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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> My favorite thought is....."I'm not there".......
>
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:29 AM, DarkwaterBlight
> <[email protected]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> > > > > To: [email protected]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> > > > >>> To: [email protected]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> > > > >>>> To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> > > > >>>> > > Pray tell.
>
> > > > >>>> > > -----Original Message-----
>
> > > > >>>> > > From: ashok tewari <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
>
> > > > >>>> > > To: [email protected]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
>
> > > > >>>> > >> To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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 -
