Contradicting Azazel


#1

So Azazel is saying this:

“All things are formed from one primordial nothingness, not at some point
in the distant past, but in each moment. Every moment that
you consider me, I come into being. Every moment that you
consider yourself, you are brought into existence. Stop considering
yourself, and you will cease to be.”

Azazel is implying that the only thing that exists is this moment and nothing else. Let’s see what’s next:

"Reality is far from objective. Can you name a single thing
that exists independent of your observation? Such a thing
does not exist. "

What about when you are schizophrenic and you have an imaginary friend who you see and talk to in your living room, and then 2 more real people come in and see you talking to no one, then TELL you that you are doing that? Them telling you exactly that, means that reality IS objective and you need that collective consciousness to create it, otherwise you’d be delusional.

“When you and I meet, you and I come into
existence. Until that point, there is no you, there is no I.”

Yes, but there no “you” in MY perception, as there’s no “I” in YOUR perception.

"You exist only in your relation to that which surrounds you. "

So is he saying that if I move to another continent, I won’t be the same? And don’t say “adaptability”, because I still keep my memories, which make me be the same, in a way. The only thing that would change is behavior.

“Your very physical form is held together, as mine is in this smoke,
by the pressure inside of your skin meeting the pressure outside
of your skin, and both forces holding you in one piece.”

This doesn’t make sense at all. You are not formed only from your skin. That means that when someone would stab you, you would disintegrate? And what about the void? There’s no pressure there. But objects still exist.

“This is a type and a shadow of the whole of existence.”

Random phrase that doesn’t make sense because of the above explanations that I gave.

“Only through the application of various forces of pressure does anything exist.”

Then how does pressure exist?

“You have learned to master some of these pressure
systems, and can apply them to summoning something forth
from nothingness to speak to you.”

Yea, the imaginary friend in the living room that no one sees.

“You ask if I am real? I am as real as the world around you,
which is not real at all.”

Then how come pressure is real?

Now let’s debate. And I’d like to see what Koetting has to say about this.


#2

Kybalion
Digital Physics

Do your own damn homework.


#3

[quote=“Sultitan_Itan, post:2, topic:1489”]Kybalion
Digital Physics

Do your own damn homework.[/quote]

Kybalion is a crap book published a long time ago. Not that a long time ago vikings thought that a sun eclipse was caused by a giant wolf eating the sun.

Wikipedia quote: “In physics and cosmology, digital physics is a collection of THEORETICAL perspectives”

I’m still expecting someone to contradict me. This time do it for real, don’t hide behind shitty theories or books.

I’m not intending this debate as an offense to anyone, just as something that will help all of us understand reality much better and that we should not take everything at face value. Not even what a spirit says.


#4

No, you’re in the asshole phase. You don’t know shit, but you want to “debate” about it. Prince of fucking swords.


#5
Azazel is implying that the only thing that exists is this moment and nothing else. Let's see what's next.

I believe that to be correct, the past is nothing but a memory it is no longer there to be observed except through a subjective memory. The future has not happened yet and does not exist until you make it so. This is of course subjective to every other thing in existence. If I show you an invention to you it did not exist until the moment I showed it to you, on the other hand for me it existed the second I had the idea. Much of these ideas are hard to relate to others without using terminology that contradicts the nature of the idea. Like speaking in past or future tense.

"Reality is far from objective. Can you name a single thing that exists independent of your observation? Such a thing does not exist. "

What about when you are schizophrenic and you have an imaginary friend who you see and talk to in your living room, and then 2 more real people come in and see you talking to no one, then TELL you that you are doing that? Them telling you exactly that, means that reality IS objective and you need that collective consciousness to create it, otherwise you’d be delusional.

Objective reality is only multiple subjective experiences that we agree on for convienience sake. If your sitting between two people the one on the left only sees your left side and does not objectively know what the right side looks like because he can not see it or what’s beyond it, the same goes for the person on the right yet they both agree that your he same person even though they both see different images of you.

"When you and I meet, you and I come into existence. Until that point, there is no you, there is no I."

Yes, but there no “you” in MY perception, as there’s no “I” in YOUR perception.

Lets take you and me for example. Objectively I know you exist outside of your username and avatar but I have no clue what it may be so it doesn’t really exist. You could be Bob, or Susie or Fucky the Wonderboy it makes no difference. I’m the same experience for you except my avatar is fucking awesome :wink:

Until the moment we lay eyes on each other we don’t exist as we do subjectively to the other person and even then each others perceptions shape how you or me exist to the other. I may think your a nice guy but someone else may find you to be an intolerable prick.

So is he saying that if I move to another continent, I won't be the same? And don't say "adaptability", because I still keep my memories, which make me be the same, in a way. The only thing that would change is behavior.

“Your very physical form is held together, as mine is in this smoke,
by the pressure inside of your skin meeting the pressure outside
of your skin, and both forces holding you in one piece.”

This doesn’t make sense at all. You are not formed only from your skin. That means that when someone would stab you, you would disintegrate? And what about the void? There’s no pressure there. But objects still exist.

No your not only skin but have you ever heard of explosive decompression or what would happen if your body was placed in a perfect vacuum? Vacuum is a type of reverse pressure and is present in a void.

"You have learned to master some of these pressure systems, and can apply them to summoning something forth from nothingness to speak to you."

Yea, the imaginary friend in the living room that no one sees.

As you are now your no more imaginary to me than an imaginary friend or spirit. I can summon a response from by performing certain tasks like quoting you, or asking you specifically a question. That’s no different than performing certain tasks to call up a spirit for the same reasons.

"You ask if I am real? I am as real as the world around you, which is not real at all."

Then how come pressure is real?

How come wind is real or electricity or emotion? There are many things we still don’t understand or fully comprehend their relation to others. How many concepts have you found to be totally false that the rest of society/reality cling to as truths?


#6

[quote=“Elison, post:3, topic:1489”][quote=“Sultitan_Itan, post:2, topic:1489”]Kybalion
Digital Physics

Do your own damn homework.[/quote]

Kybalion is a crap book published a long time ago. Not that a long time ago vikings thought that a sun eclipse was caused by a giant wolf eating the sun.[/quote]
I – and I’m sure many others on this forum – am having a hard time not judging you based on those two sentences alone.

Your analyses of those statements are barely surface-level – you have to look a whole lot deeper to even glimpse the profundity of them. What is REAL? What is REALITY? That is what Azazel is talking about.

So without theories or books, what does that leave us with? Experience. Experience is subjective. You just contradicted yourself.

There will come a point when you have to release your preconceived notions of reality and instead put precedence on what you truly know to be real – YOUR own experience.

These videos might help you:
Time and Death
The Primacy of Consciousness - Graphic reproduction - Peter Russell


#7

Well Gentlemen,

May I suggest something a little more…hmmmm Buddhist? One of the reasons Eric’s BofA resonated with me so deeply is because as a long-time Theravada Buddhist practitioner, what Azazel is really describing is what is called Co-Dependent Origination of Co-Dependent Arising.

I would strongly suggest to stick with your research/studying of the Theravada Texts, where, their are 10 links. The Tibetan view regarding this is 12. Now, the Tibetan view is not wrong per se…but the Tibetan “links” came much much much later. I believe 800 years later. That is a LOT of time for humans to totally interject and fuck shit up…that’s all I’m saying.

For your debating pleasure please review & contemplate the following:

  1. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanatiloka/wheel394.html#ch3

  2. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html

Enjoy!


#8

The ‘imaginary friend’ in your example is not imaginary to the person experiencing it. Just because an outside observer does not see it, does not make it unreal in any way. How 'reality" is perceived is entirely reliant on the beliefs and expectations of the observer. No two people can see the same thing. Ask any one who has witnessed a car accident. You could be standing by another person and yet see completely different things. Schizophrenics have no filters, so everything most people pick up and retain subconsciously, actually makes it to the conscious mind of a schizophrenic. The observers could very well be aware of the ‘imaginary’ person, but the awareness never makes it into conscious thought.

You have absolutely no way of proving they don’t see the ‘imaginary’ person. Just because they say they don’t, doesn’t mean they truely don’t. Reality is not objective in form, and somone saying they do not see the same thing as someone else, in no way invalidates that other person’s experience, because everything exists only in the mind. Consensus reality is simply what we all collectively agree it is, on a sub conscious level.

Past is memory, future is expectation. They do not exist, except as concepts in the mind.

As for the ‘pressure’ Azazel talks about, I think you are taking it too literally, thinking in terms of air pressure and such. I read it more like the interplay of energies at the quantum level between what constitutes “you” and the energies outside of what is called “you.”


#9

My above sentences are very well put. Judging means clinging to your beliefs and feeling attacked when someone contradicts them, instead of having an open mind and accepting the contradiction as to have a good and healthy debate. When someone comes with books and theories, the debate becomes pointless. I want facts, not theories. Something you can prove to yourself.

His explanation contradicts itself with every sentence. The best answer about reality I’ve ever heard is Stephen Hawking’s answer. It explains everything, even how magic and evocation works. An it does so much better than Azazel.

Reading or writing a book is an experience in itself.

I don’t have preconceived notions of reality. I’m trying to eliminate or accept them, based on facts which can be proven from debates. If I had preconceived notions of reality, I would not have opened this debate. I’m treating them as being relative.


#10

So there IS something outside of what is called “you”? Hmmm… I thought you and Azazel are saying reality is subjective.


#11

So there IS something outside of what is called “you”? Hmmm… I thought you and Azazel are saying reality is subjective.[/quote]

Reality is subjective, What you experience “reality” to be, is what “reality” is for you. That doesn’t mean there are no underlying currents and energies that make up the coponents of “reality.”

When you are at the quantum level, there is no “you’ and no 'outside of you,” only the interplay of forces, which in turn create the building blocks of “you” and whatever is “outside of you.”


#12

My above sentences are very well put. Judging means clinging to your beliefs and feeling attacked when someone contradicts them, instead of having an open mind and accepting the contradiction as to have a good and healthy debate. When someone comes with books and theories, the debate becomes pointless. I want facts, not theories. Something you can prove to yourself.[/quote]
So calling a classic text like the Kybalion “crap” and alluding that the Vikings with their system of Tuetonic spirituality were unintelligent is “well put”? If you say so.

If you want something you can prove to yourself then you want experiences. The irony is that a debate is not going to give you the experience you desire, but more ideas, theories and perspectives. Ultimately you will have to come to your own conclusions of reality based on what you experience working through the 3GP.

His explanation contradicts itself with every sentence. The best answer about reality I've ever heard is Stephen Hawkins' answer. It explains everything, even how magic and evocation works. An it does so much better than Azazel.

No, your interpretations of his explanation are what contradict themselves. What makes Stephen ‘Hawkins’ answer “the best” to you is merely the fact that it’s easier for you to comprehend.


#13

The long and short of it is that no matter how many of us jump in here and explain this to you, no matter how eloquent we may be these ideas are not ones that can be understood from a purely intellectual position. Only through direct experience will you ever come to the understanding of these ideas.

If you really want to know if Azazel is right then do the work. If you don’t want to do the work then you are welcome to spend your life uninitiated and powerless.


#14

So there IS something outside of what is called “you”? Hmmm… I thought you and Azazel are saying reality is subjective.[/quote]

You can do allllllll the reading you want by Hawking, Whitehead, Baudrillard, whoever…

The questions and the knowledge you seek CAN NOT and WILL NOT be answered by ANYONE but YOU my friend. This is why I suggested the Theravadan Texts for you to study. Although they (the texts) are within Buddhism…yet another paradigm & construct of mind, they are not as “scientific” and dry as Western Physics.

These practices that we all struggle with, the answers we all seek, must be romanced friends…this is art/sex/death/eroticism. When you are dating a woman, you don’t drive her like a business plan and a corporate agenda!

This shit has to be coaxed and gently romanced. These are “The Arts”, “The Black Arts”, “The Occult Arts & Sciences”…with little emphasis on the science part because The Great Adepts of the ages all came to conclusions within their art forms, i.e. Yoga, Martial Arts, Black Magick, Music, Painting etc…

You won’t reach Magisteri Templi by logic friends.


#15

After reading your premise, and how you respond to articulate and accurate advice, I have come to one startling conclusion.

OH GOD, IT’S A TROLL STORM, IT’S OVERTAKING THE FORUM

What you were told here could be told to you By E.A. Koetting, it could ALSO be told to you by a quantum physicist, an expert on Buddhist philosophy or eastern religion, or a ritual magician. But if you didn’t understand it, someone who is all four will explain it to you now SIMPLY.

HE DIRECTLY ANSWERS SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS BY EXPLAINING QUANTUM PHYSICS SIMPLY.

Robert Anton Wilson explains Quantum Physics

To understand Azazel you have to drop a paradigm of an objective world and Newtoanian physics, and substitute it with a paradigm of the holographic universe, and quantum physics being the core of reality. Then it becomes much easier to understand what Azazel is, and his place in a more grand scope of existence than you could ever dream of. Oh and yeah, the mathematics behind the holographic universe can be proved with mathematical proofs on fractals, which is as close to OBJECTIVELY proving something is real without a photograph of it and DNA as you can get. And how you didn’t notice it, can be explained by a famous genius of the ancient world named Plato when he was discussing his famous “allegory of the cave”.

This knowledge is ancient and timeless, and Azazel’s comes from a place outside time itself.

But your response has made me feel one thing, I hope someday, you’ll understand why.

[URL=http://imgur.com/oxUisZ8][/URL]

Ever Forward,
-Frater Apotheosis


#16

Why waste your time on a forum dedicated to imaginary friends that crazy fucks like myself summon in the privacy of my own living room? This type of spirituality and philosophy is not for you. If you wish to interrogate Azazel then I suggest you learn to summon him yourself. Oh you can’t do that? You can only read books and speculate. Sucks to be you. But to be honest I don’t see much contradiction between Hawking’s Grand Design and Koettings Book of Azazel. How you missed the connection is beyond me. The concept of the multiverse and the formed abyss are not contradictions. I can assure you though the misunderstanding is on your part and not mine. Also we are a non-evangelising group, so don’t expect a lot of help with your queries. Especially when you come here acting like troll shit. Why would you even purchase a book like BOA? Or did you just steal it from a torrent sight?


#17

Jesus Christ, I know how to summon demons or any kind of spirit. I even stood in the presence of Azazel, Lucifer and Satan. Stop insinuating crap based on the first thing you perceive.

And Stephen Hawking’s Grand Design is exactly what contradicts Azazel. How you don’t see the contradiction is beyond me. You should watch it again.


#18

[quote=“Frater Apotheosis, post:15, topic:1489”]After reading your premise, and how you respond to articulate and accurate advice, I have come to one startling conclusion.

OH GOD, IT’S A TROLL STORM, IT’S OVERTAKING THE FORUM[/quote]

Starting to insult me? I guess you didn’t see the part where I said I don’t intend this thread as an insult to anyone, but as a debate, something to discuss. Do you know what that is? DISCUSSION. Do you want me to spell it out for you? Now, if you’re here to insult and not DISCUSS, get the fuck out and grow up.


#19

Actually, what makes his answer “the best” is the fact that it explains WHY and HOW is reality the way it is (that being subjective). It even explains the universe in a way that makes you understand how magic and evocation works. And note that his explanations are scientific.


#20

Nobody wants to “debate” you. Your every syllable drips with rancid asshole juice.