Deja-vu -am Mai Vazut Asta Odata Optiuni

[Oiski-Poiski]

Cred ca fiecaruia dintre noi i s-a intamplat macar o data .Stam in fata unei situatii si ne spunem foarte uimiti : Dar asta am mai trait o data, am mai vazut candva !!!!
Este o greseala a creierului ? Un scurt circuit ? Amintiri dintr-o alta viata ?

[shapeshifter]

Mi s-a intamplat de mai multe ori sa am senzatia ca am mai trait o anumita scena, un anume moment (in general clipe obisnuite, nimic special) si dupa o scurta senzatie de uimire si incercarea de explicare a ceea ce mi se imtampla, ma gandesc: nuu, e un deja-vu, mi se pare ca am mai « fost aici » si trec cu vederea. Probabil ca daca as retrai, sau as avea impresia ca retraiesc momente importante, mi-as pune mai multe intrebari...

senzaţia de deja-vu... înseamnă penetrarea în lumea asta a ceea ce pe planuri mai înalte ale fiinţei este dat ca posibil... trăirea de fapt „actualizează” acea posibilitate, iar senzaţia de deja-vu poate fi de fapt incertitudinea, lipsa de discernere a ceea ce este trăit sau nu într-un anumit plan... lipsa trării pe un plan mai înalt a unei idei poate înseamna că ea se poate materializa, înveşmânta în formă pe un plan inferior... de aici senzaţia de deja-vu...

Form:
Form is the manifestation of an “idea,” hence of a particular possibility or of an archetype, and in the final analysis of an aspect of the divine nature, and this to the extent that the form is positive and essential, not privative and accidental. Form is by definition the manifestation of an archetype, the intention of which excludes an indefinite gradation. In other words, form coincides with an “idea” which cannot be something other than what it is. Form reflects the first hypostatic autodetermination, the divine Logos. Every expressed truth necessarily assumes a form, that of its expression, and it is metaphysically impossible that any form should possess a unique value to the exclusion of other forms; for a form, by definition, cannot be unique and exclusive, that is to say, it cannot be the only possible expression of what it expresses. Form implies specification or distinction, and the specific is only conceivable as a modality of a “species,” that is to say, of a category that includes a combination of analogous modalities. Again, that which is limited excludes by definition whatever is not comprised within its own limits and must compensate for this exclusion by a reaffirmation or repetition of itself outside its own boundaries, which amounts to saying that the existence of other limited things is rigorously implied in the very definition of the limited. To claim that a limitation, for example, a form considered as such, is unique and incomparable of its kind, and that it excludes the existence of other analogous modalities, is to attribute to it the unicity of Existence itself; now, no one can contest the fact that a form is always a limitation or that a religion is of necessity always a form – not, that goes without saying, by virtue of its
internal Truth, which is of a universal and supraformal order, but because of its mode of expression, which, as such, cannot but be formal and therefore specific and limited. It can never be said too often that a form is always a modality of a category of formal, and therefore distinctive or multiple, manifestation, and is consequently but one modality among others that are equally possible, their supraformal cause alone being unique. We will also repeat – for this is metaphysically of great importance – that a form, by the very fact that it is limited, necessarily leaves something outside itself, namely, that which its
limits exclude; and this something, if it belongs to the same order, is necessarily analogous to the form under consideration, since the distinction between forms must needs be compensated by an indistinction or relative identity that prevents them from being absolutely distinct from each other, for that would entail the absurd idea of a plurality of unicities or Existences, each form representing a sort of divinity without any relationship to other forms.
As we have just seen, the exoteric claim to the exclusive possession of the truth comes up against the axiomatic objection that there is no such thing in existence as a unique fact, for the simple reason that it is strictly impossible that such a fact should exist, unicity alone being unique and no fact being unicity; it is this that is ignored by the ideology of the “believers,” which is fundamentally nothing but an intentional and interested confusion between the formal and the universal. The ideas that are affirmed in one religious form (as, for example, the idea of the Word or of the Divine Unity) cannot fail to be affirmed, in one way or another, in all other religious forms; similarly the means of grace or of spiritual realization at the disposal of one priestly order cannot but possess their equivalent elsewhere; and indeed, the more important and indispensable any particular means of grace may be, the more certain is it that it will be found in all the orthodox forms in a mode appropriate to the environment in question. The foregoing can be summed up in the following formula: pure and absolute Truth can only be found beyond all its possible expressions; these expressions, as such, cannot claim the attributes of this Truth; their relative remoteness from it is expressed by their differentiation and multiplicity, by which they are strictly limited.
To say form is to say exclusion of possibilities, whence the necessity for those excluded to become realized in other forms, since what it “excludes” by definition, is condemned to repeat itself.

Acest topic a fost editat de shapeshifter: 20 Jul 2009, 01:52 AM