Emptiness does not change. The manifest does change. I AM that includes both.
On Jul 12, 7:49 am, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > Ash , the correct expression is " I am from That ". You may say it , I may > say it and all of us may say it. It makes us related to each other. But , if > you say" I am That" and I , and all others say that , it becomes > ridiculous. It amounts to Ash saying I am RP and RP saying I am Ash. Of > course you can rationalize it as almost everything can be rationalized. > > > > On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 10:50 PM, 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
