No way..wer'e the ones in the locker with the shiny watch.. On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:40 PM, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]>wrote:
> I think the 'what if's' being the most profound in that it describes > the limitless possibilities of our creative consciousness. Both > individually and collectively we create this reality that we see > before us as we think and believe, adaptations of aquired knowledge. > The only limits are the ones imposed on us by ourselves. As RP has > pointed out, we are from the same 'ocean' but not necessarily the same > 'bubbles'. In effect we ARE universe and are part of universe thus we > are invidual and collective universes creating a much greater whole. > The movie MIB II makes a wondeful illustration of the possibilities of > multiple universes greater and smaller in proportion. For all we know > we could be the charm on a cat's collar! > > On Jul 12, 1:50 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] > > > <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 > > > > ... > > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > -- \--/ Peace
