As we are all conscious , it doesn't matter if the core substance from which we have come to be is conscious or not. It is above us and our master even if it is unconscious.
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 6:18 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Of course we are all of the same substance but the core concern of this > thread is determining whether or not this common substance is > > conscious. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ash <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Mon, Jul 12, 2010 10:58 pm > Subject: Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: Parallel Universes > > Or, 'We are within that vast construction of information 'salad'. We are > one of (not and) the same'. Variation is obvious. I'm not sure reason so > much as exploration of the human experience will lead to those things. > > On 7/12/2010 7:49 AM, RP Singh 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] > < > mailto:[email protected] <[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] <[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] <[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<[email protected]%3e%3ewrote?> > : > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > 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]<[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] <[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]<[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] <[email protected]?>>> > >> > > > > > To: [email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected] <[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] <[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]<[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] <[email protected]?>>> > >> > > > > >>> To: [email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected] <[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]<[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] <[email protected]?>>> > >> > > > > >>>> To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected] <[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]<[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]<[email protected]?>>> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > > > >>>> > > Pray tell. > >> > > >> > > > > >>>> > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > >> > > > > >>>> > > From: ashok tewari <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]?>>> > >> > > >> > > > > >>>> > > To: [email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected] <[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]<[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] <[email protected]?>>> > >> > > >> > > > > >>>> > >> To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected] <[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] <[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 - > >> > >> > > > > >
