Cosmic consciousness is a label for experiencing the connection in our mind to that which is 'other than' our physical existence.
The understanding is that of the individual translating the experience with the individual's point of view. The "direct perception" or the experience has "no it or that" - MB. The experience IS "the knowledge of its true nature". peace & Love On Jun 30, 11:22 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > What is " cosmic consciousness ?" What is our understanding of the > experience, of cosmic consciousness, or the direct perception of the > knowledge of its true nature ? > > Request you to have a look through previous posts on this, OM, for > more of the context. > > On Jul 1, 2:39 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > "...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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
