X, Not so sure I can defend the equation. If Curtis pipes in, I'm doomed, but, but, but . . . let's see what I come up with.
To me, radiation-less space has the quality of "being almost not there" -- and it would be tough to say more, but consider how everyone feels they have a significant clarity about time's various attributes or at least most folks have had a lot of experience with mentally chewing on the concept of time and its various presentations. Who hasn't experienced time's relativity? "Eternity in an hour.....," and all that. But try to get someone to talk about the qualities of radiation-less space and how these qualities are discernible in daily life, and we hear crickets out to the horizon. We all feel we can (by some metric, however so relative,) know about time's passing, but, if we accelerate a person towards the speed of light, at no point along that journey do we expect one to say something like: "I feel a huge increase in the amount of space whizzing between my atoms, not the usual ho-hum amount I usually feel from the various vectors I am participating in, such as the motion of the earth, or the solar system's motion around the galactic core, etc." Astronauts have yet to report anything about space moving faster through them....like that. Yet that is precisely the truth if Einstein is correct when he insists that we forever marry space-and-time. Unknown too is the Self -- which the scriptures of the world seem to agree is beyond any instrumentality's grasping, be it physical or conceptual. The clockwork whirring of the mind's gears is, as is time's passage, perceivable to all, such that we all feel ourselves to be quite intimate with the passage of time due to the metronome ticking of "objects of consciousness" as they pass through the mind. Commonly, and spiritually alarming, most of us are in the thrall of thoughts and identify with them as if they are "bits of self on parade." Disturb someone's thoughts, and it can be as jarring to them as keying the side of their car might be -- such is the power of one's deluded identification with ideation. The only way to win thermonuclear war is to never play that game -- same deal with winning the thought war....don't start playing with the tar baby. The hardest part about spiritual evolution is that we can have no sense of any attributes about Self, and therefore we cannot know if we (our small selves) are evolving into greater resonance with it -- just as an increase in the amount of space flowing through our atoms is imperceptible but real nonetheless. Obviously "faith" is a response this issue of unknowability. Again, this is a comparative analogy, and I like the exercise, but in actuality, space is, however so subtly, part of "that which is manifest," and therefore cannot be, as no other thing can be either, instructive about Self, but the study of space is evolutionary for the small self such that clarity about space, silence, love, etc. can bring the mind to lesser states of anxiety, such that, with the mental cacophony reduced in intensity by meditation of many sorts, be expected to be, however so little, more prepared for ascertaining just exactly why the small self is necessarily an artifact of Self and unworthy of identification -- which would be narcissistic sin. Such clarity can be expected to "max out" when identification becomes universal and beyond universe. Tell Shakespeare: "To be beyond being or non-being cannot be questioned." Tell Descartes: "Amness precedes ego, and amness is an artifact of silence." Tell Godel: "Say hi for me if you see Nisargatta." Edg --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > The problem most folks have with relativity is that they don't grok "space" > > nearly as much as they do "time." > > > > Same deal with them when it comes to seeing the importance of Self when > > everyone goes around strutting as an expert on thoughts. > > > > Edg > > Duveyoung, could you elaborate a bit on the second sentence? I may be dense, > and do not quite get the gist of what you are saying. As an analogy, it does > not quite seem to sync with the first sentence, so either I am unclear, or > your sentence is too vague, and if you respond, you can let me know which you > feel it is. > > I get that it is easier to visualise time distortion than the distortion of > space, which I believe most probably visualise as being very rectilinear and > stable. Most seem to not appreciate there is a distinction between the > concept of 'self' as opposed to 'Self', as 'Self' is not a commonly known > concept in the United States at least. I have friends for whom this idea > makes no sense whatever. > > But it only makes sense from a certain perspective. 'Self' versus 'self' does > not really mean anything if you discover what these terms are all about, > because they are part of the mythos of a particular set of spiritual paths, > and only have relevance for part of that trek when one is under the influence > of the dream. >
