That's what I mean. Finalize your clarifications and get your holy Patterny out!
On 8 Dez., 13:23, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7 Dec, 23:07, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > "The REAL intention of Ar-Rahman is that God feels > > towards us in a reciprocal fashion, so, if we regard Him, He regards > > us. Equally, if we disregard Him, He disregards us." - Funny, I read > > an advert for some kind of bible tv on the train today. The > > argumentation ran along the same lines. > > Well, it was supposed to be the same God that was involved in > revealing messages to Old Testament prophets , Jesus and Muhammed. It > woul d stand to reason that SOME of the message is the same. In fact, > the whole point OF the Qur'an was tomake tthe final clarifications on > just what, of that which went before, was important. > > > On 7 Dez., 17:58, Pat<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 7 Dec, 14:13, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Very good. So the why of why we exist may just be that the aspect of > > > > God within us "MUST do this as a function of > > > > Omnipotence and in order to maintain both Omnipotence (with respect to > > > > awareness) and Omniscience, as omniscience is realised by virtue of > > > > those 'teeth'/slices all being extensions of the One." > > > > > Which leaves us like Siddhartha, on the river bank, finding > > > > redemption by speaking the word, Om, engaging in experience with > > > > complete love to end the suffering. > > > > And, therein, lies a greater mystery. The equation of 'passion' and > > > 'suffering'. In the Qur'an, Allah is listed as Ar-Rhman, usually > > > translate as 'MMost Compassionate'. The prefix 'com' means 'with'; > > > this makes God the One thing that suffers with us. But, this is a two- > > > edged sword. The REAL intention of Ar-Rahman is that God feels > > > towrds uss in a reciprocal fashion, so, if we regard Him, He regards > > > us. Equally, if we disregard Him, He disregards us. It is from this > > > attribute of reciprocal passion that allows God to act mercifully > > > towards those who acknowledge Him and to act harshly towards those who > > > refuse to acknowledge Him--especially after so many interventions (via > > > prophets and scriptures). > > > > >The one and the many, complete. > > > > The many are only extensions, though, of the One. There is no 'real' > > > separation, but the 'join', is outside our line of sight. The One is > > > complete and doesn't 'need' the many, because He has them, as they are > > > nothing but extensions of Himself. Whereas we do need Him, as there > > > is nothing ELSE. > > > > > Countless problems with resultant suffering can be named as a result > > > > of feeling only the individuality, the separation, as rigsy points out > > > > below. The recognition tht theere are those in power creates a > > > > separation that dooms the experience to one of domination, as in fact, > > > > "power" exists in the unity, suffering in the separation without > > > > unity. > > > > And the only one with any REAL power is the One. As Jesus reminded > > > Pilate that, he 'had no power over him unless it was granted to him > > > from above'. > > > > >The teeth of the comb have not real value without the comb > > > > itself, and cannot perform the function of "combing." So it is with > > > > our individuality. Our only real power comes in knowing our > > > > connectedness, and feeling and acting from there. > > > > Thus the inherent danger in denying the existence of God--the only > > > thing that could ever actually help us. And this is an over-arching > > > theme of the Qur'an. Sorry for going on so much about Islam, but, as > > > Chrispointeed out that it might be difficult to sell my book in Saudi > > > Arabia, it's led me to thinking that there are more likenesses between > > > the God of my physics and Allah as described in the Qur'an than I had, > > > at first, thought. The MAIN point being the 'oss' oof 'free will'. > > > One of the main conclusions that can be drawn from my physics is that > > > it is only the will of the One that is enacted. It then follows that > > > one should be mindful OF that (which would lead one to prayer) and, in > > > natural reciprocity, God will be mindful of us when we need Him (which > > > is always, really). > > > > > On Dec 7, 6:45 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 6 Dec, 13:30, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > What other forms are there, Pat? And how is it we share our > > > > > > particular slice with so much in common? Why slice at all? > > > > > > I view vegetable 'awareness' as a different 'form' of slice, one > > > > > that is purely chemical. In that way, our computers have a form of > > > > > awareness that is purely electrical. Our form is a combination of > > > > > electrical and chemical. > > > > > The term 'slice' is a bit misleading, although it does show the > > > > > relationship between our consciousness/awareness and that of the whole > > > > > in that we have but a small part of it. A better analogy might be the > > > > > teeth of a comb. They are all connected at one point but each 'tooth' > > > > > extends from the One, that is the comb. > > > > > As far as "Why slice (it) at all?" Well, this is the way that > > > > > the One differentiates its awareness so that there can be inter- > > > > > realation between the differentials. As Neil had quoted the Qur'an > > > > > earlier, "...so tha you may know one another." From a more 'divine' > > > > > iewpoiint, God differentiates His awareness because God CAN > > > > > differentiate His awareness, He MUST do this as a function of > > > > > Omnipotence and in order to maintain both Omnipotence (with respect to > > > > > awareness) and Omniscience, as omniscience is realised by virtue of > > > > > those 'teeth'/slices all being extensions of the One. > > > > > > > On Dec 4, 10:03 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 3 Dec, 21:25, e <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Along with why is how? If we can ascertain how we exist then > > > > > > > > maybe the > > > > > > > > why becomes clearer or resolves of itself. Changing Descartes a > > > > > > > > bit > > > > > > > > too... I think, ‘I exist’, we see that I’s exist within thought > > > > > > > > bounded contexts. Do I’s exist outside of those thought bounded > > > > > > > > contexts? I don’t see how we can claim that I’s do. If I’s are > > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > > bound to context, then I am is just another thought that arises > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > passes away with context. That is, I’s really don’t exist the > > > > > > > > way we > > > > > > > > think I’s do i.e. permanently and separately. When the I am > > > > > > > > thought > > > > > > > > resolves showing there is no separate me, then the infinite > > > > > > > > totality > > > > > > > > is realized without an inside or outside. > > > > > > > > The way I put it is that, in truth, Consciousness is a 3-D loaf. > > > > > > > Each > > > > > > > of us has an 'apparent' slice of that loaf. But the loaf itself > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > always existed and always will, as it is nothing but energy, > > > > > > > which is > > > > > > > neither created nor destroyed--only transformed from one form to > > > > > > > another. But, any 3-D 'loaf' can be sliced in a number of > > > > > > > differnt > > > > > > > ways across various axes. our 'form' of consciousness is just one > > > > > > > form. There are othrs.- Hidde 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.
