Three Kinds of Creators

I think the issue is how to understand the relationship between a non-dual undifferentiated blissful reality and all this stuff around us.

The highest being, the non-dual, blissful, self-luminous one, ultimately does not create, because it is perfectly self-sufficient. And yet, there is all this stuff. So somehow it must create. It’s a paradox which conceptual thought can’t really grasp. It creates and yet does not create.

Below that being is a being that is the same as it, but different, and this being is the first stirring of conceptual thought. It probably just knows its own creation, from the first being, if you can even call such a relationship “knowledge”. It might be too unitive to call knowledge — I don’t know. This being if it creates, and I think we can say that it does, does not create out of lack but out of fullness. It doesn’t need anything outside of itself to create, it just sort of flows forth. It is called Father.

Some levels below Father is a being that can only create by combining with something that is different from itself. This is basically — us. This being has to will into being a world of darkness in order for it to be the light that combines with that darkness and gives birth to colors. Or, it could will into a being a drop of light so that it itself could be a receptive darkness that receives that dot of light and is illuminated by it. In any case, this being creates bliss through being born of suffering, and perfection through knowing itself to be chaos.

What is the connection between the second being — Father — and the being some levels below — the two-in-one, poverty-seeking-fullness that is called Us? That connection cannot be sketched out by rational thought, it can only be achieved. Because the lack that the Us fills with its painful, agonized creation is precisely the steps of the ladder between Father and itself. It’s creation, which reverses the normal order of temporality, is the creation of the very process by which it comes to be.

Know this well.


Unthinkability, a Paradox!

A real paradox is that both of the following are true:

i)it doesn’t make sense to think there is anything unthinkable. Because if there were we would have to think it. So it seems there is no clear thought associated with “unthinkable” — or what amounts to the same thing, the “unsayable”.

ii)we know in the case of specific individuals there is nothing wrong –it makes perfect sense — to think there is something they are unable to think — they’re too dumb, or unimaginative, or limited by culture or history.

How can (i) and (ii) both be true? How can the unthinkable make sense to think (or say) and not make sense?

Sometimes people try to avoid (ii) and just affirm (i) saying that the specific limitations of specific people don’t matter, because we are discussing what is thinkable tout court — for any thinking being. But this doesn’t really work because each of us is an individual, contextual, limited person, so our sense of what is thinkable tout court is limited.

Yet there are plenty of limitations that we can get into and get out of, even though while we are in them we can’t think our way out of them. For example suppose I want people to pay attention to how humble I am. I know that this is wrong — if I’m humble I shouldn’t want them to pay attention to my humility. And yet I want it!

I can even want I myself to be humble, and be proud of my humility, and recognize that, and be proud of myself for recognizing it, and at the same time be ashamed.

I can tie myself in these 4 dimensional knots!

And the way out, actual connection can seem impossible. How can I, the narcisssist who is proud of him being aware of his narcissism, actually connect? Won’t the other person just be a toy or puppet I play with in my narcissistic mirror box?

It can seem impossible, but it isn’t impossible. It’s just unthinkable.

Like the idea that the greatest gift you can give another person is to accept love. It seems like a crazy paradoxical idea, but in real life it’s not so hard.