I guess if this is to make sense, one might want to follow this link
But then again, it does stand alone: A lot of words that need to be qualified into one category “principle” or another.
What happened to thinking for ourselves without concern of if it’s Mind, Thought or Consciousness? So many traditions and philosophers. I was reading the Zohar, which is the basis for Kabbalah, which in turn is more often than not attributed to Judaism. But the Zohar predates Judaism, just as Christ predates Christianity and Buddha predates Buddism and Lao Tzu predates Taoism. In fact, Lao Tzu himself said that the Tao that can be talked about is not the Tao. I remember a talk with Joe Bailey back in 1994 on what was then known as Psychology of Mind. He said this too (POM) will become a cult, just as what happens every time someone experiences a glimpse of consciousness and tries to get their head (ego) around it. It reminds me of a lyric from Pink Floyd’s “Comfortably Numb” ‘When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse, out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone. The child has grown, the dream is gone.‘ It’s the turning to look that we must resist. Allow the glimpse to be purely what it is: not of “this” world. Leave it alone or eventually another cult will be born. 1% glimpse, 99% thought (and not the “principle”, please.) So, here we are again. What shall we call this one? Sydism? Or how about the “Banks of Knowledge”? One thing for sure. Someone other than Syd will have to write the doctrine.