--- In [email protected], "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > According to MMY, everything is based in consciousness. > > If there wasn't any consciousness, there wouldn't be any > > existence or creativity. So, for any universe to manifest, > > IMO there would have to be a consciousness to create width, > > length, and height, at the very least. The dimension of > > time could be optional. IOW, this universe would be > > similar to an empty box and nothing else. > > But why would there need to be a consciousness? There are > simpler ways to get the universe going without recourse to > anything mystical.
Not to mention the concept of an eternal, never-created universe. I know from past interactions that John is incapable of entertaining even the thought of this, but since you're new here I thought I'd see if you could swing behind this idea. > I also don't think time could be optional as it is simply > what happens when there is matter present, interactions will > take time to happen, so unless everything stays perfectly > still which is exactly what *didn't* happen with creation > there will be time. Again, the "there was never a first Creation" theory takes care of this handily. There are just SO many complications projected onto the universe when humans project their own ephemeral lives and deaths onto the universe and assume "As below, so above." :-) > > --- In [email protected], "shainm307" <shainm307@> wrote: > > > > > > Interesting thing for all the Fairfielders: In a > > > channeling of pleiadians I heard "the difference > > > between consciousness and existence is creativity" > > > kind of goes against Maharishi, unless Maharishi > > > was just going very broad. Thanks for pointing out the ludicrousness of both channeling and channeling "Pleiadians" earlier. I just rolled my eyes and ignored it, but it's good that someone points out that those who trust "knowledge" from either source are probably looney tunes. :-)
