"...OM, I need to hear you on this, if you may..." - vam Not quite keeping up these days, perhaps if you frame your question and state it simply for an old man? ;-)
On Jun 29, 10:06 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > Tinker, clearly you seem to be out of these depths Molly speaks of. If > so, frame your question, and state it simply. > > No where did I find Molly implying that you have " to accept that " > Molly was " in some way superior." > > On Jun 30, 7:58 am, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > No, I don't understand that Molly. > > I do very well understand, "there is no it or that to the > > *experience*." > > Am I supposed to accept that you are in some way superior because your > > *experience* has it and that specifics? > > > peace & Love > > > On Jun 29, 8:10 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
