Existence Of Time

[evan]

okay vicente -

you've said multiple times that time doesn't exist, and it's an intersting idea, i thought we might pursue.

now most people would say, "yes, time exists. it exists because i perceive that it does. and since all i have to base my knowledge on is empirical evidence (that which i percieve, says Mr. Descartes) then since i perceive time: it exists"

I think there can be an elaboration of this, so i'll make an amature stab at it. What i understood from your writing was that, essentially, time does not exist, because it cannot exist, because (at least in part) there is no such thing as the Now. I would agree: one cannot think in the Now. All thoughts are perceptions of what just happened a second, or even a nanosecond prior.. thus, we're really just a few "spaces of time" behind on everthing that happened. But.. for our conciousness to always be "a little bit behind", there has to be something for us to be behind. In other words, there can't be a past, w/o a present.. or at the very least.. there can't be a past w/o a future. This has to be true, as past, present and future are structuralist terms: defined by each others existence. past and future are two opposites, with present as the middle point between them.

It's like Hot, and Cold. one can't have hot w/o Cold, because Hot is defined by the existence of Cold. Now, on a temperature scale, one cannot pass from Cold into Hot, without first passing through the point at which it is niether hot nor cold. Thus, however unimaginably small, or thoroughly imperceptible or unatainable, the Present must exist, as one cannot pass from the Past into the Future with out at some point passing through the Present. The Present is the Now. Therefore the Now has to exist.

Like dark matter, for instance, we infer that it exists, w/o having any positive way of actually sensing its existence. Thus, though you beautifully articulate the imperceptibility of the Now, it still must exist. Thus time can still exist.

:unsure: e :think:

[a random hack]

I would agree: one cannot think in the Now. All thoughts are perceptions of what just happened a second, or even a nanosecond prior.. thus, we're really just a few "spaces of time" behind on everthing that happened. But.. for our conciousness to always be "a little bit behind", there has to be something for us to be behind.
you're assuming there is a now....
In other words, there can't be a past, w/o a present.. or at the very least.. there can't be a past w/o a future. This has to be true, as past, present and future are structuralist terms: defined by each others existence. past and future are two opposites, with present as the middle point between them.

and then relating a past and a future to that.
bt if you were really 'now', you wouldn't be pondering about now, or then :D
give you an example, if you sit on a hot stove, do you sit there and ponder 'Is this happening Now, or a split-millisecond ago?' :think: <_< :think: <_<
'Hmm, what's that delicious roasting smell?'
or do you suddenly find yourself having assumed a standing position?

[sahyo]

if you sit on a hot stove, do you sit there and ponder 'Is this happening Now, or a split-millisecond ago?'* *
'Hmm, what's that delicious roasting smell?'


:goodlaugh:

:thumbsup:




or do you suddenly find yourself having assumed a standing position?


"find yourself "?

;)

[vicente]

there has to be something for us to be behind

Let's take a trip in my amazing LightCraft. We are going to accelerate to the so-called speed of light, said to be 299,792 kilometres per second, or 186,282 miles per second in space-time. That is to say, for every, 300K kilometres or 186K miles of space, we apperceive 1 second of time, hence from our hunancentric point of view we will be traveling pretty fast. On the way, keep in mind Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, for as we approach that light speed, time shall slow towards zero, space shrink to nothing, and as we cross the threshold, the mass of our LightCraft shall become as infinite, and we will experience dimensionlessness within the Stillness of Undivided Light.

For those who have taken this trip, there is an immediate realization. How did we reach a velosity of 186K mps and arrive at Stillness? In that moment they behold a gnowing from Light's own point of view, that is, that this Light has no need to travel any distance in any time. In fact, this Light has not traveled any distance in any time in all of eternity. The once held beliefs of space-time then shift, and a reciprocal tremendum resplendently springs its metanioa. Our duality reality is actually 186K mps slower than the Stillness of Light.

From non-conceptual observation, that is, without predisposition or thought, all energy-mass in nature arises through divided light. This is why it makes no difference how fast energy-mass is moving, for even at 186,281 mps, the Stillness of Undivided Light will continue to be perceived as 186,282 mps faster, because the closer to Stillness one gets, the slower time appears to advance, and the more that length contracts. The past cannot pass into the Now, regardless of how close one is to it; just as the conditional cannot enter the Unconditional.

Vicente Marco

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by a random hack@Oct 2 2004, 06:07 AM

give you an example, if you sit on a hot stove, do you sit there and ponder 'Is this happening Now, or a split-millisecond ago?' :think: <_<
'Hmm, what's that delicious roasting smell?'
or do you suddenly find yourself having assumed a standing position?

:goodlaugh:


Yo Evan, can't have a past without a future? Tell that to a dead person. :D

the future does not exist. So you can have the past (history) without a future. Your analogy to hot & cold is faulty becuz both heat & cold exist as variations of temperature.

[a random hack]

' QUOTE

or do you suddenly find yourself having assumed a standing position?



"find yourself "? '

:lol:
not really, but maybe seems :)
'seems' i had trouble wording this :lol: :D

well, if 'you' can sit on a 'stove', 'you' can suddenly find yourself having assumed a standing position :D

[evan]

:lol: Sir A. R. Hack, I indeed would find myself suddenly standing

or at least.. were there to be a large mirror directly in front of me, and were I to take off my blindfold upon landing on the floor.. then I certainly could say that I had found myself standing.

at the same time.. even though it is a rollickingly amusing image of a very toasted evan on a stove.. it would still "take time" (no pun intended) for my rear to indicate to my brain that it was burning, even if it was only a fraction of a nano-second. So there had to be an instant at which my flesh became seared enough to cause the nerve endings in my rear to send a message to my brain letting it know that I should proceed very quickly to stand up and find myself. And after that instant, my rear sent a signal of pain. And after that instant, i stood up. so by the time i perceived the event, hadn't it already happened? So wasn't it in the past? So assuming a cause-effect relationship, can't we say that our thoughts are perceptions of the imediate past?

Yo Evan, can't have a past without a future? Tell that to a dead person. :D

:)... so assuming you're not a christian, a morman, a jew, a muslim, or any of a number of non-abrahamic traditions, true: there is no future "for" that dead person, since they're perception ends.. but in a larger sense, we know that when a person dies, their body remains, and if burried it slowly decomposes, right? So since, before said dead person dies, we know that s/he will die, and that their body will decompose, is it not the "future" of that person to have said body decompose?

Your analogy to hot & cold is faulty becuz both heat & cold exist as variations of temperature.

exactly.. hot and cold both exist of variations of temperature. 49 degrees can be either hot or cold, depending on what one compares it to. but aren't the terms "hot" and "cold" ideas that exist as a function of our perception? Could we perceive something as being hot, if not as the opposite to cold? If either term were to exist on its own, woudn't it just be a number on a scale, with an addendum of what things happen at that number?

With regards to the big picture, the example of heat/cold was really just an example of the nature of opposites. whether it's dark/light, good/bad, happy/sad... the point i was trying to make is that 1) opposites exist, and 2) that if that's true, then there has to be a middle ground between them. There has to be a point where the shift occurs between good, and bad, black and white, etc. Now i'm not saying it's an imediate shift (i.e. there's a lot of grey between black and white) but at some point the grey is more black than it is white.

So if we assume (at least for the sake of argument) that there is indeed a future, regardless of its nature.. then there has to be a breaking point between the past and the furture, even if both are only relative variations of places in time. wouldn't that breaking point be the Now?

Vicente -

If we are, because we think, then isn't it our thoughts (i.e. our perception) that determin(s) what is?

So if we perceive a past, and we perceive a future, then wouldn't there have to be a perceivable present (i.e. Now) in between? even if it is unatainable (even in a LightCraft) , does that unatainability negate its existence? though infinity is unatainable, do we claim that it doesn't exist?

Using the same logic, the perceived future is unatainable (as is, perhaps, the now). But does unatainability equate to non-existence?
______

now.. clearly there is an arguable seperation between perception and reality. I may believe that I'm superman, but i'm still going to die when i fly off a building, and i'm still going to burn when i sit on my stove. but when i "perceive" that I'm superman, I base that on evidence. As my perceived reality was clearly untrue, then if i am a rational being, it can only be that the evidence upon which i based my decision that i was superman was clearly bad evidence.

Thus, if our perception of future is untrue, then the evidence upon which we base that perception must be bad evidence.

As I see it, since the only thing that we can define as real is the past (i know that i just typed these words), then we must therefor base our assumptions about the future on the past. ex: we know from events in the past that a person will inevitably die. thus, we presume that, in the "future", we too will die. Is that not good evidence? Should we not presume our eventual death?
____________

:unsure: e :think:

p.s. - vicente, not to be seemingly ignorant.. but you used a couple of words which i did recognize. I thought that perhaps since you frequently use the dictionary definition for things such as god, etc. that i might seek those words in said dictionary. i tried many different ones in my attempt to remedy my ingnorance, but still found nothing. I am begining to believe that perhaps you have created these words. As i take no issue with word creation, i admit no upset, but would hope that perhaps you could define both tremendum and metanioa... thank ya much.

[a random hack]

or at least.. were there to be a large mirror directly in front of me, and were I to take off my blindfold upon landing on the floor.. then I certainly could say that I had found myself standing.

you don't need sight to find yourself

at the same time.. even though it is a rollickingly amusing image of a very toasted evan on a stove.. it would still "take time" (no pun intended) for my rear to indicate to my brain that it was burning, even if it was only a fraction of a nano-second. So there had to be an instant at which my flesh became seared enough to cause the nerve endings in my rear to send a message to my brain letting it know that I should proceed very quickly to stand up and find myself. And after that instant, my rear sent a signal of pain. And after that instant, i stood up. so by the time i perceived the event, hadn't it already happened? So wasn't it in the past? So assuming a cause-effect relationship, can't we say that our thoughts are perceptions of the imediate past?
<shrug>
well, remember that next time your arse is burning :lol:

[evan]

On the question of those dictionary-skirting words... it turns out Vicente that I have been too quick to judge, so I apologize. You in fact not did not make up those words, but rather just used fantastically obscure words which .001 % of our population know, and people like me have to search for. :thumbsup: nevertheless.. odd though it may be, i found it funny and exciting. (teehee!) As it turns out,

"Tremendum" was coined in a book by Rudolf Otto called "The Idea of the Holy." He used it to describe the overwhelming sense of awe caused, he felt, by encountering God. It included both feeling drawn toward the source and being afraid of it and so drawing back. He felt this phenomenon was common to most of the world's religions, and so he used it in a universal sense--not attached to any particular religious tradition.

"Metanoia" is a theological concept which has been variously described as "transformation of mind," "rebirth of the spirit," or "fundamental change of attitude," and such like. It is thus frequently associated with conversion experiences.

good words, good usage. well done. :) it would seem, though, that you essentially describe a "feeling of awe" as itself having a miraculous transformation.. seems odd.

:unsure: e :think:

[vicente]

If we are, because we think, then isn't it our thoughts (i.e. our perception) that determin(s) what is?

Ah! in truth we are not because we think, but think because we are. Our thoughts don't determine what is,...our thinking determines what we think is. Descartes had it upsidedown. The 'i think', the little i, the ego, does not come before the I Am.


good words, good usage. well done. it would seem, though, that you essentially describe a "feeling of awe" as itself having a miraculous transformation.. seems odd.

Webster's 'New Universal' Unabridged Dictionary, 1996
Metanoia n., a profound, usually spiritual, transformation [1870-75] change of mind.

Tremendum, "an epiphany beyond our wildest dreams",...Terence McKenna.

I don't consider a metanoia to be a "theological concept",...nor a tremendum referring to an "encounter with a god". Unfortunately, Christians are always stealing what they cannot own.

:)

[evan]

Metanoia I think we can agree on, with regards to the meaning, but it traces all the way back to greek orthodox christianity.. so unless they stole it from someone...

but tremendum was a term coined by Rudolf Otto in his book, as I said, "the idea of the holy"

all people steal, not just christians.. :) but this wasn't a stolen word.. if a person invents a word, do they not get final credit for the meaning?" he used it to describe the overwhelming "sense of awe" (not an encounter with god) caused by an encounter with (otto believed) god. McKenna must have been equating a sense of awe with a profound epiphany...

i'll respond further when slightly less inebriated..

:boxing:

hehe..

:unsure: e :think:

[vicente]

if a person invents a word, do they not get final credit for the meaning?"

I invented the word 'ontosophy' (the wisdom of being) in 1984,...however, in 2001 I learned someone else coined it in 1642. Rudolf Otto may have been the first with 'tremendum',...and if that word implies "an overwhelming sense of awe", in my opinion it should be used more, even if to say there is not enough tremendums in our life.

I see the words metanoia, tremendum and others (gnowledge, multaneous, soulestrial orienteer) to be words related to the Heart, not the intellectual delusion of religions, especially Christianity.

Contrary to Christians own view, there is no love in their myth. As I wrote before:

Most Christians believe the God they invoke while spreading their faith, is Love. However, in the whole of their Holy Book, the Bible, it only suggests the idea that this God is love at the very end, in the late 2nd Century apology 1John. In fact, when viewing the full length and breadth of the Bible, their Patriarch is clearly a murderous, pro-slavery, vacillant, petty, racist, conditional God. And amazingly, a God who is so insecure, that it demands to be worshipped, obeyed and prayed to.

Christian love, like the love of their God, what they often call agape, is merely a conditional love. To better understand this type of love, simply consider the Great Love Chapter of Christendom, Corinthians 13; ie., "love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things", 1 Cor 13:7. Although this form of love, that is, bearing, believing, hoping and enduring is more compassionate then passionate, more commitment orientated then fleeting, it isn't Unconditional Love, but the submission, devotion, expectation and suffering to the conditions of their beliefs. Thus, no matter how one perceives it, experience born of belief can only be experienced through the condition of that belief. A self-perpetuating delusion.

Passionate or emotional love, is another type of conditional love. This is the love of solicitudal desire and enthralled obsession. Such love is usually, but not necessarily, accompanied by biological, chemical or instinctual love, which manifests a yearning for the welfare, possession and companionship of another. Ordinarily, emotional love is based on something received through physiological or pyschological arousal, and commonly includes, as in Christian love, an attached expectation.

The highest love a human can awaken to, is the amoral intimacy of Conscious Love. This is the Love of the Bodhisattva; the wish for the well being and liberation of all; without predisposition, and indifferent towards the consequences to the lover. Contrary to the thinking of many, Buddhists do not believe in a God; but they do recognize Love.

:)

[evan]

So often those within the christian condition criticize those on the outside: the fundamentalists, for being too literal. they criticize those who look at the bible as prescribed and detailed law by which we should all live. literalistic, they are called. At the same time, as with most religions (e.g. Islam at present), the stereotype of the religion is set the most extreme examples of the faith.

Thus those outside the christian faith also criticize christians for their literal interpretations, and over-zealous evangelism. They criticize christians for the ridiculous scripture found in their sacred text. When it comes down to it, the vast majority of criticism about christianity is a criticism either about the catholic church, or literalism.

Your interpretation of christian love, as you've described it above, is this very same type of criticism. At the same time, you are guilty of the same type of literalistic interpretation. Your argument is based on nothing but scriptural evidence. Sure, the sacred texts of a people are indicative of their attitudes and beliefs, but they are also not the end all be all. Your's, though I of course can't know, and should make no assumptions, appears to be a critique from the outside.

While I wouldn't necesarily label myself as christian, I was indeed raised as such. And I can tell you that despite how things apear on paper, the reality is different: love is genuinely viewed and taught in the same manor as how you've just described what you believe to be a "higher" love. Now be that as it may, I would still argue that Love is Love, and am not convinced that there are higher and lower forms of love, as you seem to imply. But nonetheless love is indeed taught to be a wish for the well being and liberation of all; without predisposition, and indifferent towards the consequences to the lover. Contrary to the thinking of many, Christians do believe in God, but they also recognize love.

:unsure: e :think:

[vicente]

But nonetheless love is indeed taught to be a wish for the well being and liberation of all; without predisposition,

"without predisposition"? Yes, that would be love. However, Christian love is with disposition, as per Christians "four core beliefs: the Bible is without error, salvation comes through faith in Jesus and not good deeds, individuals must accept Jesus as adults and all Christians must evangelize."


Contrary to the thinking of many, Christians do believe in God, but they also recognize love.


I'll share an absolute fact with you,...it is impossible for a Christian to recognize love, as long as they are Christian. A condition cannot recognize the Unconditional.

[evan]

I'll share an absolute fact with you,...

the word absolute has no place in rational discussion. the only people (beyond mathematicians) who use the word absolute are priests, evangelists, and politicians: all of whom could be said to be serving the same essential function in society. It is only they who declare absolutes, because they need not justify their suppositions. They appeal not to any rational intellect, but to an individual's willingness to adhere to a faith.

A wise old dude on a mountain once said that the less one makes declarative statements.. the less he is apt to look foolish in retrospect. Rational discussion is not possible with an absolutist, as the absolutist cannot be swayed by logic or reason for his mentality is ruled by an irrational belief.

Now, with regards to the declarative absolute you have so promptly proclaimed, you essentially posit that:
a condition cannot recognize the unconditionalnot true. black can most certainly see white, even if they differ fundamentally. opposition does not negate understanding.
that all christians view love as conditionalnot true. you base your assumption on narrow, literalistic interpretations of christian love, w/o adequate justification. more on this below.
it is impossible for a christian to recognize lovenot true. the assumptions upon which you base your arguments (above) are both faulty; both use faulty logic. One cannot make a claim based on bad evidence, and expect that claim to hold any merit. Furthermore, when you make a sweeping generalization about their faith, you presuppose a universality of all christians. Clearly this is beyond the scope of rational examination of truth.

Christian love is with disposition, as per Christians "four core beliefs: the Bible is without error, salvation comes through faith in Jesus and not good deeds, individuals must accept Jesus as adults and all Christians must evangelize."

Here again you make a broad, sweeping generalization about Christianity. Is this some famous theologian that you are quoting, whom we ought simply know? Even many theologians, perhaps? How logical is it to presuppose that the nature of a broad faith is illustrated for the majority by minority theological ideas?

"the bible w/o error" is a literalistic belief. likely minority, and certainly not universal.

"salvation through faith, and not good deeds" is a highly contentious point among many different denominations, and is by no means universal, or a "core belief". Many believe one is saved simply be Grace, others believe there must be Grace, and Good Works, etc. the list goes on.

"individuals [should] accept jesus as adults", but that doesn't specify in anyway what it means to accept Jesus.

"all christians must evangelize" is simply absurd.

:unsure: e :think:

[vicente]

the word absolute has no place in rational discussion

No matter,...it is still an an absolute, indisputable fact. If so-called rational folks cannot understand that, then things are even worse than they appear.

the less he is apt to look foolish in retrospect. Rational discussion is not possible with an absolutist,

First,...only a fool would challenge the statement that "it is impossible for a Christian to recognize love, as long as they are Christian. A condition cannot recognize the Unconditional." Second,...I partially agree,...it is difficult to have a disscussion with an "absolutist,...espectially the ones masquerading as Rationalists.

not true. black can most certainly see white

??? The pigment black is the product of the absortion of all colours (wavelengths).

Most peoples view of light and dark is as biasedly mixed up, as the propoganda of self-proclaimed Visionaries. The prevelent societal construct suggests that light is good and dark is evil. However, contrary to that popular belief, light is neither good or evil, nor does it conquer dark; where is such a thing true? Cosmologically speaking, we only see as far into the universe as light allows, then there is darkness; never ending darkness. Yet many believe that light is an all-pervading expression of wisdom, when in fact it is darkness that is all-pervading. Unlike light, darkness has no edge, nor a center; in a sense, it is not separated from anything. Light on the other hand, the light of duality that is, does have a definable edge, thus a center; light is inherently separate.

The light of duality, projected light, can only illuminate the past, because it is itself the past. From a dualism perspective, the Now would be in darkness; an idea not very palatable to ego consciousness; thus any contemplation on the nature of light-darkness is forbidden, least it rip the fabric of society's delusion, and leave it naked .

Rudolph Steiner, in his treatise 'Colour', said "light was the antipathic expression of duality, whereas darkness, its sympathetic expression". In other words, darkness is as the womb of creation, through which, creation dies into light. Consider thermodynamics. [Dark] cold compresses, thus multiplying cold to create [light] heat. Heat expands, thus dividing [light] heat back to [dark] cold; the pulse of duality.
Through the light of duality, the world cannot be experienced directly, but viewed solely in the past. The term Enlightenment, has naught to do with duality's light, but is in reference to another Light; the fulcrum upon which duality effects its motion.

later
:)

[jesupocaplypse]

Time, does not Exist, because it isn;t a thing, it's a measurement.

Find me a liter. Find me a meter. Find me a minute.

Time is a measurement of Change. All things are constantly changing. Change exists, you can see it, sense it, feel it. And you can measure it with a system known as time.

Now is the only time that exists, every thing else, is either a memory or an idea.

Our minds do not operate in the Now. When you are existing in the now you do not think. Your mind is empty and still. Mind is the Past. It is built from memory.

Our spirits operate in the now. Feeling and Emotion happen in the Now. You'll feel hot before you think about it.

The future, is an idea, a concept, but it too, like the past exists only in the mind, as built by our past.

The future is a carrot dangling in front of us that we will never reach, but without it( or the idea of it) we would cease.

I am sure about the past (well, My past.) and I am sure about the present, but i am unsure about the future... ( <_< :hahaha: ) What i mean is that, I know my friends pretty well, I can observe their behavior and activities, and through that, predict their actions in the "future"...

hmm... okay, how's this then: The past is the Now that has happened, that already was. The Now is that which is happening. and the Future is a Now that has not happened yet, but may happen, and/or that will happen.

... :blink: :knockout:

[todd]

Time is a measurement of Change. All things are constantly changing. Change exists, you can see it, sense it, feel it. And you can measure it with a system known as time.

I see no things without 'changing', without time. There is no feeling or emotion in absolute stillness. Think about yourself totally paralized, in the middle of a perefctly still spherical room. You don't feel your body, your body doesn't move, doesn't breathe, you don't even know if you exist.You are totally deaf and the only sense you have is vision but you cannot move or close your eyes... how long do you thing you'll survive in this NOW?
Now cut the light, let it be perfect... one single conscience in nowhere.

[Corri]

Vincente:

I have a question for you regarding this post you made:

there has to be something for us to be behind

Let's take a trip in my amazing LightCraft. We are going to accelerate to the so-called speed of light, said to be 299,792 kilometres per second, or 186,282 miles per second in space-time. That is to say, for every, 300K kilometres or 186K miles of space, we apperceive 1 second of time, hence from our hunancentric point of view we will be traveling pretty fast. On the way, keep in mind Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, for as we approach that light speed, time shall slow towards zero, space shrink to nothing, and as we cross the threshold, the mass of our LightCraft shall become as infinite, and we will experience dimensionlessness within the Stillness of Undivided Light.

For those who have taken this trip, there is an immediate realization. How did we reach a velosity of 186K mps and arrive at Stillness? In that moment they behold a gnowing from Light's own point of view, that is, that this Light has no need to travel any distance in any time. In fact, this Light has not traveled any distance in any time in all of eternity. The once held beliefs of space-time then shift, and a reciprocal tremendum resplendently springs its metanioa. Our duality reality is actually 186K mps slower than the Stillness of Light.

From non-conceptual observation, that is, without predisposition or thought, all energy-mass in nature arises through divided light. This is why it makes no difference how fast energy-mass is moving, for even at 186,281 mps, the Stillness of Undivided Light will continue to be perceived as 186,282 mps faster, because the closer to Stillness one gets, the slower time appears to advance, and the more that length contracts. The past cannot pass into the Now, regardless of how close one is to it; just as the conditional cannot enter the Unconditional.

Vicente Marco

Isn't this an unfair extrapolation? All we know is that time begins to slow down as one moves at very high speeds. We also know that the nature of the space/time that we inhabit seems to prevent us from travelling at the speed of light. Nobody knows what happens IF somehow one could travel at the speed of light..all we know is that its not allowed.

Nature, for some reason, is ABSOLUTELTY adamant in her refusal to allow us to achieve speeds beyond that of light. The speed of light is therefore a barrier imposed by nature, as if God put her foot down at that point saying: "thats it, my kids, you are DEFINITELY not going beyond there, is that clear?"

So as we approach closer and closer to the speed of light, energy begins to spontaneously convert into mass. Which means that an electron will start becoming a bigger electron. And the mass will keep on increasing as the electron reaches closer and closer to the speed of light. If you were in a spacecraft travelling at that speed (close to the speed of light) you and the spacecraft would become bigger versions of yourselves. (Just as a size "XXL" shirt is a "bulkier" (more mass) yet identical version of a size "small" shirt) You'll start growing bigger and bigger and bigger.

Why does nature do this? Becuase, the bulkier you are, the more powerful the engines of the spacecraft need to be in order to maintain that speed. By making you grow bulkier and bulkier, Nature makes it harder and harder for the engines in your spaceship to keep up that speed, and finally, any realistic spacecraft will have to give up the fight, because there is no limit to how hard nature can make it for your engines, if you choose to play hardball with her..... Thus it seems to me that we will NEVER be able to reach such high speeds with our spaceships, not because we are not technically sophisticated enough, but because there is a natural limit to speed.

This is 100% true. How do we know? This effect was first discovered when people invented a clever gadget called the cyclotron. What this does is takes a beam of electrons, whirls them round and round in a special track (using oscillating electric and magnetic fields) several times till the electrons are moving pretty fast, and then shoots them off. (the very fast moving electron beam can then be used to do other experiments) . Now the people using these things in the beginning were very excited, and like kids trying out new toys wanted to see how fast they could accelerate the electrons using this. To their disappointment, they found that the device can speed up electrons only and up to a certain speed.....beyond that it doesn't work.

Why? The reason is that as electrons start getting faster, their masses start increasing significantly....and that screws up all the calculations for that machine (the desingners never imagined that mass of the electron would increase). Since the mass increase is perfectly in sync with what the theory of relativity predicts, people made adjustments to the design to account for the mass-increase of the electron. And this improved cyclotron is called the "synchtron". (Incidentally, this to doesn't work very well because of another problem...very fast charged particles spontaneously emit radiation which slows them down again.....) My point here is that the relativistic mass increase is a very real phenomenon. Things subject to the physical world are limited by its laws, Newtonian and Quantum.

While your 'Stillness' theory may seem logical, again, nobody knows what happens IF somehow one could travel at the speed of light..all we know is that its not allowed. (The above, by the way, was explained to me by a friend of mine... so this is his explaination... like to give credit where credit is due).

Corri

[vicente]

Isn't this an unfair extrapolation? All we know is that time begins to slow down as one moves at very high speeds. We also know that the nature of the space/time that we inhabit seems to prevent us from travelling at the speed of light.

The truth? Most only know the nature of space/time that they "think" they inhabit prevents them from the Stillness of Light.

Nature, for some reason, is ABSOLUTELTY adamant in her refusal to allow us to achieve speeds beyond that of light.

Yes,...nature, the illusion, is "ABSOLUTELTY adamant". But we are not nature, anymore than we are our automobles. Nature is merely a vehicle our consciousness uses within this dream.

Which means that an electron will start becoming a bigger electron. And the mass will keep on increasing as the electron reaches closer and closer to the speed of light....bigger versions of yourselves... Just as a size "XXL" shirt...

Interesting point, but a conceptual one. At infinite mass there is no longer mass. It is like a belief,...once you see a belief (the core of it) for what it is, it effortlessly dissolves. At infinite mass is the realization that mass does not exit.

Thus it seems to me that we will NEVER be able to reach such high speeds with our spaceships, not because we are not technically sophisticated enough, but because there is a natural limit to speed.


Certainly,...that is why I didn't use a "spaceship" or a timeship, but an Amazing Lightcraft,...perhaps something closer to a Merkaba.

This is 100% true. How do we know? This effect was first discovered when people invented a clever gadget called the cyclotron. What this does is takes a beam of electrons, whirls them round and round in a special track (using oscillating electric and magnetic fields)...To their disappointment, they found that the device can speed up electrons only and up to a certain speed.....beyond that it doesn't work.

A Merkaba is not a Cyclotron machine. However, if (if I recall) you would use your cyclotron to send an electron (negative charge) in one direction, and a proton (positive charge) in the opposite direction, at the point of intersection or colliding, there is no longer an electron nor a proton, but a moment of light. Such would be closer to what is being discussed.

Things subject to the physical world are limited by its laws, Newtonian and Quantum.


Surely,...but the we we really are, are not of the physical world.

While your 'Stillness' theory may seem logical, again, nobody knows what happens IF somehow one could travel at the speed of light..all we know is that its not allowed.

Perhaps that statement is true for Christians, Jews and Muslems,...but there are records of hundreds of Buddhists, Tantrics, and Naga's who understand exactly "what happens",...ie., the 28 verse Mahamudra of Tilopa.

Keep this in mind with your studies,...that history repeatedly shows that what most "think" is true is usually proved to be false.

Go check out the film "What the #$*! Do We Know?!" (playing at limited theaters). Although not totally related to the subject here, it could be a helpful stepping stone.
http://www.whatthebleep.com/home/

:)

[Corri]

So what you are saying here is we are discussing apples and oranges. The 'physical' world is the stage for the dream. The Newtonian and Quantum Laws are the script... the boundaries, if you will, for the play to be acted out. It has absolutely nothing to do with...hmmm.... words, words, words... the 'essence' of what is as it is.... in the physical world, it is the finite becoming the infinite, according to the script.

The very essence of Quantum Mechanics is that 'nature is observing itself,' for everything in the physcial world is made up of the same exact thing, at least on a micro level. "Nature" then, is the dream. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the observation of the dream... at least, when 'what is' is realized.

In other words:

Every dance I dance
I dance for the first time.
Do not confuse
the type of dance I am doing
with the fact that I am dancing.

Apples and Oranges.

I probably didn't articulate that very well.... but at least I now understand your point.

Corri

[vicente]

The Newtonian and Quantum Laws are the script... the boundaries, if you will

Actually, Quantum leads us to "no boundaries", as in the No Boundary Theory of Quantum Cosmology, which simply put says there was no Big Bang, no Singularity, because there is no time (Hawking and Hartle).

Quantum shows us there was no before and after, no creation, nor a Creator.

So, for the conceptual people, they still ask what happened before the Big Bang,...even though Hawking explains such is like asking what is further north than the north pole,...the question is meaningless. Tilopa's 28 verse Mahamudra explains this clearly.

Every dance I dance
I dance for the first time.
Do not confuse
the type of dance I am doing
with the fact that I am dancing.

Actually, every dance you dance is the same dance, until you dissolve dancing. There is no music outside nature.

but at least I now understand your point.

I'm not sure that you do.

:)

[Corri]

Actually, Quantum leads us to "no boundaries", as in the No Boundary Theory of Quantum Cosmology, which simply put says there was no Big Bang, no Singularity, because there is no time (Hawking and Hartle). Quantum shows us there was no before and after, no creation, nor a Creator.

A subatomic particle is a 'quantum,' which means a quantity of something. What that 'something' is, is a matter of speculation. At the subatomic level, mass and energy change unceasingly into each other. Strictly speaking, mass, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, is energy, and energy is mass. Where there is one, there is the other.

Quantum Mechanics (new physics) is based upon the idea of minimal knowledge of future phenomena (we are limited to knowing probabilities) but it leads to the possibility that our reality is what we chose to make it.

Old physics assumes that there is an external world which exists apart from us. It further assumes that we can observe, measure and speculate about the external world without changing it. According to old physcis, the external world is indifferent to us and to our needs. (For example, if we simultaneously drop two people from the same height, it is a verifiable fact that they will both hit the ground at the same time, regardless of their weights, and how they feel about being dropped. This impersonality of the "Great Machine" of old physcis inspired scientists to strive for 'absolute objectivity.'

Quantum Mechanics tells us clearly that it is not possible to observe reality wiithout changing it. According to Quantum Mechanics, there is no such thing as objectivity. We cannot eliminate ourselves from the picture. We are a part of nature, and when we study nature, there is no way around the fact that nature is studying itself. Quantum Mechanics view sub-atomic particles, not as 'things,' but as 'tendencies to exist,' or 'tendencies to happen.' Quantum Mechanics discards the laws governing individual events and states directly the laws governing aggregations. (Zukav)

Light is unknowable, it can only be understood. Quantum is of a physcial nature.

If your original point was 'knowing light,' then you had best leave science out of your discussion, for the two are Apples and Oranges. And if your purpose is not to compare the apples and the oranges, then there is no conversation to be had. There is only what is as it is. And there is simply nothing to discuss.

Every dance I dance
I dance for the first time.
Do not confuse
the type of dance I am doing
with the fact that I am dancing.

Actually, every dance you dance is the same dance, until you dissolve dancing. There is no music outside nature.

Really. :)

Take care.

Corri

[Corri]

Vicente:

Okay. I'm throwing any claims I've made, except for the 'dancing' thing, out the window. And even some of the claims you've made, now, to me are suspect. Help me here, please.

I am ready to throw my Quantum Mechanics Book for Dummies out the window. Now, I see this as fascinating stuff, I really do. I continue to have, 'holy cow! who knew?!' moments through out. Don't know that I'm the sharpest tack in the box, but I think I'm keeping up in my own Corri way. Now granted, it's just the generalities, 'cuz people like me who can't run a math equation to save their soul can only understand this stuff on a certain 'dumbed down' level. I can live with that. Really.

So I'm plodding along through the book, we're having this 'time' conversation here, life's good, you know. And then I hit the discussion about 'light' and waves, and light is dualistic... a wave AND a particle, and this is not a 'tidy' discovery in QM. Light measured as a wave is predictable. Light measured as a particle does 'spooky things.' But light is not an either/or proposition. It is both. (I knew this QM convo was all going to boil down to 'light.')

So I'm reading about how QM experiments must follow very specific... hmmm... specifications. Everything in the experiment must be measured and recorded just 'so,' in order for it to be transcribed into the mathematical language of Quantum theory. I can handle that. It won't do to run a sloppy experiment.

Now putting this into a context of someone explaining a concept (how QM experiements on how light behaves as a wave and as a particle are run), I'm going to stick in part of the book I'm reading (for those of you who don't understand it, you're going to have to get your own book, 'cuz I'm not typing all of it). Light measured as a wave is predictable. Light as a particle (photon) is something else. The below is in reference to a photon.

Gary Zukav:
What happens to the observed system between the region of preparation and the region of measurement is expressed mathematically as a correlation between two observables (production and detection). Yet we know that the observed system is a particle--a photon. Said another way, the photon is a relationship between two observables. This is a long, long way from the building-brick concept of elementary particles. For centuries, scientists have tried to reduce reality to indivisible entities. Imagine how surprising and frustrating it is for them to come so close (a photon is very 'elementary'), only to discover that elementary particles don't have an existence of their own.

As Henry Stapp wrote for the Atomic Energy Commission:

... an elementary particle is not an independently existing, unanalyzable entity. It is, in essence, a set of relationships that reach outward to other things.

Futhermore, the mathematical picture which physicists have constructed of this "set of relationships" is very similar to the mathematical picture of a real (physical) moving particle (the particle is represented by a wave function which has almost all of the characteristics (when properly squared, to get a probability function) of a probability density function. However, it lacks the crucial feature of a probability density function, namely the property of being positive). The motion of such a set of relationships is governed by exactly the same equation which governs the motion of a real moving particle.

Wrote Stapp:

A long-range correlation between observables has the interesting property that the equation of motion which governs the propagation of this effect is precisely the equation of motion of a freely moving particle.

Things are not 'correlated' in nature. In nature, things are as they are. Period. "Correlation" is a concept which we use to describe connections which we perceive. There is no word, "correlation" apart from people. There is no concept, "correlation," apart from people. This is because only people use words and concepts.

"Correlation" is a concept. Subatomic particles are correlations. If we weren't here to make them, there would not be any concepts, including the concept of "correlation." In short, if we weren't here to make them, there wouldn't be any particles!*

(*From the pramatic point of view, nothing can be said about the world "out there" except via our concepts. However, even within the world of our concepts, particles do not seem to have an independent existence. They are represented in theory only by wave functions and the meaning of the wave function lies only in correlations of other (macroscopic) things.)

Quantum Mechanics is based on the development in isolation of an observed system. "Development in isolation" refers to the isolation that we create by separating the region of preparation from the region of measurement. We call this situation "isolation," but in reality, nothing is completely isolated, except, perhaps, the universe as a whole. (What would it be isolated from?)

The "isolation" that we create is an idealization, and one point of view is that QM allows us to idealize a photon from the fundamental unbroken unity so that we can study it. In fact, a "photon" seems to become isolated from the fundamental unbroken unity because we are studying it.

Photons do not exist by themselves. All that exists by itself is an unbroken wholeness that presents itself to us as webs (more patterns) of relations. Individual entities are idealizations which are correlations made by us.

In short, the physical world, according to QM is: ..."not a structure built out of independently existing unanalyzable entities, but rather a web of relationships between elements whose meanings arise wholly from their relationships to the whole." (Stapp)

The narrative continues. It goes on to say that the running of an experiment will influence a potential outcome simply because we are observing it. Observing IS a factor, because in order to cause a possibility to become an actuality, 'we make a measurement' of it.

"Making a measurement" interferes with the develoment in isolation of the observed system. When we interfere with the development in isolation of the observed system (which is what Schrodinger's wave equation governs) we actualize one of the several potentialities that were a part of the observed system while it was in isolation."

QM is the prediction of possible outcomes. Yet:

Before we interfere with the development in isolation of an observed system, it merrily continues to generate possibilities in accordance with the Schrodinger wave equation. As soon as we make a measurement, however--look to see what is happening--the probability of all possibilities, except one, becomes zero, and the probability of that possibility becomes one, which means that it happens.

So what is the point, after all of this? The only people on earth who concern themselves with QM are physicists, and quirky people like me. And the more I continue to read about QM, the more convinced I become that QM is a mathematical expression of old eastern mysticism. To me, it proves the interconnectivity of all things... group consciousness. We are all connected and influence one another. Period. There is NO separation.

Maybe you can't make that leap, but this is what I see from what I'm reading in my book, and from various posts around the internet that I've read. Thoughts and comments welcome.

Corri

[vicente]

A subatomic particle is a 'quantum,' which means a quantity of something. What that 'something' is, is a matter of speculation. At the subatomic level, mass and energy change unceasingly into each other. Strictly speaking, mass, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, is energy, and energy is mass. Where there is one, there is the other.

Sure, quantum physics is a study into the microcosm of things, however, when all positives and all negatives are added up, that thing equals zero. Not "nothing" as in nothing, but nothing as in without mass or energy.

Once you realize what Light is,...that from a Lightcentric point of view,... it has traveled no distance, and has taken no time to do so,...Light is Still,..then you will understand that "energy" is merely a by-product of being separate from the Stillness of Light. Energy is motion brought about by the perception of being separate and is seeking home,...Stillness. Consciousness contains no energy.

And then I hit the discussion about 'light' and waves, and light is dualistic... a wave AND a particle, and this is not a 'tidy' discovery in QM.

Yes,...light is appears to be dualistic from a humancentric or physical point of view. Yet, physics is actually tristic (did I make up a word?),...not two, but 3,...every duality arises from a neutral fulcrum, like a playground seesaw. The fulcrum is still, causeless, unconditional.

Mathematics is a language of Duality to describe Duality,...Physicists are afraid of Zero. Zero upsets logic.

Imagine how surprising and frustrating it is for them to come so close (a photon is very 'elementary'), only to discover that elementary particles don't have an existence of their own.

Particles arise from the wave. Imagine the Light Still in a projector. The projection is the wave,...where it becomes visible on the screen is the particle. In our physical reality, the screen is a 4 dimensional holographic matrix. http://www.ontosophy.com/The%20Matrix.html

It goes on to say that the running of an experiment will influence a potential outcome simply because we are observing it. Observing IS a factor, because in order to cause a possibility to become an actuality, 'we make a measurement' of it.

This is a problem with physics. As long as we "observe" through the we we think we are, the observation is never true, because the we we think we are is not true. As I've often said in this forum, experience born of belief is only experienced through the condition of that belief,...and thus not an authentic experience. To understand what that is pointing to, that is an authentic experience, I often suggest transformational triggers so that one can experience the difference for themselfs, ie:
http://www.slimeworld.org/xxaxx/jbc_ndx.html

We are all connected and influence one another. Period. There is NO separation.


I agree,...there is no separation. However, the closest most have gotten to this realization is the false idea of Oneness. To have One, there must be a Many,...Oneness is another delusion of separation to veil the truth. There can't be a Center without an Edge. We must cease being conceptual,...cease putting "think" before the "I Am".

Wholeness is not a union of opposites,...but a dissolution of those illusory opposites.

Buddha alledgedly said, there is no center of the universe,...identifying with the universe, even as a whole, is still ego attachment.

:)

[bito]

Energy is motion brought about by the perception of being separate and is seeking home,...Stillness.

Is there no ecstasy (energy) in this stillness?

[Corri]

V:

Not "nothing" as in nothing, but nothing as in without mass or energy.

I've never seen it put that way. :)

Once you realize what Light is,...that from a Lightcentric point of view,... it has traveled no distance, and has taken no time to do so,...Light is Still,..then you will understand that "energy" is merely a by-product of being separate from the Stillness of Light. Energy is motion brought about by the perception of being separate and is seeking home,...Stillness. Consciousness contains no energy.

If light is still, at what point did/does energy separate, and why? (Maybe just because it could. Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe I've confused myself beyond thought to absolute stillness. I've done that before.)

The fulcrum is still, causeless, unconditional.

But a fulcrum serves a purpose. What?

Particles arise from the wave. Imagine the Light Still in a projector. The projection is the wave,...where it becomes visible on the screen is the particle. In our physical reality, the screen is a 4 dimensional holographic matrix.

Mmmmm.... yeeeaaahhhh... but there is a little more to it than that. At least if I'm understanding my QM reading correctly... and it could be, too, that QM has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than physics, and to pull this into a discussion of 'Light is Stillness' is pointless, not even related... a discussion of Apples and Oragnes. (Jeese, I think I said that once...) But it seems to me that it is always at this 'point,' that a discussion of light as a wave/particle, light is stillness, hits a fork in the road... to some it is a seamless transition to the left, not even noticed... to others it is an illogical leap, (do you NOT understand that you just took a left at the fork in the road?! and I'm still here looking for proof that I should go either right or left?!) and the whole thing falls apart... hmpf. Interesting.

This is a problem with physics. As long as we "observe" through the we we think we are, the observation is never true, because the we we think we are is not true. As I've often said in this forum, experience born of belief is only experienced through the condition of that belief,...and thus not an authentic experience. To understand what that is pointing to, that is an authentic experience, I often suggest transformational triggers so that one can experience the difference for themselfs, ie: http://www.slimeworld.org/xxaxx/jbc_ndx.html

I'm right there with you. And that is a very cool web site. Outstanding.

I agree,...there is no separation. However, the closest most have gotten to this realization is the false idea of Oneness. To have One, there must be a Many,...Oneness is another delusion of separation to veil the truth. There can't be a Center without an Edge. We must cease being conceptual,...cease putting "think" before the "I Am".

Yeah. I have no problem with Oneness and 'I Am,' except for the fact that I can explain it to no one, not even myself. Conceptual is transcended and I can go no further on the point, for I have no idea whatsoever how to do so. It just is, understood, and there is nothing else to say.

'We must cease being conceptual...' does not 'fit' for me with the sentences you used preceeding it... to me this is ego creeping into something beyond conception. Were I a referee, I'd blow my whistle and claim foul on the offense. But I digress.

Wholeness is not a union of opposites,...but a dissolution of those illusory opposites. Buddha alledgedly said, there is no center of the universe,...identifying with the universe, even as a whole, is still ego attachment.

This, in some unexplainable way for me, is like stating the obvious. Don't mean to be crass... okay, so I'm not so sure where I am on all this... but then again, I'm not even sure it matters. Guess I'll go tool around the grocery store and think about it. :)

Thanks for the response.

Corri

[Corri]

Energy is motion brought about by the perception of being separate and is seeking home,...Stillness.

Is there no ecstasy (energy) in this stillness?

Why don't you go to the grocery store and find out for yourself? => http://www.slimeworld.org/xxaxx/jbc_ndx.html

Corri

[Corri]

V:

The fulcrum is still, causeless, unconditional.


But a fulcrum serves a purpose. What?

Duh. Without the fulcrum, there is no seesaw. And no playground.

Corri

[vicente]

Is there no ecstasy (energy) in this stillness?

Ecstasy begins (or becomes unveiled) when Stillness is realized. There is no true ecstasy through energy,...Love is Unconditional. Energy is always, without exception, conditional.

:)

[vicente]

If light is still, at what point did/does energy separate, and why?

Energy did not separate,...energy is a by-product of separation. So what separated? Actually, nothing but perception. There really is no separation,...we just think there is. Energy is the motion to return to Stillness of Light.

Oops,...got to go for now.

:)

[bito]

Ecstasy begins (or becomes unveiled) when Stillness is realized. There is no true ecstasy through energy,...Love is Unconditional. Energy is always, without exception, conditional.

Liquid being...being liquid...feels de-lightfully inner-energy-flowing, as if feeling and seeing is everywhere...will think :lol: about 'conditionality' of energy.

A site I discovered completely by accident, just moments ago, while surfing myth:

http://zero-point.tripod.com/pantheon/Cronos.html

Sychronicity? B)

[sahyo]

Energy is the motion to return to Stillness of Light.

seems as though left-return? ;)

[vicente]

Energy is the motion to return to Stillness of Light.

seems as though left-return?

Energy did not leave to return, nor will its motion ever realize the Stillness of Light. Energy is energy because it "thinks" it is separate, and seeks to return. However, such a "return" is only possible upon the dissolution of energy. Stillness is Unconditional.

:)

[vicente]

will think about 'conditionality' of energy.

Ponder the Neti-Neti of that statement,...is energy ever Unconditional?

Thanks for the link,...I enjoy the topic.

:)

[sahyo]

Energy did not leave to return, nor will its motion ever realize the Stillness of Light.


yet posted:


Energy is the motion to return to Stillness of Light.




Energy is energy because


no


However, such a "return" is only possible upon the dissolution of energy.


not possible "return" nor "dissolution of energy"

[bito]

Ponder the Neti-Neti of that statement,...is energy ever Unconditional?

I see that energy is always conditional.

Unconditional existence appears to be only possible in non-individuation...reality without its appearance, its observer/experiencer. We may be living but a dream, but the dream is a 'physical' one..."feed me...clothe me...amuse me...see me...touch me", it cries!

As for the link, you are welcome. Here is another, a lengthy talk with Julian Barbour:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/barbour/ba...bour_index.html (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/barbour/barbour_index.html)

:)

[vicente]

not possible "return" nor "dissolution of energy"


OK,...I'll put it this way,...the dissolution of perceived energy. I agree that energy cannot actually dissolve, because energy is not real.

:)

[vicente]

Unconditional existence appears to be only possible in non-individuation

Yes,...quantum cosmology shows us that there is no individual, nor a 'One'. In the Valley of the blind, the one-eyed resident is treated for his/her illness. Those identified with physical reality cannot consider Stillness, Unconditionality, Light,...so they invent beliefs to make the unknown more palatable through their own image.

"If cockroaches had a notion god, they would probably imagine him as a very big and powerful cockroach" Voltaire

:)

[bito]

Those identified with physical reality cannot consider Stillness, Unconditionality, Light

I agree wholeheartedly, consider being the operative word.

We can be aware of Stillness, Unconditionality, Light as Truth AND we can also be aware of the conditions that limit our 'ability' to BE this Light. To BE Light is impossible...Light is emptiness. No qualities/all qualities.

...so they invent beliefs to make the unknown more palatable through their own image.

I was not referring to individual beliefs when I spoke of (non)individuation. Beliefs are attachments that sustain separation, whereas individuation is the conditional expression of the Unconditional, of One (not The One, 'just' One)...one 'part' is music (Beethoven), one 'part' is poetry (T.S. Eliot), one part is scientist (Einstein)...you get my drift. The conditional cannot be applied to The Unconditional, but The Unconditional is ALSO the conditional. All a dream, but a dream of (transparent) duality... :)

What I want to know, is how did religious beliefs enter this discussion of energy and conditionality? :think:

Same question for:

"If cockroaches had a notion god, they would probably imagine him as a very big and powerful cockroach" Voltaire

:)

[sahyo]

energy cannot actually dissolve, because energy is not real.



:lol:

[vicente]

What I want to know, is how did religious beliefs enter this discussion of energy and conditionality?

In America (where I'm from), religion underlies everything,...whether people agree or not. From the government endorsement of a delusion printed on money (in god we trust), to the pollution of religious thoughts on our subtle space, to the Christianized God Bless America chanted at ballgames, to America's SCOTUS appointed faith-based President.

Muslems have Allah,...Jews have g-d,...Buddhists don't believe in a god, ie: http://web.singnet.com.sg/~alankhoo/God-idea.htm
The term "God" is Christian.

"I don't know that those who don't believe in God should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." George HW Bush, August 27, 1987

:)

[bito]

In America (where I'm from), religion underlies everything....whether people agree or not. From the government endorsement of a delusion printed on money (in god we trust), to the pollution of religious thoughts on our subtle space, to the Christianized God Bless America chanted at ballgames, to America's SCOTUS appointed faith-based President.

Muslems have Allah,...Jews have g-d,...Buddhists don't believe in a god, ie: http://web.singnet.com.sg/~alankhoo/God-idea.htm
The term "God" is Christian.

"I don't know that those who don't believe in God should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." George HW Bush, August 27, 1987

I shall say again that our discussion was about ecstasy and energy and movement in the universal sense - how/why did you turn it into a monologue on America and its attachment to its religious beliefs?

It would seem that you are most obsessed about what you perceive are the enemies of freedom. Obsession is a deep attachment, and yet you speak of The Buddha... <_<

I'll assume our discussion on energy is a fait accompli... :)

[vicente]

I shall say again that our discussion was about ecstasy and energy and movement in the universal sense - how/why did you turn it into a monologue on America and its attachment to its religious beliefs?

We didn't switch subjects, just went into it more deeply. Ecstasy is to Buddhism, what Christianity is to energy. As long as there is a belief in a god, ecstasy or enlightment will be impossible to realize.

The Conditional cannot grasp the Unconditional.

http://www.peterussell.com/LGN/JustLGo.html#But

:)

[bito]

:cheers:

[sahyo]

Ecstasy is to Buddhism, what Christianity is to energy. As long as there is a belief in a god, ecstasy or enlightment will be impossible to realize.



called ecstasy or enlightment only seems if is happening imagining as though can measure

[vicente]

called ecstasy or enlightment only seems if is happening imagining as though can measure


For those who believe in measuring, some, like I, speak about measuring to show that measuring is a delusion.

:)

[sahyo]

As long as there is a belief in a god, ecstasy or enlightment will be impossible to realize.



ecstasy? enlightment?...seems can measure?

:)

[vicente]

ecstasy? enlightment?...seems can measure?


Have you any gnowledge of ever directly experiencing ecstasy? Or do you disagree with all the Bodhisattvas who have claimed to has accessed that thresholdless threshold?

:)

[sahyo]

ecstasy*


sensation ecstasy only seems when seems have live sensation suff'er'ing
...if nolonger sensation suff'er'ing happening then can measuring sensation ecstasy?

:)

[bito]

I'm ecstatic 'cause I've finally figured out how to use the 'quote' function! B)

sensation ecstasy only seems when seems have live sensation suff'er'ing

Yes.

...if nolonger sensation suff'er'ing happening then can measuring sensation ecstasy?

No suffering awareness, no measuring sensation ecstasy. Ecstasy...light 'feeling' seeming energy. Most beautiful...singing/dancing seeming energy....Love, Life.

:)

[vicente]

sensation ecstasy only seems when seems have live sensation suff'er'ing

True Ecstasy = not sensation, nor sense driven physicality. True Light = not speed, energy, nor motion driven physicality.

Ecstasy...light 'feeling' seeming energy. Most beautiful...singing/dancing seeming energy....Love, Life.

Music doesn't exist outside the illusory reality of nature, energy, ego.

The Ecstasy I'm pointing to is only realized through Stillness.

Tilopa's Mahamudra:

1.Is space anywhere supported? Upon what does it rest?
Like space, Mahamudra is dependant upon nothing;
Relax and settle in the continuum of unalloyed purity,
And, your bonds loosening, release is certain.

2.Gazing intently into the empty sky, vision ceases;
Likewise, when mind gazes into mind itself,
The train of discursive and conceptual thought ends
And supreme enlightenment is gained.

3.Like the morning mist that dissolves into thin air,
Going nowhere but ceasing to be,
Waves of conceptualization, all the mind's creation, dissolve,
When you behold your mind's true nature.

4.Pure space has neither colour nor shape
And it cannot be stained either black or white;
So also, mind's essence is beyond both colour and shape
And it cannot be sullied by black or white deeds.

5.The darkness of a thousand aeons is powerless
To dim the crystal clarity of the sun's heart;
And likewise, aeons of samsara have no power
To veil the clear light of the mind's essence.

6.Although space has been designated "empty",
In reality it is inexpressible;
Although the nature of mind is called "clear light",
Its every ascription is baseless verbal fiction.

7.The mind's original nature is like space;
It pervades and embraces all things under the sun.

8.Be still and stay relaxed in genuine ease,
Be quiet and let sound reverberate as an echo,
Keep your mind silent and watch the ending of all worlds.

9.The body is essentially empty like the stem of a reed,
And the mind, like pure space, utterly transcends
the world of thought:
Relax into your intrinsic nature with neither abandon nor control -
Mind with no objective is Mahamudra -
And, with practice perfected, supreme enlightenment is gained.

10..The clear light of Mahamudra cannot be revealed
By the canonical scriptures or metaphysical treatises
Of the Mantravada, the Paramitas or the Tripitaka;
The clear light is veiled by concepts and ideals.

11.By harbouring rigid precepts the true samaya is impaired,
But with cessation of mental activity all fixed notions subside;
When the swell of the ocean is at one with its peaceful depths,
When mind never strays from indeterminate, non-conceptual truth,
The unbroken samaya is a lamp lit in spiritual darkness.

12.Free of intellectual conceits, disavowing dogmatic principles,
The truth of every school and scripture is revealed.
Absorbed in Mahamudra, you are free from the prison of samsara;
Poised in Mahamudra, guilt and negativity are consumed;
And as master of Mahamudra you are the light of the Doctrine.

13.The fool in his ignorance, disdaining Mahamudra,
Knows nothing but struggle in the flood of samsara.
Have compassion for those who suffer constant anxiety!
Sick of unrelenting pain and desiring release, adhere to a master,
For when his blessing touches your heart, the mind is liberated.

14.KYE HO! Listen with joy!
Investment in samsara is futile; it is the cause of every anxiety.
Since worldly involvement is pointless, seek the heart of reality!

15.In the transcending of mind's dualities is Supreme vision;
In a still and silent mind is Supreme Meditation;
In spontaneity is Supreme Activity;
And when all hopes and fears have died, the Goal is reached.

16.Beyond all mental images the mind is naturally clear:
Follow no path to follow the path of the Buddhas;
Employ no technique to gain supreme enlightenment.

17.KYE MA! Listen with sympathy!
With insight into your sorry worldly predicament,
Realising that nothing can last, that all is as dreamlike illusion,
Meaningless illusion provoking frustration and boredom,
Turn around and abandon your mundane pursuits.

18.Cut away involvement with your homeland and friends
And meditate alone in a forest or mountain retreat;
Exist there in a state of non-meditation
And attaining no-attainment, you attain Mahamudra.

19.A tree spreads its branches and puts forth leaves,
But when its root is cut its foliage withers;
So too, when the root of the mind is severed,
The branches of the tree of samsara die.

20.A single lamp dispels the darkness of a thousand aeons;
Likewise, a single flash of the mind's clear light
Erases aeons of karmic conditioning and spiritual blindness.

21.KYE HO! Listen with joy!
The truth beyond mind cannot be grasped by any faculty of mind;
The meaning of non-action cannot be understood in compulsive activity;
To realise the meaning of non-action and beyond mind,
Cut the mind at its root and rest in naked awareness.

22.Allow the muddy waters of mental activity to clear;
Refrain from both positive and negative projection -
leave appearances alone:
The phenomenal world, without addition or subtraction, is Mahamudra.

23.The unborn omnipresent base dissolves your impulsions and delusions:
Do not be conceited or calculating but rest in the unborn essence
And let all conceptions of yourself and the universe melt away.

24.The highest vision opens every gate;
The highest meditation plumbs the infinite depths;
The highest activity is ungoverned yet decisive;
And the highest goal is ordinary being devoid of hope and fear.

25.At first your karma is like a river falling through a gorge;
In mid-course it flows like a gently meandering River Ganga;
And finally, as a river becomes one with the ocean,
It ends in consummation like the meeting of mother and son.

26.If the mind is dull and you are unable to practice these instructions,
Retaining essential breath and expelling the sap of awareness,
Practising fixed gazes - methods of focussing the mind,
Discipline yourself until the state of total awareness abides.

27.When serving a karmamudra, the pure awareness
of bliss and emptiness will arise:
Composed in a blessed union of insight and means,
Slowly send down, retain and draw back up the bodhichitta,
And conducting it to the source, saturate the entire body.
But only if lust and attachment are absent will that awareness arise.

28.Then gaining long-life and eternal youth, waxing like the moon,
Radiant and clear, with the strength of a lion,
You will quickly gain mundane power and suprem enlightenment.
May this pith instruction in Mahamudra
Remain in the hearts of fortunate beings.

:)

[bito]

Tilopa knows he knows - ecstasy is a self knowing truth, no matter how you say it.

:)

[sahyo]

I'm ecstatic 'cause I've finally figured out how to use the 'quote' function!* B)



:dancing:


No suffering awareness, no measuring sensation ecstasy. Ecstasy...light 'feeling' seeming energy. Most beautiful...singing/dancing seeming energy....Love, Life.



yes dancingsinging....... :D

but, what comparing "ecstasy" "most beautiful" as though seeming to
so seems "ecstasy" "most beautiful"?
(not saying is a 'to')

[sahyo]

True Ecstasy = not sensation, nor sense driven physicality. True Light = not speed, energy, nor motion driven physicality.

Music doesn't exist outside the illusory reality of nature, energy, ego.

The Ecstasy I'm pointing to is only realized through Stillness.



does seems as though can inclusive/exclusive?

:)

[bito]

but, what comparing "ecstasy" "most beautiful" as though seeming to
so seems "ecstasy" "most beautiful"?
(not saying is a 'to')

hoping understanding asheera's question....

not really comparing, more feeling-remembering-knowing self's thinking suffering not seeming...feels beauty-beautiful when pointing-saying

and...dancing-singing not feet-mouth-hearing...no imaging...no noising... but remembering included in ecstasy-feeling-being

ecstasy...wholeselfbeingloving...never not whole, only seeming and knowing seeming is :dancing:

[DavidS]

It strikes me one might say that, experientially, 'ecstasy' is an 'ecstatic' condition, or state, or way, of BEing-n-BEcoming, or ISNESSing (or THOU-ART-THATing, I suppose).

The "ec" in the word 'ecstatic' reminds me of the word 'eccentric' which is used to mean, or designate, a constellation or connection which is off 'center'.

Assuming the "ec" in 'ecstacy' and 'ecstatic' has the equivalent meaning, or designnative significance, 'ecstatic' would mean, or signify, something which is, in some 'diametrically' contrasting way, off 'static', or off'stasis' – quite possibly even the antithesis of 'staticity', in some deep sense.

And what is off 'static', or the antithesis of 'staticity'? Obvious-logically, something that is completely in 'flow'.

'Life' (in the 'truest' sense of the word, IMO) is 'flow'. It follows that 'Life' (or BEing-n-BEcoming, or ISNESSing, or THOU-ART-THATing) Itself may be an 'ecstatic' phenomenon, or at least be experienced as BEing so.

I say, "may," now. This is an intellectual pro-position which must, if one is going to BE totally 'honest' with oneself, only be held tentatively, as a reasonable hypothesis, unless and until empirically confirmed.

In my personal experience, this all holds true. Off course, there's always the possibility that I might be deluded, however (people get 'ecstatic' about all sorts of weird thangs, don’t they?!). So let me whittle this down to simply declaring that I have been pro-ceeding on the basis of such rationale for a while now, as evidenced by the following para dealing with related semantics excerpted from a book I completed years ago (aimed at a quite different 'target'-audience as you'll be able to tell, I'm sure):

------

I have deliberately not used phrases like 'reaching Godhead' and 'getting to Heaven,' [footnote transcribed below] thought what I am advocating is exactly that, because they erroneously imply an end-destination. In terms of Life, this is a false concept. In case, Having found Life's mode of flux upsetting, you are one who has fallen prey to the temptation to set your sights on an illusion of some sort of utopian finale, let me disabuse you of the notion. The best, ultimately most glorious and joyful attainment is not a place or state that one arrived at and stays in. Staticity of any kind, if prolonged, leads to stagnation. In terms of Creativity, it is Death! The ecstatic 'peak' such terms refer to is really not a final attainment or accomplishment, as many naively believe. Rather, as the words 'Eternal Life' clearly indicate, it is ever-ongoing creative process.

[Footnote material:] Beware: because commonly used elements of verbal expression are derived from 'worldly' experience, many statements of 'higher' truth must be interpreted. They are often metaphorical, not literally true, as I point out here.
------

And what is the "creative process" I speak off? It is the spontaneous-flow-artful deployment of the 'mental' and 'e-motional' life-vectors of one's BEing in service of actualizing, or realizing, one's evolving bliss-aesthetic on BEing-n-BEcoming's cosmic 'canvas'.

Or so I image-in. Ain't it a groovy scene?

Happy ecstating. :)

[bito]

Happy ecstating. :)

Right back atchya... :star:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by bito@Oct 24 2004, 03:34 PM
Right back atchya... :star:
High-Five, bito :dancing:

[Nick_A]

I would agree that time does not exist. All that exists is "Now" Time is simply the results of the laws of involution and evolution manifesting in a place in place at some level of space.

The first three dimensions of length width and depth give us three dimensional space but existence isn't in space but instead in "time", the fourth dimension. Time is the continual repetition of the moment which creates existence. eternity, the fifth dimension, consists for example of all the eternally repeating moments of a persons life cyclical life strung together. The past, present, and future all exist in "Now". Our associative thought is limited to duality so it can only conceive of this eternal Now as the passage of time.

All material actualities in the universe are some sort of fraction of a larger whole. Time, as I understand it, which exists in us as a sense of comparison is not like that since it doesn't have an objective source but instead exists as a unique subjective that blends with everything so it is always perceived differently. Yet it is still the results of varying degrees of the repetition of moments.

As you can see, this is hard to explain. :)

[Nick_A]

Vicente

I believe you are underestimating the depth of Christianity in its essential form.

First of all, this conscious love you refer to is not something we are born with but must learn. People throw this term of unconditional love around as though it is something we have the option to do. We are incapable of it.

The message of Christianity is simply re-birth and what is necessary to acquire this change in our being.

We are in a fallen state. Why should we love it? If we had the capacity for compassion, we could make the case for that but unconditional love which can only come through the development of consciousness, may be the love of life itself but cannot be of use to what struggles against the purpose of human life itself..


Luk 14:26 If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.


Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Yes this is rough stuff and we must try to feel what is meant by this deep dissatisfaction with our attachments to life all the great teachings are aware of.

However, what this means is that when we are able to release our earthly attachments and the emotions associated with them, it opens us to receive a quality of emotion and the capacity to love that is of a higher order of evolution and more human.

To sacrifice our attachments to egotistic love for the sake of acquiring the ability to love as a human being is not all that strange to consider. Is it conditional? Yes, we cannot serve two masters.

[sahyo]

To sacrifice our attachments to egotistic love for the sake of acquiring the ability to love as a human being is not all that strange to consider.



is attachment "to egotistic love"?, or attachment to memory-paining-fear-imagining-as though-a'someone' which can "aquiring the ability"?

[bito]

Perhaps we're stepping into Nihil's thread on love, but since we're sharing here:

I believe that compassion is the highest expression of love. And within compassion is the awareness of Being, the common 'ground' of all living beings; Being IS Unconditional Love. This is not the attachment love we feel in our bodies, but rather, Isness Love. Being 'has' no choice To Be, it simply Is. This, to me, is what saves us/liberates us from our perceived conditioned selves.

We cannot express, feel or experience unconditional love, we are aware of its Light, its Empty-Fullness and this awareness opens our being to Joy and Delight.

It is this Joy and Delight that we feel/experience, as if it is a 'flow' from Being, Unconditional Love. And compassion lives in this this Joy and Delight, as we desire to 'share' the truth of Light with all who believe that their conditioned selves is the truth.

Joy and Delight: Limitless Life
Belief in conditioned self as self-identify: limiting life

I also see the ego as the spectrum of consciousness that expresses Joy, Delight and Compassion, but the 'transformed' ego, not the ego that fears out of belief in its conditioned, separate self. The ego cannot be killed nor cannot it die, for it is always self-aware, even when it 'becomes' no-self (light/being) aware.

[sahyo]

but the 'transformed' ego, not the ego that fears out of belief in its conditioned, separate self. The ego cannot be killed nor cannot it die, for it is always self-aware, even when it 'becomes' no-self (light/being) aware.


ego is imagined...does seem can transforum which not happening?

not possible to from/to/"become"

[bito]

ego is imagined...does seem can transforum which not happening?

not possible to from/to/"become"

asheera, you are an ethereal pit-bull... :)

Yes, ego is imagined. Yes, transforming is imagined. Once imagining seen as imagining, then imagined ego can 'return'...do not poke this word! :slap: ... :) ... to share with ego's still believing not imagined. Described as transforming, as this is HOW the confused ego experiences its undressing, its uncovering, its burning. The experience may be imagined, but until the burning is done, the ego does not see this.

Perhaps asheera believing that all fearful (imagined) egos will awaken by feeling asheera's naked dancing...not so. Asheera's way is asheera's way. Bito's way is bito's way.

Now let go of my imagined neck! :D

[Nick_A]

Hello bito

Is compassion the highest expression of love? Here is a definition from "dictionary.com:

Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it. See Synonyms at pity.

The deepest expression of love can also be seen as the ability to allow something or another to become itself or to live as it should.

Some people for example can truly love plants. They can direct love into it and they do better. others seem to suck the life out of plants and they die. Does a person give love to a plant out of compassion?

The compassion you refer to I understand as coming from a being who has acquired a deep understanding of the human condition itself which we can only have a glimpse of.

I agree that it can be experienced at those times we do receive help from above.

I don't know if "being" itself is unconditional love since the being of a rock for example is incapable of it. At what level of being does the capacity for unconditional love begin? An interesting question.

Being 'has' no choice To Be, it simply Is.

Yes but it is relative. The whole idea of conscious evolution is based upon the idea that there is a scale of evolution, of "being", and man, having the possibility of consciousness, can change his being while animals without the possibility of consciousness, cannot, having reached the height of their evolution.

Can our ego transform or can it be healed? If we break our leg, after it heals do we call it transformation or regaining normality?

I see the ego as the same way. What is this ego? It should be what connects our thoughts, feelings, and our sensations, of external life. They should function as a whole in a balanced person with each receiving impressions of life to be connected so that we can experience reality in its varied expression. Ego would be the union of our contact with external life and necessary for being Man in the true sense of the word.

It doesn't work that way with us since we lack the consciousness necessary to achieve this unification and take in life impartially. Instead the conscious connection is replaced by our habitual imagination and fears and life becomes imaginary. We don't exist as is pointed out in Buddhism for example since our lives our imaginary.

However, somewhere along the line, it became believed that the thing to do is just not exist since life is imaginary. This is a mistake I believe. Instead of awakening to non-existence, as I understand it, we must awaken to existence itself and in this way the human purpose of consciously connecting higher and lower levels can begin to be felt and man becomes more than just a seed of something higher in a similar way as an acorn is to an oak..

What does "I Am" mean? to me it means two different things. The creation of I is the creation of the soul which is inner unification. Man exists as a plurality with many small i's and each likes to say I am unaware of the abscence of inner unity. This energy of unification is love. Am is the creative energy. At the highest level, it allows the soul to involve itself into creation. Unity moves into diversity but with consciousness, it remains connected. Meister Eckhart refers to this I believe in the following:

When I came out from God, that is, into multiplicity, then all proclaimed, 'There is a God' (i.e., the personal God, Creator of all things). Now this cannot make me blessed, for hereby I realize myself as creature. But in the breaking through (i.e. through all limitations), I am more than all creatures, I am neither God nor creature; I am that which I was and shall remain evermore. There I receive a thrust which carries me above all angels. By this sudden touch I am become so rich that God (i.e., God as opposed to the Godhead) is not sufficient for me, so far as he is only God and in all his divine works. For in this breaking through I perceive what God and I are in common. There I am what I was. There I neither increase nor decrease. For there I am the immovable which moves all things. Here man has won again what he is eternally (i.e., in his essential being) and ever shall be. Here God (i.e., the Godhead) is received into the soul."

[bito]

Is compassion the highest expression of love? Here is a definition from "dictionary.com:

Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it. See Synonyms at pity.

Yes, the wish to relieve it. Sometimes the wish is acted upon, if wisdom says yes. Sometimes no, if wisdom says no. And when we determine that our wisdom is off, we learn from the experience.


The deepest expression of love can also be seen as the ability to allow something or another to become itself or to live as it should.

From my perspective, if someone ’has the ability’ to allow something or another to become itself or live as it should, then compassion is being expressed.

Some people for example can truly love plants. They can direct love into it and they do better. others seem to suck the life out of plants and they die. Does a person give love to a plant out of compassion?

If someone is directing love to a plant so that it would do better, is this not expression of compassion?

The compassion you refer to I understand as coming from a being who has acquired a deep understanding of the human condition itself which we can only have a glimpse of.

We experience only a glimpse of human experiences, but each glimpse carries much teaching, if we listen.

Can our ego transform or can it be healed? If we break our leg, after it heals do we call it transformation or regaining normality?

I guess this depends on how you view the ego. To me, I see the ego and the leg as being apple and orange. The leg is physical matter and is healed by physical medicine. The ego is self-awareness, a spectrum of consciousness, and its belief that God and man are separate is an error in thinking. Error is not healed, error is corrected.

If ego is healed, what/who performs the healing? If you were to describe this healing, what would it 'look' like?

Ego would be the union of our contact with external life and necessary for being Man in the true sense of the word.

Contact with external life? No, not as I see it. Rather, the other way around. Transformed ego is awareness that external life in no way defines what it is.

It doesn't work that way with us since we lack the consciousness necessary to achieve this unification and take in life impartially.

I am confused by this statement, after telling me that you know Universal Purpose :)

Instead the conscious connection is replaced by our habitual imagination and fears and life becomes imaginary.

I see this as our destiny, to see through these imaginings and Be Alive in Innocence. Which is, Who/What we Really Are.

However, somewhere along the line, it became believed that the thing to do is just not exist since life is imaginary. This is a mistake I believe. Instead of awakening to non-existence, as I understand it, we must awaken to existence itself and in this way the human purpose of consciously connecting higher and lower levels can begin to be felt and man becomes more than just a seed of something higher in a similar way as an acorn is to an oak..

Nick, I can’t pretend to be an expert on Buddhism, but I do not understand Buddhist thought as claiming we do not exist. If this is what Christians’ understand Buddhism to be, then they need to take another look.

I believe they are saying exactly what you are saying, that we need to awaken to existence itself. So beautiful, to awaken to existence itself. This awakening doesn't destroy existence, it sees it in its 'true colours' for the first time. As an empty pallette, waiting for the colours to 'flow' into singing...

As for the ego being imaginary, this is not something I ‘picked’ up from Buddhist thought - it is something I experienced directly, as in knowing. Perhaps a different word than ego is needed here, transformed or not...this is just the dilemma I was referring to in my thread…we approach the words of others with our own subjective understanding.

What does "I Am" mean? to me it means two different things. The creation of I is the creation of the soul which is inner unification. Man exists as a plurality with many small i's and each likes to say I am unaware of the abscence of inner unity. This energy of unification is love. Am is the creative energy. At the highest level, it allows the soul to involve itself into creation.

Your cosmological dance sustains your self-awareness in Infinity-Eternal, as does mine. Perhaps we both wish the other would see it his or her way, hey, that's the nature of compassion, to wish to relieve suffering. I have no problem with this. We can choose to accept the other's dance, or not.

Unity moves into diversity but with consciousness, it remains connected.

Rather than unity, I say One. Rather than diversity, I say Two, or Many (transparent duality). And there is no movement, except in the sense that we ‘feel’ the love, the beauty, the dance, the ecstasy of this One-being-Many. You said yourself there is no time. If time does not exist, where is the movement except in our feelings?

As for consciousness being the connector between unity and diversity, where is the separation that needs connecting?

[Nick_A]

Hello bito

I appreciate this dialogue since I don't sense negativity. This is a rarity in my case. :)

Transformed ego is awareness that external life in no way defines what it is.

Is this the function of the ego? Shouldn't the ego in a balanced person be the tool by which a person relates to external life. It is not the function of the ego to judge what is the role of higher mind. The ego should be a tool for us. Instead, we live only in our egos and our essential selves are dominated by the imagination that has taken over our egos.

I am confused by this statement, after telling me that you know Universal Purpose

Knowledge of universal purpose is just the knowledge of the perpetual existence of evolution and involution. Matter never stays the same but is in constant transition serving either the laws of evolution or involution. There are levels within the great universe known as cosmoses that serve as "trasnsforming stations" necessary to maintain the process.

Man is dual natured so can serve two purposes. The first is the same as the rest of organic life which transforms materiality on earth necessary for a reason beyond this thread. The second purpose requires man's evolution into the ability to consciously ACT rather than just a creature of REACTION as the rest of organic life. Knowing a purpose and being able to participate in it are not the same. A person can know of a piano for example and have heard piano music but playing it requires a type of work in order to develop the ability. This is something else again.

Be Alive in Innocence. Which is, Who/What we Really Are.

I agree but is this our destiny. This is the seed. IMO it has the possibility of growth so as to serve a higher cosmological purpose.

Modern Buddhism seems to claim no-self or no soul. I have seen Buddhist claim that life is suffering and do everything to avoid suffering. Somehow suffering became the same as samsara. I don't believe it to be the original Buddhism but you'd be surprised how common this is.

We can choose to accept the other's dance, or not.

You're looking at a guy here with two left feet. Nothing I say is etched in stone. I only wish to make sense out of it all.

If time does not exist, where is the movement except in our feelings?

It is in the repetition of the moment. It is like a watch which eventually runs down. It is also in the complimentary streams of involution and evolution. Neither are aspects of linear time.

As for consciousness being the connector between unity and diversity, where is the separation that needs connecting?

This requires the cosmological understanding. Each descending cosmos from the center relies less on consciousness and more on mechanical laws for its functioning. Man on earth is part of a lower cosmos, the earth itself, sometimes known as Gaia. Man having evolved, exists within a higher cosmos. They should and can be connected as suggested in Jacob's Staircase but cannot since our malfunctioning egos do not allow it. "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" is an expression of this idea of connection but the depth of it is underestimated as I understand it.

Part of the problem is the usual belief that the earth is here to serve man. Our egos will not accept the fact that as we are, we are here to serve the purposes of the earth. How ego deflating. :)

[sahyo]

Perhaps asheera believing that all fearful (imagined) egos will awaken by feeling asheera's naked dancing...not so. Asheera's way is asheera's way. Bito's way is bito's way.



hehe

not happening



Now let go of my imagined neck!



hehehehe

[bito]

Is this the function of the ego? Shouldn't the ego in a balanced person be the tool by which a person relates to external life. It is not the function of the ego to judge what is the role of higher mind. The ego should be a tool for us. Instead, we live only in our egos and our essential selves are dominated by the imagination that has taken over our egos.

Defining and relating are different things, no? Yes, the self-realized (as you say, balanced) ego relates to external life (it has no choice -arghhh! :) ), but it does not depend on external life to define what or who it is. It may work as a CEO for a large corporation, but it does not see its self as being CEO.

Would you not say that all labels we apply to consciousness are imagined ‘things'? Are we not, after all, One Imagination-imagining? This is not to imply we deny or destroy labels, but, rather, to point out that part of what prevents us from realizing delight and joy and God-fulfillment is our hang-up on the perceived 'fixed' 'parts' of ourselves?

Part of the problem is the usual belief that the earth is here to serve man. Our egos will not accept the fact that as we are, we are here to serve the purposes of the earth. How ego deflating.

As you see it, how are we to serve the purposes of the earth? And, how does this relate to ‘heaven’?

Nick, I too am enjoying this dialogue. I'm not sure that sharing cosmological dreaming :) answers any definitive questions, but I do believe that participation in this type of communication does expand one's consciousness, and perhaps that is all that matters....or doesn't matter :)

[sahyo]

I do believe that participation in this type of communication does expand one's consciousness



:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Nick_A]

Hello Bito

Would you not say that all labels we apply to consciousness are imagined ‘things'? Are we not, after all, One Imagination-imagining? This is not to imply we deny or destroy labels, but, rather, to point out that part of what prevents us from realizing delight and joy and God-fulfillment is our hang-up on the perceived 'fixed' 'parts' of ourselves?

I'm not completely sure what you mean here but in many traditions, if I am right, it is called "attachment". I'm more used to the term "identification". We become identified with the labels and as a result, that within us which is open to the higher, no longer is active. We just become this thing, this label,

I can sit at this computer and say "I am typing a response". Now I can change my attitude and become aware that "Nick is typing a response. What is observing Nick? This is the beginning of the question that IMO can lead to God-fulfillment from freedom from identification.

As you see it, how are we to serve the purposes of the earth? And, how does this relate to ‘heaven’?

Man on earth, living in a dream serves the same purpose as the rest of organic life. All organic life exists for the purpose of transforming substances and feeds on itself to carry out its function. Each aspect of organic life serves as this energy/matter transformer which has become an established need for our earth for reasons beyond this thread.

When we eat, breath, take in impressions, feel, draw associations, etc, it is all part of the process of transforming substances. We believe we are doing something important because of our subjective acquired need for self importance but in the grand scheme of things, all that we think of ourselves is unimportant. What is objectively important is man's ability to transform substances of a certain quality.

However, man having the possibility of consciousness, can also serve a higher purpose and not be limited to unconscious service to the earth. Man can exist in two cosmoses and connect the two. This requires consciousness. It is an obvious idea but people just do not see it. In the Lord's Prayer it is said: "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven". This refers to our internal life, our "being". It is both necessary for our own life and also for the earth itself because from this perspective, man can help the earth also in ways we only speak about through wishful thinking which usually just leads to misguided results.

We lack understanding. Let me ask you. What does it mean to understand something. What is the difference between knowing about life itself and understanding it? What is necessary for us to "understand"?

[bito]

We lack understanding. Let me ask you. What does it mean to understand something. What is the difference between knowing about life itself and understanding it? What is necessary for us to "understand"?

I do not believe we can ever understand Life - we can only understand each moment as it presents itself to wisdom and open heart.

What else is there to do but this?

[Nick_A]

Bito

I do not believe we can ever understand Life - we can only understand each moment as it presents itself to wisdom and open heart.

You speak of each moment but you could for example KNOW what three is as a moment without UNDERSTANDING the sequence of one through ten and multiples of this relationship. Could you UNDERSTAND the complete nature of three without appreciating the sequential relationship of what lies above and below it?

[bito]

You speak of each moment but you could for example KNOW what three is as a moment without UNDERSTANDING the sequence of one through ten and multiples of this relationship. Could you UNDERSTAND the complete nature of three without appreciating the sequential relationship of what lies above and below it?

No.

[Corri]

Originally posted by Nick_A@Nov 3 2004, 05:38 AM
Bito

I do not believe we can ever understand Life - we can only understand each moment as it presents itself to wisdom and open heart.

You speak of each moment but you could for example KNOW what three is as a moment without UNDERSTANDING the sequence of one through ten and multiples of this relationship. Could you UNDERSTAND the complete nature of three without appreciating the sequential relationship of what lies above and below it?
Nick:

You speak of each moment but you could for example KNOW what three is as a moment without UNDERSTANDING the sequence of one through ten and multiples of this relationship.

I do not agree with this statement. To know three is conceptual (mental) understanding. One cannot know three without knowing the sequence of one through 10. Here, I believe, your use of the word 'know' and the word 'understanding' are synonymous.

Could you UNDERSTAND the complete nature of three without appreciating the sequential relationship of what lies above and below it?

I do not know that there is a 'nature of three' for it is conceptual. Meaning, we as humans, have assigned value and meaning to what we consider to be a sequential or numerical amount of something(s). It is a representation of something else, and does not exist in and of itself as its own entity. Three does not have consciousness. It is only representative of something else.

Math is a language, and language is symbolic, just as verbal language or written language is symbolic and representative.

What is necessary for us to "understand"?

The literal meaning of understand is 'to stand among.' Another definition is 'to perceive meaning.'

Essence is from the latin word esse, to be. Dictionary definition is 'the basic nature (of something).'

In Zen, then, understanding is 'perceiving the essence of being.' In a word, awareness - consciousness (though I would say it is more along the lines of aware-ing) realizing, basic nature of what is.

This understanding transcends (goes beyond the limits of, exceeds) the conceptual and subjective, of which 'three' is a part.

What is necessary for understanding? Transcending conceptual and subjective, dualism. These things are matters of the mind. If then this is the case, the mind must be transcended for understanding.

Corri

[bito]

Nick

Our dialogue is a perfect example of the frustrations encountered between thinking-intuiters and feeling-intuiters when they try to explain their inner experience. Both express their ‘seeing’ using intuitive language with thinkers preferring to express union (One) conceptually and feelers preferring to express union (One) poetically.

Before I proceed with my thoughts on the above, would you let me know if they resonate with your ‘need’ to hear them?

:)

[sahyo]

thinkers preferring to express union (One) conceptually

my thoughts on the above

[bito]

QUOTING asheera

thinkers preferring to express union (One) conceptually

my thoughts on the above

Feelers also think; thinkers also feel. The Whole is not one big glob of undifferentiated Being, or you and I would not be communicating. This fundamental disagreement you and I have (yes, disagreement, yes, have) on our respective (yes, respective) perceptions (yes, perceptions) of Reality, colours all of our communication.

The way I (yes, I) see it, asheera, is that you want to play with everyone here and play without admitting that you want to play. I love to play, so neti-neti dance me all you desire (yes, desire).

:)

[Nick_A]

Corri

I do not know that there is a 'nature of three' for it is conceptual. Meaning, we as humans, have assigned value and meaning to what we consider to be a sequential or numerical amount of something(s).

I would suggest that "three" is not only and expression of "quantity, but can also be an expression of "quality" Without getting into that now, the appreciation of the qualitative relationship between one and three is the basis of the trinity in Christianity which confuses so many. How can One be Three at the same time? It is much more comprehensible when seen as differing expressions of quality of the same thing.

What is necessary for understanding? Transcending conceptual and subjective, dualism. These things are matters of the mind. If then this is the case, the mind must be transcended for understanding.

True, but what is this "transcending"? Zen as does esoteric Christianity recognizes the value of "satori" or "gnosis". To me, transcending doesn't discard duality, it just puts it into perspective. We are not limited by it and this "putting into perspective", is the road to freedom.

Bito

Before I proceed with my thoughts on the above, would you let me know if they resonate with your ‘need’ to hear them?

Believe me I'm not one of those that is annoyed at the opinions of others. You are a bright and sincere person. Of course I'd like to read what you have to say. Let er rip. :)

[Corri]

Nick:

I do not know that there is a 'nature of three' for it is conceptual. Meaning, we as humans, have assigned value and meaning to what we consider to be a sequential or numerical amount of something(s).

I would suggest that "three" is not only and expression of "quantity, but can also be an expression of "quality" Without getting into that now, the appreciation of the qualitative relationship between one and three is the basis of the trinity in Christianity which confuses so many. How can One be Three at the same time? It is much more comprehensible when seen as differing expressions of quality of the same thing.

You are still in conception and perception. How can One be Three at the same time? In the same way that Jesus would say "I am one with my father."

What is necessary for understanding? Transcending conceptual and subjective, dualism. These things are matters of the mind. If then this is the case, the mind must be transcended for understanding.

To me, transcending doesn't discard duality, it just puts it into perspective. We are not limited by it and this "putting into perspective", is the road to freedom.

You are speaking from ego center. Ego is duality. Ego cannot transcend for to do so would be ego denying itself, which it cannot do. Putting something into perspective is putting somthing into perspective and it is a function of the mind. Putting something in perspective is not the road to freedrom for there is no road to freedom. A road to freedom implies that "I" am here, and "it" is there, and that "it" is separate from me. Still dual, still ego.

What is this "transcending"? Zen, as does esoteric Christianity, recognizes the value of "satori" or "gnosis".

What is it you think satori is?

Transcending is going beyond the limits of - exceeding - the conceptual and subjective, which is what the ego is. There is no discarding or destructing of ego or dualistic thought ... transcending does not discard or destruct... transcending is going beyond - exceeding - the limits of the ego.

Corri

[sahyo]

The way I (yes, I) see it, asheera, is that you want to play with everyone here and play without admitting that you want to play. I love to play, so neti-neti dance me all you desire (yes, desire).

:)

bito imagines cannot happen without "I" "want" "neti-neti" "desire"?