Wow.. this is a really big post to 'critique' dude...you come by only once in a while but drop the bomb whenever you do!;-)
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > To say that the fragment is separable from the source is shining the light > on a square centimeter of one plane of influence, isn't it but variation of > the same? The bubble would seem ill suited to assert more than the dictates > of mechanical phenomena, but being an expression of that ocean the dictates > are pure actualized expressions of whatever forces or will nature has. There > is no need to struggle with existential questions or enlightenment, a bubble > is what it is, very zen. > > That might lead us to a critical assessment of mankind, where we say how > pitiful in comparison to potential is his state. Without going further, and > I assume this is the unguided ego manifesting, we might become stuck in > judgement, self-loathing and self-righteousness as a result. In that state > of antagonism against all the world, and oneself, lacking the awareness of > unity a subject of craving and unquenchable thirsts. There beyond the > idealizations and dogmas, form, reason and subjective truths lies a Living > Truth that we can find but not be told. The awareness when elevated to that > level of truth understands how we too are phenomenal expressions, with > variation, and great potential. That understanding leads to knowing others > as ourselves, and what we are in relation to Truth can restructure and boost > all subordinate oganistic structures within the human being, especially the > ego. > > Then RP it seems the supreme resides within one, or at least the doorway. > I've been known to kick into the door from time to time in an unorganized > fashion, for lack of a mentor. I seem to be tiptoeing around now perhaps > peering in carefully, giving pieces time to fall into place. > MacDonald-Baynes' work is proving a beneficial study, and had I read Beyond > The Himalayas as a youth I would have propelled in many studies and apostasy > would have been mostly unnecessary. I trust no-one or thing at face value, > but my recent studies are bringing together many pieces of truth that I've > collected. As of today I am 27 (just to get out of the closet with the rest) > and feel gratitude to you all contributing so many valuable experiences and > thoughts, no horror is like the mind alone, but companionship... > > Back on topic- Is it necessary that a multiverse be populated either tandem > or parallel? It seems that there might be a causal asymmetry involved, > whereas the laws operating within local space/time must apply to the > superordinate macrocosm also. Just a fictional analogy, say our universe is > a bubble in a boiling ocean where the expression of a bubble is brought by > an allowable vacancy within the compressible medium of an area. The > disintegration of a bubble allows and brings forth new bubbles (tandem > succession), each one containing variant influence by the other bubbles > (parallel). Estrangement from the one local event growing with distance and > time from that event (bubble/universe). Of course there are no clean > boundaries, but lets assume these are extreme circumstances like the > creation/destruction of an atom and the relatively massive distance between > them. There are a lot of holes and duct-tape to the idea but there is much > room for 'what if's I think. > > Please do critique! All IMO, it's good to be back. > > > On 7/10/2010 12:17 PM, RP Singh wrote: > > It is very easy for the ray to say that it is the Sun ,for after all it has > emanated from it. But for the Sun it is just a fragment which it has sent > out. You can think anything you like, there is no tax on it. How wonderful > it is when a bubble thinks it is the ocean, for after all it is just > momentary and returns to its source ,the ocean , as if it had never been. > > On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Mine is: I AM that. As thoughts go, it is often all that is >> necessary. >> >> On Jul 10, 3:52 am, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > My favorite thought is....."I'm not there"....... >> > >> > On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:29 AM, DarkwaterBlight >> > <[email protected]>wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > In the words of Porky Porcupine (Pogo Comics) >> > > “Thar’s only two possibilities: Thar is life out there in the >> > > universe which is smarter than we are, or we’re the most intelligent >> > > life in the universe. Either way, it’s a mighty sobering thought.” >> > >> > > On Jul 8, 11:25 am, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > Yes, I agree on both counts, in an an anthropic sense. >> Unfourtunately >> > > > we are not completely aware of what other awarenesses are out there! >> > > > It is pretty high minded to think that we are the most intelligent >> > > > life forms in this universe not to mention that of other universes. >> In >> > > > any case this was meant to describe the levels of awareness and to >> > > > provide a working definition of the term. This is not to say that >> the >> > > > mechanics of such process is not as you say! The assignment of >> meaning >> > > > is where it becomes challenging. Consider this (just to get back on >> > > > track) in the context of multiple universes; >> > >> > > > "If one lived in only 2-dimensions (aka as “Flatland”), then >> > > > something in the third dimension passing through our plane would >> > > > appear suddenly, and just as quickly disappear. From the three >> > > > dimensional point of view, not much has happened, but from the two >> > > > dimensional point of view, it’s a real eye opener. Thus why not an >> > > > object normally residing in four or five dimensions casually >> wandering >> > > > through our three dimensions, and thus the “hiccup”. Or perhaps an >> > > > ever grander event, the kind that gives rise to new religions?"-Dan >> > > > Sewell Ward >> > > > http://www.halexandria.org/dward408.htm >> > >> > > > On Jul 8, 10:34 am, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > > > If there is Self-awareness or enlightenment or God-state then that >> > > awareness >> > > > > would open a new meaning to life. >> > >> > > > > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 6:30 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > > In my experience awareness is the beginning of a process not an >> end >> > > in >> > > > > > itself. Awareness leads to selection among raw data of >> experience >> > > which is >> > > > > > then imputed with meaning. No? >> > >> > > > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > > > From: RP Singh <[email protected]> >> > > > > > To: [email protected] >> > > > > > Sent: Thu, Jul 8, 2010 6:51 am >> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: Parallel Universes >> > >> > > > > > The state of enlightenment or self-realisation is called >> > > Turiya-avastha by >> > > > > > yogis. >> > >> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:16 AM, RP Singh <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > > > >> The so-called state of enlightenment or self-realisation is >> simply a >> > > state >> > > > > >> of awareness of the organism like deep-sleep state, >> dream-state, >> > > awaken >> > > > > >> state. Equating the individual self or ahamkara to the Self or >> > > Truth, God , >> > > > > >> Atma is just human egoism and a desire of man to be supreme or >> God. >> > >> > > > > >> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:44 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > > > >>> So I would be interested in how you shifted your attitude from >> a >> > > > > >>> relativistic subjective position like mine to what I imagined >> you >> > > believe is >> > > > > >>> an objective enlightened one? I am truly interested in the >> steps >> > > you took to >> > > > > >>> get there. I also appreciate the fact that beyond a certain >> point >> > > you will >> > > > > >>> probably say that words are inadequate to describe the >> process. >> > > However some >> > > > > >>> of the process is probably describable. No? >> > >> > > > > >>> -----Original Message----- >> > > > > >>> From: ashok tewari <[email protected]> >> > > > > >>> To: [email protected] >> > > > > >>> Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 9:25 am >> > > > > >>> Subject: Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: Parallel Universes >> > >> > > > > >>> Cannot say much about your chain of thoughts, though >> commonplace ( >> > > for >> > > > > >>> they're the very same that held sway over me not so long ago >> ), >> > > because they >> > > > > >>> have roots and causes within you. >> > >> > > > > >>> The self is not negated but known. Which isn't being superior >> - >> > > inferior >> > > > > >>> but being true, without the least psychology we are all caught >> up >> > > in. >> > >> > > > > >>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:45 PM, <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > > > >>>> You are apparently saying that awareness can be pure (free >> from >> > > > > >>>> contaminating subjectivity hence by passing interpretation). >> > > Further that >> > > > > >>>> the experience of 'pure' awareness enables the experiencer to >> > > obtain an >> > > > > >>>> assumed pre existing knowledge of everything. In that case I >> am >> > > doomed to >> > > > > >>>> experience impure awareness as it makes absolutely no sense >> to me >> > > that what >> > > > > >>>> ever I perceive does not necessarily involve something of my >> > > personal self >> > > > > >>>> added to whatever awareness I have. Further if such pure >> awareness >> > > you claim >> > > > > >>>> exists which I think equals the claims of the mystic's >> assertions >> > > of >> > > > > >>>> ineffability of such pure direct awareness - then to speak of >> the >> > > > > >>>> unspeakable seems to me to be little more than an expression >> of >> > > spiritual >> > > > > >>>> narcissism. To me at my age of 73 - this talk translated into >> > > human talk is >> > > > > >>>> really saying something like: I know something you don't >> know and >> > > what I >> > > > > >>>> know is vastly superior to what you know and don't play word >> games >> > > with me >> > > > > >>>> when I say no words can describe it because that is the truth >> and >> > > too bad >> > > > > >>>> you don't know it. >> > >> > > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- >> > > > > >>>> From: Molly <[email protected]> >> > > > > >>>> To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> >> > > > > >>>> Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 7:48 am >> > > > > >>>> Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Parallel Universes >> > >> > > > > >>>> Very good! >> > >> > > > > >>>> On Jul 7, 3:58 am, ashok tewari <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > > > >>>> > Telling doesn't help, as in wouldn't communicate. >> > >> > > > > >>>> > Try being without the relatedness you feel for things you >> know, >> > > even for a >> > >> > > > > >>>> > moment, as you do in the state of deep sleep, without >> actually >> > > falling deep >> > >> > > > > >>>> > asleep ! >> > >> > > > > >>>> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:47 AM, <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > > > >>>> > > Pray tell. >> > >> > > > > >>>> > > -----Original Message----- >> > >> > > > > >>>> > > From: ashok tewari <[email protected]> >> > >> > > > > >>>> > > To: [email protected] >> > >> > > > > >>>> > > Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 2:12 am >> > >> > > > > >>>> > > Subject: Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: Parallel Universes >> > >> > > > > >>>> > > " Or do you somehow have special knowledge?" >> > >> > > > > >>>> > > I do. >> > >> > > > > >>>> > > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:07 AM, <[email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> Assuming you are a human and not the "God" you are >> > > describing - then you >> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> can not be certain that >> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> the assertions you are making about absolute reality are >> > > accurate. So we >> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> are back to the position of Aquinas re >> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> faith and reason. As a man of faith you can believe >> whatever >> > > you wish and >> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> obviously do - but in terms of >> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> reason you apparently know as little for certain as the >> rest >> > > of us. Or do >> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> you somehow have special knowledge? >> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> -----Original Message----- >> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> From: vamadevananda <[email protected]> >> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> >> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> Sent: Wed, Jul 7, 2010 12:25 am >> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Parallel Universes >> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> It is unknown to us humans. It is known to God, but not >> in >> > > the manner >> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> in which humans relate to things known to them or to >> matters >> > > unknown. >> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> On Jul 6, 6:36 pm, [email protected] wrote: >> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > But -is the future known or unknown? >> > >> > > > > ... >> > >> > > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - >> > >> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> > >> > > > - Show quoted text - >> > >> > -- >> > \--/ Peace- Hide quoted text - >> > >> > - Show quoted text - > > > > -- \--/ Peace
