do you not understand that the its and thats in the quoted sentence are referring to what predicates them?
On Jun 29, 8:10 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > "there is no it or that to the experience." > > and then > > "I am experiencing myself as everyone and all that is and all that > will be and knowing it at once, without boundary or overload." > > peace & Love > > On Jun 29, 11:40 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From my experience of cosmic consciousness, Vam, there is no it or > > that to the experience. I am experiencing myself as everyone and all > > that is and all that will be and knowing it at once, without boundary > > or overload. Like unlimited dimension to experience. No object or > > subject because there is all time and no separation between the mortal > > and eternal. I think that you are right when you say we have limited > > language to discuss the notion. I don't think that we are seeing > > through the pin hole, or seeing THE whole, I think at that point, I am > > whole. > > > On Jun 29, 12:33 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > And what IS that, Molly ? As THAT, how does IT see itself as ? What > > > is in it 's AWARENESS ? Does it have desires, and the tendency to > > > act ? > > > > We individuals, from THAT reference, are merely looking through a pin > > > hole. We do see something, but what we see is not the whole. > > > > I am only trying to take our discussion forward, the way I know. I > > > very much would like to listen to what you may choose to share. The > > > paths are many. > > > > I would like to invite OM on this matter, if he favour us. > > > > On Jun 29, 4:43 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > all we will ever know at the same time for all time... or ...knowing > > > > (and being) everyone and everything that ever was and ever will be and > > > > all that is... > > > > > On Jun 28, 8:09 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Isn't that cosmic consciousness, Vam? > > > > > > On Jun 28, 6:24 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Jim, really speaking beyond mere more terms and thoughts, I do not > > > > > > even know how the dog derives many, many times more from the bone I > > > > > > discarded as nothing ! The fact is empirical. But do I understand > > > > > > it ? I do not know. > > > > > > > The other day, a journalist academic analysed racism and opined : > > > > > > We > > > > > > are not racists. Just that some among us are ignorant and, hence, > > > > > > display their prejudices which seem racist. That, I found, was a > > > > > > mere > > > > > > explanation of racist behaviour. It was irrelevent to the question : > > > > > > Are we racist ? > > > > > > > I believe that alongwith science, which indeed we might know > > > > > > everything of, we need to know the answer to such questions, which > > > > > > is > > > > > > what I am afraid we ALL will never know ALL at the SAME TIME, for > > > > > > ALL > > > > > > TIME. > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 1:20 am, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Looking back over recent decades it seems clear that we (mankind) > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > coming to know, in a scientific sense, more and more about more > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > more, and faster and faster. Will there ever come a time when we > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > know everything about everything? > > > > > > > I’ve asked a number of people this question, and all say > > > > > > > “no.” But it > > > > > > > seems to me that the correct answer is “yes.” Why? > > > > > > > First, I’m talking about knowing all the scientific laws > > > > > > > governing > > > > > > > the physical universe – nothing more, nothing less. The physical > > > > > > > universe is immense, but finite. Science has long assumed that the > > > > > > > laws governing our small bit of it are universal; they apply > > > > > > > everywhere in the universe just as they apply here. Given then > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > the physical universe is finite, it would seem that the laws > > > > > > > governing > > > > > > > it are also finite. And as we come to know them here faster and > > > > > > > faster, at some point it would seem that we will know everything > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > everything. > > > > > > > This also seems to me to be consistent with what Einstein > > > > > > > and others > > > > > > > have long sought – the ultimate theory of everything. (This > > > > > > > effort is > > > > > > > well described by Brian Greene in his book The Elegant Universe.) > > > > > > > If > > > > > > > knowing everything were obviously not possible, surely this group > > > > > > > would never have begun pursuing that ultimate theory. > > > > > > > How might we tell when we are approaching the point where > > > > > > > we know > > > > > > > everything? I expect the growth of knowledge is gaussian. As we > > > > > > > approach knowing everything the rate of knowledge growth will > > > > > > > gradually slow. So by monitoring this rate of growth we should be > > > > > > > able > > > > > > > to predict when we will know everything. Right?- Hide quoted text > > > > > > > - > > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
