another theory heard from

Hey, and what about information?

Like, a computer program. It manifests through electrons - and they have mass, are attracted to gravity, measurable, etc. But surely the electrons are not the program. The actual specific electrons can be substituted by other electrons, and the pattern of effects still remains the same so to all effects Firefox is still Firefox . Also, the same electrons could be employed in entirely different way, manifesting a different program.

Pure information is an abstraction, as all information we know is embodied in "material" mechanics. Still, there's this immaterial "something" that remains when you change all the eletrons.

This seems important to me, as a good bunch of the spiritualist trip is about information, pure information, and a timeless information "realm" (very much like the dreamtime of the australian aboriginals). Take the holy qabalah for an example. It's basic units are numbers (regular numbers like 1, 2, 3, and so on), and said to be timeless and unchanging because 1 is always 1, 2 is always 2, etc.

The "immaterial something" you speak about here I think alludes to conceptual space, because name and form are ultimately "timeless," i.e., they are not subject to the vagaries of the material world. This allows us to refer to a tree as a "tree" and yet retain mutual understanding even though that tree changes over time and is NEVER the same tree (re: Heraclitus' "you can never step in the same river twice"). So when you say that the electrons that underlie a program can be changed out yet the "immaterial something" remains, it makes me think that this immaterial something you refer to--or "information"--is a linguistic idea, whereas the timeless/spaceless realm of Absolutely Nothing is beyond concept.

It depends on your definition of "information." I think that the Absolutely Nothing is a source of information, but I question whether that information is akin to a linguistic idea.

I was not thinking of language, specifically. Language in my view is sound and "light", sound associated with the other senses. The pattern of language, however - the structure may you say - this is what I'm pointing at when I mean "information". But "pattern" in the same sense I can talk about the body structure (that which remains even if the specific molecules are substituted), program structure (that what remains even when you restart the computer), etc. Systems. I find it useful (better than "information") the idea of "virtuality" in Deleuze & Guattari (french philosophers) - is it the same as what you say by absolutely nothing? I think it lines up also with the "pregnant void", the empty potence from what everything emanate on many mystical systems (the unmanifest, "ain" at the qabalah). And in the process of actualization - the transition between virtuality and actuality - this potence, this virtuality develops some kind of "abstract machinery" - I think the sephiras (numbers) at the tree of life, the lines or paths between them, etc - throught which it actualizes into the phenomena we call "material". But for Deleuze & Guattari, abstract machinery and structure aren't the same (as far as I remember, the first produces the second).

(edited for clairity)

Hm - what I call structure / system is what you (and/or the buddhists) call form?

I'm not entirely sure if the "structure" you refer to is the same as Buddhist form. I think Buddhist form refers to the manifest world ("form is emptiness, emptiness is form" at least in Mahayana Buddhism), whereas your structure seems akin to Plato's form, or eidos, which is the blueprint for material beings, i.e., the body structure is the immaterial form, whereas the body is the material being.

Absolutely Nothing refers to non-dual reality and is commensurate with your "pregnant void." (I love that term!) I agree that the "pregnant void" and "virtuality" are more fundamental and precede "in-form-ation" as you define it. If you accept yoga's theory of the three bodies (gross, astral, causal), then the astral and causal bodies--and their associated realms--are similar to the idea of "abstract machinery" or "structure" (I don't quite understand the difference between the two) in that these bodies/worlds provide the structure for the material world, while supporting it. I think you are correct in saying that this is a fount of information and I think this information is transmitted via visions and intuitions.

I think what's really important to remember--and practically realize--is that there is no gulf between "virtuality" and "actuality." They are both nothing and therefore are equivalent.

Iago wrote: Hey, and what about information?

Like, a computer program. It manifests through electrons - and they have mass, are attracted to gravity, measurable, etc. But surely the electrons are not the program. The actual specific electrons can be substituted by other electrons, and the pattern of effects still remains the same so to all effects Firefox is still Firefox . Also, the same electrons could be employed in entirely different way, manifesting a different program.

Actually I would say that the electrons are the program. More specifically, the electrons and the program are not separate. Just like the water molecules ARE the ocean and sure you can have different water molecules there but it would be a different ocean (we wouldn't even notice it, for us it'll be the same old ocean but it still would be different) so this ocean IS the water molecules and has no existence without them.

Eran wrote: Actually I would say that the electrons are the program. More specifically, the electrons and the program are not separate. Just like thwater molecules ARE the ocean and sure you can have different water molecules there but it would be a different ocean (we wouldn't even notice it, for us it'll be the same old ocean but it still would be different) so this ocean IS the water molecules and has no existence without them.

Seems two things can be interdependent without requiring that they be the same. In other words, saying the "electrons are the program" is different from saying they are "not separate." At least, this holds in a linguistic space that is the domain of the ego.

Outside of concept though, the molecules are the ocean are the electrons are the program, everything is interdependent, and all is subject to change.

edited to attribute quotation to correct person

Chris Marti wrote:

If a thing is truly immaterial how does it have any effect material things?

One way would be saying there's some kind of higher consistency between immaterial process and mattter/causality. The kind of example I can readily think of is magickal. I invoke an immaterial entity (let's say a deity); it manifests through (and in) my mind-body-energy material/causal strata; probably, if you look at the material machinery, there's no violation of natural law, everything is just following it's path; but still, when summoning comes into effect, matter 'organized' itself immanently (following it's conditioned path) so that the deity is manifest. This takes the deity to "act" from outside time and causality somehow, because the whole conditioned path of molecules since the beginning of time must converge at that time and momment in a way that manifests the deity - so that no natural law is violated. Swiss analist Jung called this "synchronicity", acausal phenomena, meaningful coincidences. It tends to happen a lot when handling magick or fumbling with what he called "colective uncounscious".

sunyata wrote:

I think what's really important to remember--and practically realize--is that there is no gulf between "virtuality" and "actuality." They are both nothing and therefore are equivalent.

Agreed, and I feel Deleuze and Guattari would agree too. Anyway, better to leave the "abstract machinery" aside; I went back to the books to check precisely what it's about, and the truth is... I still don't understand it. Heheh. I liked the yoga model anyway. What is the causal body? It ressonates somehow with the buddhist Trikāya doctrine and the four celestial worlds of the qabalah.

According to Hiroshi Motoyama, a causal body (or karana body as he calls it) appears as a bright white orb-like being wherein there is no distinction between gender and supersensory perceptions of color, taste, smell, etc. It's main mode of apprehension is intellectual intuition, wherein that which is universal is correctly discriminated from that which is impermanent. On the other hand the astral body is colorful, has a gender, often appears in human-like form. It's main mode of apprehension is supersensory functions and emotional likes and dislikes. Causal is primarily intuitive wisdom; astral is dominated by emotion.

A good book IMO on this subject is Motoyama's Being and the Logic of Interactive Function. Unfortunately, it's kinda pricey. It's either in that book or Karma and Reincarnation that he talks about how he sees an individual's astral and causal bodies superimposed on physical reality and that they provide information on past-lives and karma that he relays in his spiritual consultations.

Chris Marti wrote: If a thing is truly immaterial how does it have any effect on material things?

Why would something need to be material in any way in order to affect material things? Doesn't seem that this is a necessary prerequisite.

Is it helpful to a person's practice/meditation to have a view/belief about the difference between a causal and astral body or the mechanism behind the experience of the presence of a deity (to pull two examples from the recent part of the thread)? If so, what is the benefit?

I can't answer regarding causal bodies. But if they match somehow the "four worlds" of qabbalah, it's a possible connecting point between hindu knowledge and Hermeticism/Magick, and can be useful on the future. Understanding the "four worlds" can be useful - on the midst of general qabalah knowledge - to define better intent when making magick mojo happen, with or without the Great Work in sight.

It's true also I have a compulsion to spin webs and webs of systems for the spinning sake (call it love of science). It can get easily unskillfull if not done in moderation!

Metta!

Sunyata wrote:

Why would something need to be material in any way in order to affect material things? Doesn't seem that this is a necessary prerequisite.

If something immaterial affects material beings, it's objectively verificable. We could then say something like that has not been proved to exist (if we think about examples like PK, or so-called "free choice"), but my guess is that phenomena we find on quantum level are awfully imaterial in nature - can only be described by very abstract maths and don't behave like any object we're acostumed to deal with on macro/newtonian level. Like "wave funcions" - the virtual/probabilistic state of quantum phenomena - before it "colapses" into an outcome. Oh, there's also that part where information "travels" faster than light and by no known mean ( quantum entanglement ), which may or may not be nailed down to some material "media" that transmits the data; until then, it stands as an possible example of some kind of immaterial agency.

Energy seems to be the core principle tying everything together. Quanta are just packets of energy, matter is just condensed energy (that is 99.99% space). As you said Iago, it seems this energy "travels faster than light," although this is probably inaccurate in my view, since it is presupposing a dualistic framework. I think something akin to Jung's synchroncity, which you mentioned, that allows for simultaneous transfer of energy would be a more accurate model.

Another facet of this energy seems to be that is carries information or is in itself information. I guess this is why it's often referred to as "intelligence" or "intelligent energy." This is seen in the energy healing wherein the energy seems to "know" where to flow. William Bengston's work is illuminating in this respect. The intelligent energy also seems to be able to "attach" or "infuse" in condensed matter: Bengston would "charge" cotton balls with his energy and they would heal the mice in his experiments.

Ona - It has not been helpful to my practice up to this point. Perhaps it will be if I encounter "strange" phenomena. I appreciate your emphasis on the relationships between beliefs and practice. I must admit that this collection of explications I tend to do is something I do for fun and is an expression of my search for Truth and for an holistic explanatory framework that is comprehensible to the human mind.

(edited for completeness)

@sunyata - fun is a good reason

Ona Kiser wrote: Is it helpful to a person's practice/meditation to have a view/belief about the difference between a causal and astral body or the mechanism behind the experience of the presence of a deity (to pull two examples from the recent part of the thread)? If so, what is the benefit?

Ona, I think this comment brought this conversation back down to earth - for me, anyway.

So there's a difference between astral and causal - so what? Aside from being an interesting topic, in what way is this information functional? I'm not saying that it isn't functional, just that it's waste of time to talk about this stuff without there being an application.

What does it mean if there are astral and causal bodies?

Jackson,

I think this knowledge can be helpful in gauging one's progression in spiritual practice. Both the astral and causal domains have specific functions and modes of being, so that when one embodies these functions/being one can place him/herself along the continuum of progress and better understand what one must see through in order to ascend/be elevated to a higher awareness. These models/ontological categories also help a practitioner understand unitary experiences with devas and other spiritual beings, since the practitioner at the astral level can only unite with a certain number of astral beings (up to , while the practitioner at the causal level can unite with astral beings (by self-determining itself to a lower level) or causal beings totaling about 20.

Although it's a useful tool IMO, one must aware of its un-reality as a concept and of the beings' mode as individuals, that is, of the work that the beings themselves must do to attain liberation. That is, there's still a sh*tload of work to be done.

Jake2, you write about this stuff pretty matter-of-factly (e.g. "a person meditating at the astral level can only unite with X number of astral beings"). I'm genuinely curious: how many astral beings have you united with?

I don't appreciate everything about the pragmatic dharma movement (which is a heavy influence here), but one thing I really DO appreciate is that what is fundamentally most important is to talk about our own personal experiences, the tools we are using right now, what teachings we are finding helpful and why, how the practice we are doing now is impacting our day to day experience and way of being, etc.

The movement started because too many people were fed up with hearing teachings that went on about obscure and complex dogmas, beliefs and theories that only supported the idea of awakening being a strange mystical transcendent state only achieved by foreign monks in distant temples.

Or were tired of listening to teachers who could go on all day about theory and theology, but didn't necessarily have any actual experience in their own practices or wouldn't talk openly about it if they did.

We really benefit most by helping each other with the practical, day to day aspects of real practice. Everyone has the real potential to awaken. But it is cultivated by attention to this moment, not fantasies about the future.

There is, of course, a place for fun speculative stuff, etc. It can be motivating. But even then I think it's useful to pay attention to what about it is motivating you *right now*, why you like or dislike this or that teaching or approach, which parts are helping you in your own practice, etc.

Ona - bingo!

Jackson, I don't believe I've united with an astral being, but that doesn't mean that it is not possible, nor does it mean that it isn't a fundamental aspect of the awakening process.

I understand where you and Ona are coming from and I think there is immense value in being aware of how we relate to teachings and in sharing our practical experiences with others. However, I also feel that the pragmatic dharma movement is a little too skeptical of "obscure" and "complex" teachings, even if they are provided by highly advanced practitioners. It's as if there's a tendency to disregard such teachings as fancy for some reason, perhaps because they may be symbolic in some ways. I hold immense respect for someone like Motoyama, whom I feel is a very deeply awakened teacher, that is, a god-man. This is based on my reading of his work, my meeting him, and the opinion of my spiritual teacher, who is Motoyama's student. Because of this, I weigh Motoyama's teachings heavily, especially since I find them to align with teachings of other widely respected teachers, such as Ramana Maharshi. I feel that individuals like Motoyama and Ramana have access to a level of understanding that very few of us do. This doesn't mean that it's impossible for us: it's just rare and if we keep working at it, then we'll reach that same level too someday. I also must admit that these teachings are not "obscure" or "complex" to me. The whole process of learning about "metaphysics" comes pretty naturally to me. I just soak it up and enjoy doing so. It's not work. That might change, but that is how it is now.

Sometimes I definitely feel maybe it's best that I don't participate here, since I do have a tendency to enjoy talking more about philosophy and spirituality than practice details, thereby diverting the purpose of the forum. This is despite having a regular spiritual practice. I can't really explain this preference beyond saying that I'm not that interested in talking about my day-to-day practice and that my practice extends far beyond the cushion into other interests and modalities, such as "metaphysics," dreams, hypnosis, and energy healing. My spiritual practice has opened me up to these interests, so I can't say that this is not a part of my practice. Also, I never felt motivated to keep a practice journal. I think this is because I would write something in my journal and by the next day my experience had changed or I felt differently. It seemed futile in a way. (I've never really been a journaler anyway.) I definitely see gradual positive changes in my way of being and I am constantly learning new things, especially since I picked up self-inquiry. But I guess I don't personally see much value in cataloguing my experience when it's just going to change soon.

Anyway, I will keep the "metaphysical" posts to a minimum here and discharge this interest elsewhere.

Jake, I never said that having an experience of uniting with an astral being is impossible. I was picking on the matter-of-fact-ness of your statement, which is - for you - based only on hearsay. Having confidence in Motoyama is not a problem. I'm sure he is a magnificient teacher; an exemplary yogi. I don't claim such for myself. But there's something to be said about keeping things within the realm of your own understanding when communicating with others. When venturing out into speculative territory - that is, speculative to you, not necessarily Motoyama or some other yogi - I think it's wise to say things more carefully. "My teacher says..." might not be a bad way to start such statements.

Picking nits is fun for me, although I realize it can make you and some others feel unwelcome. You are certainly welcome! Sometimes I think you sell out your time for pondering things you don't yet understand experientially, when you could be devoting your time to those practices which will bring such realities into direct perception. I want you to get those results. If I or any of the others seem tough on you sometimes, it's because we want the best for you. Perhaps I'm misperceiving things - which happens often in these online settings - but man, sometimes it appears as though you're building sand castles in the harbor when you could be out exploring vast ocean, and maybe even seeing a few real castles on the journey!

I'd like for you to stay, because I like you. I know you will do what you feel is best.

A have a compulsion for systemcraft. It's a nerd thing. It can be irritating - if you feel so (any of you) please tell me so we can find ways to relate better!

I don't went into details before so to not derail the topic completely to magick mojo - but the 'causal' body interested me because of an empirical finding I had recently (and confirmed by further experiments). It's no incredible feat, in fact it's very basic. First, I was doing some ritual working, and it envolved furnishing an "astral temple" with certain symbols. I was supposed to do so by touching tarot cards and visualizing them. I found it very dificult to keep the abundance of images in my 'imagination', and suddently I found out I didn't need this. I could just 'decide' they were there, when touching them, and afterwards, I could sense their presence - it was not like imagination, it was more subtle. Not sure if really not visual, but still, different from what you get from the regular visualization.

Another experience I had - I was praticing Crowley's instructions to astral travel. First exercise, building the "body of light" (I'm not good at trancework and the like so I'm trying to improve on this). You design and build 'a body of light' so you can project onto the "astral". So "you begin by imagining a shape resembling yourself standing in front of you" (on Crowley's words). Basically, samatha practice with visualization. Afterward, you "locate" yourself onto it, and start raising. Then you try to see around you, the "landscapes or beings of the astral plane. Such have a quality all their own. They are not like material things --- they are not like mental pictures --- they seem to lie between the two." I did the practice without full success, but with interesting results. Again, I found it more effective when I started "deciding" there was a 'body of light' there, and I turned my attention then to another channel of perception, intuitive, I'm tempted to say it was "form but without image".

So, recent experiences made me curious about the kinds of categorization of planes, bodies, etc, people have invented. And how can I devise experiences to better understand then. I hope understanding this clearly can the useful on the long run, both as jargon to decode experiences into the existing systems, and as another variable to control when directing magickal manifestation (on what plane I want to manifest something? on what plane I want to pathwork?), and both manifestation and pathwork can be useful to the Great Work. I see myself on a kind of preparatory phase, covering the holes on skill and knowledge so I can resume summoning the angel.

Of course, I'm still practicing vipassana as usual, and there are many things about my practice I'm willing to share! (and ask )

Metta!