emanation. The trinity. This goes on and on. It seems like a trope that each tradition put its own spin on, ultimately relating back to the shamanic tradition. More mundanely, the father, the mother, and the created, the miracle of birth, fertility. It took two, to make one, and on and on and on.
Three is the third that unites that which is divided. It is the mediator of disagreement, the median of extremes, the fulcrum of balance, centrality, etc. It is the principle of reconciliation, of unification, of the return to one-ness, of wholeness, etc.
I see the Father as the unmanifested Word and Christ as the manifested Word. The Father was only the same as the Word in the beginning, before anything was manifested. Then the Word became manifested as the Father's "only begotten son" which is Christ. The Father/Christ is the esoteric white sun which shines within the black sun that represents all of reality. The black sun I see as Parabrahman, and the Father as Brahman.
35:00 Wrong. If the Monad includes the unknown, it is not one (1), but zero (0). The Monad is Unity (0), an undifferentiated whole beyond Being or Non-Being, true or false. The Dyad is not 2. The Dyad is 1,1. It is the unit (1), and the attribute or quality of that unit (1). Truth is 1=1. The Triad is 2. It is illusion, false.
0 1 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9... 4 is the number of time or death which are just concepts. Only the body dies. You can’t see or touch time because it’s a concept to maintain certain order. 1 is principal and the “other” 1 is attribute.
The Monad is One in principle. Because it is Absolute, it has no presentation or differentiation or other-ness that would distinguish it. This category of concepts is in principles, for the topic is not about existent things but intellectual things. "The Monad is Unity." Unity is one in principle, not zero. The Dyad is Two in principle, which is, yes, as in 1 and 1. The dyad is like two opposites that have no reconciliation, no third which unites them. Opposites are two things that are in opposing relation to one another. This relation between the two is the third that unites them in principle as opposites. Without this third, the two have no connection and are absolutely individual. In this way, the Dyad is a non-existent potential that requires the mediation and connecting relation that the third can bring.
I have a theory that the is no possible way to describe the ZERO in a way that does not also describe the ONE. The TWO is defined by the presence of limit. A border to bound “is” and “is not”. The Monad is the context in which the TWO appear. And the ZERO is the absence of the ONE.
Knowledge is important but practice and devotion are the things that can take us upward.
Wow. This was a wonderful video. I wonder who taught you these things, but at the same time I love to be taught. Illuminating and confirming. Just wonderful.
How do you not have one million subscribers? BTW I realized I was listening to this at 11:11 :)
Thank you so much for this. Being born into Islam and being taught "what was" never ever made sense to me, I questioned all religions and all things growing up. Your lecture makes complete sense and your video shows up in such a fascinating way in my phase of life now. THANK YOU!
P.S your giggles and laughs made me laugh 💚
What is your thoughts on the God
You have a great talent for imparting knowledge!
Have become a diligent student of yours!
Thank you
Divine in another defined i found means vine . I like that .love your lectures - thanks …holy dahlin
No quibble here just dropping in my 2 cents worth. As this is deeply into “German Idealism” at 33 minutes in I take this opportunity to mention that this branch of philosophy is actually a direct continuation of so called “Neo-Platonism” which is no mere penchant for rational categories as it is so often presented in the milieux of modern and postmodern academia -- as you’ve certainly indicated. You’ve hinted at Kants notion of “inter-subjective validity” so subjectivity generally may not be so radically different but your mileage will vary. And he did a rather good job of refuting radical idealism in favor of transcendental idealism.
You also might get a real kick out of a work “Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition” by Glenn Alexander Magee.
Thank you!! Love IT
Love this. Subscribed.
Divine = Creative
God = Life
Sacred = Highest Value
Holy = Whole = Integral
33 vertebrae = spinal canal = cerebral spinal fluid
So if you want to look at it in a literal way then creation is one huge fractal endless re copying it self?
Great. Are you sure elohim is mentioned 33 times ? It changes from elohim to Yhvh very early on in genesis. Water thaws at 33 degrees
Nice Catch. This is a bit of a misnomer on my part. I ought to have elaborated more and corrected myself. The mention of God (albeit different names in Hebrew) occurs 32 times In Genesis Chapter 1 (implying the unspoken 1 previous to the story's beginning). Elohim, specifically though, occurs 3 times Chap. 1.
@@cgdahlin you were looking for a word where they choose one god from a plethora of gods . It is henoism I believe. You could argue the movement from elohim to Yhvh is this. Also judaism could be described as pagan or polyistic because of shekhinah the sacred feminine. And Ruach pronounced ruakh, breath spirit, in others cultures is feminine. Great work
The biggest mystery is accepting that we will never actually know. Truth is bent and shows in all things but can only be fully experienced from the other side of the veil. it takes both perspectives and still can never yield full truth
great content man, thanks for this.
I'm happy now. Thanks
Well happier
Awesome lecture bro, really enjoyed your breakdown and how in depth you went in. What book do you recommend for kabbala? I bought practical kabbala by Gareth night 2 vol set
what is the relationship between the monad or logos with the ether ?
The "ether" or "abysmal waters" can be thought of as pure substance, like what matter is prior to taking on form or structure. Like water, it takes on the form of whatever container or structure it is poured into.
The Logos can be imagined as the commanding power that orders the structure (based on idea or nature of being) that the "ether" will dress with objective form of being.
The Monad is represented symbolically by the manifested, formed being through its individuality, it's one-ness. The unformed ether is what surrounds and limits formed ether, allowing for the perception of a beings individuality, just like space is the distance between objects, giving the separation.
Where is best to start to learn more about this ?
What does your investigation of the word god and original meaning
In the beginning God was in unconscious state(darkness),so he brings forth his conscious(light,ego,Christ) to relate to himself(self aware)...The light couldnt accept the darkness and there was a war between them("Yahweh-Christ"),from this war a third power(energy,holy spirit) comes out and brings the union(higher consciousness).. So now we have the conscious God (holy trinity, or kether, or orphic egg fanitas erotas, or brahma etc ). And from this point starts the creation with the same sequence, he splits again in two and after in many... In the same way we were also hermaphrodite but unconscious like God,so for the sake of gaining consciousness our psyche splits in two, Adam(conscious) and Eve(unconscious).............. [God has only one disadvantage ,he cannot create anything but himself. We are God and we have to do the same thing (know thyself)…] -Awesome channel mate,with great material!
No truth lies in what you stated.
Did you mean Androgynous?
@@1deceived2manytimes49 Yes you are right,Androgynous! One hermaphrodite is the brain..plus the second hermaphrodite (fire/root chakra)
@exaiphnes0 Hermaphrodite pertains to the physical, only - an individual with both male and female genitals.
It's a hard way to become like gods when we are being stopped
This video cleared up a few things. Thanks.
So does spirtual indviduality exist ? Or are we merged with the one there is no us
The answer really depends on what tradition we'd use to answer it. As with this, the Western esoteric tradition, the soul (individual essence) will inevitably, through participation on various planes, return to the realm of Spirit (collective essence) and subsequently de-individuate. "Join with 'God.'" To say the Kabbalists or the Manichaeans, etc. this is the ultimate goal. A drop of water returning to the ocean.
But in animism and older traditions, it seems the individual soul eternally maintains its essence in the realm of the ancestors, they are collective there in the sense that humanity is collective here, but still seem to maintain their core essence and can be called upon accordingly. Even if we maintained the more substratum eternal reincarnation theory of the different shamanistic groups, this would also imply a continuous and eternal retention of spiritual individuality.
Hope this helps.
Our perception of our self as an individual existent is the reality of our perception. Perception is like perspective, it's a point of view and not necessarily the true truth. I have come to understand that there is only one true self that sees through the eyes of all that see, experiences through the experiences that all things experience, etc.
Of course at the worldly level of reality where our perspective is of subject and objects, of self and others, Individuality exists.
@cgdahlin Can you do a video on origin of angels and devils, heaven and hell. Are they real or made up psychologically by humans? Similarly on the idea of afterlife. or have you done it already in case I missed it.
So what is the significance of 3, what does it represent?
A tricky question to answer. It very much seems to depend on what tradition we're referencing.
In a number of paganisms, 3 is linked with maiden, mother, crone, the 3 cycles of life and the intricacies therein, innocence, to the loss of innocence, to the regaining of hope, nourishment, all the way to the wisdom and secrets of death in the crone.
To the ancient shamanic traditions, the upper realm, the lower realm and ours, the middle realm, 3. All that encapsulates that which is above and below.
Father son and holy spirit, or in other words, the source, the creation, and the emanation. The trinity.
This goes on and on. It seems like a trope that each tradition put its own spin on, ultimately relating back to the shamanic tradition.
More mundanely, the father, the mother, and the created, the miracle of birth, fertility. It took two, to make one, and on and on and on.
Three is the third that unites that which is divided. It is the mediator of disagreement, the median of extremes, the fulcrum of balance, centrality, etc. It is the principle of reconciliation, of unification, of the return to one-ness, of wholeness, etc.
I see the Father as the unmanifested Word and Christ as the manifested Word. The Father was only the same as the Word in the beginning, before anything was manifested. Then the Word became manifested as the Father's "only begotten son" which is Christ. The Father/Christ is the esoteric white sun which shines within the black sun that represents all of reality. The black sun I see as Parabrahman, and the Father as Brahman.
35:00 Wrong. If the Monad includes the unknown, it is not one (1), but zero (0).
The Monad is Unity (0), an undifferentiated whole beyond Being or Non-Being, true or false.
The Dyad is not 2. The Dyad is 1,1. It is the unit (1), and the attribute or quality of that unit (1). Truth is 1=1.
The Triad is 2. It is illusion, false.
0 1 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9... 4 is the number of time or death which are just concepts. Only the body dies. You can’t see or touch time because it’s a concept to maintain certain order. 1 is principal and the “other” 1 is attribute.
The Monad is One in principle. Because it is Absolute, it has no presentation or differentiation or other-ness that would distinguish it. This category of concepts is in principles, for the topic is not about existent things but intellectual things.
"The Monad is Unity." Unity is one in principle, not zero.
The Dyad is Two in principle, which is, yes, as in 1 and 1. The dyad is like two opposites that have no reconciliation, no third which unites them. Opposites are two things that are in opposing relation to one another. This relation between the two is the third that unites them in principle as opposites. Without this third, the two have no connection and are absolutely individual. In this way, the Dyad is a non-existent potential that requires the mediation and connecting relation that the third can bring.
I have a theory that the is no possible way to describe the ZERO in a way that does not also describe the ONE.
The TWO is defined by the presence of limit. A border to bound “is” and “is not”.
The Monad is the context in which the TWO appear. And the ZERO is the absence of the ONE.
Big Daddy got lazer focus in his aperture..
Mommy/daddy since the upper entity is the union of opposites, the monad.
@@RalloR top down bottom up
Teach
Where’s the
math/geometry ??
Is the ether
Where's the connection from
Soul to Sol to Sole 👣
Is “ Mosha” related to “Moshe,” that is, Moses?
You Laugh like Orlando brown sounds like a pimp good stuff
Greeks said water earth fire air
Ta mistiria
Is all in the mythology greek
En on
Ousia ieri
Written in greek
From the pro socrates
Today jews are a new thing
33 🤣🤣 thanks for the knowledge
That is platonic
The alphabet is indoeuropean
The greeks said the cosmos always existed
Another thing is a planet
Interesting laughs
Logos is only for humans
That is all ancient greek
Universo
All and nothing 0
Catholicism
Copy from all
Invented their god
I like your laugh