Guest guest Posted July 13, 2002 Report Share Posted July 13, 2002 , Wim Borsboom <wim@a...> wrote: > Anyway... We experience unity at the very same "moment" we experience twoness, let me just be bold and call it that. The twoness and oneness synchronize... there is no collision there...none whatsoever... It is "momentous". Beloved Wimji, Darling Friend, Your Beauty just keeps rolling through this Heart like waves of wonder, like a Sea of Transluscent Vision giving sight to what cannot be seen, like the "Moment" when we experience the unity of twoness, a synchronized HeartBeat of Love, Loving. >Two rolls into one, and vice versa, enfoldment unfoldment, it is even scientifically sound... In the oneness/twoness time is/isn't That is not a concept, that is the most fabulous experience... In the oneness/twoness space is/isn't ....Yes Beloved. Yes, Yes. "He Knows Who Whom You let Know." We all KNOW! I was scanning a little book on ZERO yesterday at Chapter's (something like Barnes and Noble).. Will have to buy that book... there was a drawing in there that made sense... string theory and quantum dynamics and relativity coming together... A three dimensional depiction of a bifurcation point, like a pair of pants hanging off a cloth line... the wind blowing through it... the crotch... Thanks Nitin Kumar ....And Dearly Beloved, thank you for your open willingness to say what others fear to say or cannot say having not experienced this truth. The Love that so longs to inform the Heart of every Lover, every Beloved, is magnified in Your Dear Heart. i bow to That my Love. > Zero is like explosion/implosion, the / Ultimate samadhi-orgasm, what's the word... climax... all together... > Ask Robert/Mazie... Ask Me/Michelle Ask Mark/Mira It is physical AND beyond, not one without the other... Anything not that... is... dysfunction, sorry to say..., trauma, hurt, sublimation. These words sound hard, but it is not meant that way... I understand the hurt, the trauma, have gone through that enough. But we experience the one/twoness. That is what experience means... Full experience is oneness and otherness... I and You Not the collision of it... but the celebration... Anything not dealing with that reality is conceptual... From and within that one/twoness we live... life is... love is... It is physical/spiritual reality... Those are just words... trying to reach and express the reality of reality... let's not stay too long in the verbalization state though... .....Thank you Dearest for this, this morning especially. Facing the end of the part that can never end, we stand in Awe with This Beauty Unfolding, Unfolded, Perfect, as the Harmony of Life with everything everywhere always. i feel Your Presence deeply Dearest One. > Jeez did I sound strong...? ....No, never too strong, never too giving of the Love You Are, Now and always. > No concepts though, gosh no... Laughingly embracing you Beloved Wimji. > Wim LoveAlways, Mazie & b > > > shawn [shawn@w...] > Saturday, July 13, 2002 2:26 AM > > Re: Re: Zenbob and unity > > > > Okay, Zenbob, I'll see your thought and raise you one! Bwahahah...... > > > > on 7/12/02 9:00 AM, zen2wrk@a... at zen2wrk@a... wrote: > > > In a message dated 7/6/02 6:20:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > shawn@w... writes: > > > > The doing still gets done, but there is no DOER. The mighty > identification and all that goes with it......is transparent......work > becomes play.."No one has ever got hurt" is SEEN as Truth....remarkable and > as untrue as it sounds! > > Shawn > > > > At the core, I think we are in actual agreement, but your comments above > fall short of ultimate reality by oversimplification. > > When all individual thinkers are unified into the ultimate union, then > that becomes the Supreme Doer. > > ==================== > > You lost me right there in the beginning! What are you talking about! All > "individual thinkers" are going to some ultimate union??? Wow, what a > friggin' concept!! Is this something you think is going to happen or are you > suggesting forming some kind of "workers union"??? I am so lost here.... > ====================== > > > There is a doer, and we are all part of that. > Whether we know it or not. > ===================== > This is just your idea. > > ======================= > > When we are in the dualistic state, > ======================= > > What is your experience? > > =================== > > our own actions are those that we are ultimately responsible for, in the > basic temporal reality. You hit your toe, and I do not complain or say > ouch, you do. And vice-versa. > ===================== > "you" are a phantom and never do anything...... > I am not suggesting a "union state". It is not a "union"...there never IS > seperation! > This is something you "see".....not something you can conceptualize... > =================== > > The Super State of Ultimate Unity in no way precludes this reality of > personal action, personal pain. > > ============== > > > I don't know what you're talking about..."Super State of Unity"....what is > that? You *never* become *one* with *anything*....can't be done.......give > it up...the "you" is the problem, and whether *you* think you're improving > or doing harm, it is a lie.You are a concept and when you can *see* this > fact, what happens? > > ================== > > > Suffering may be attachment to false ideas, but it is also part of the > separate reality. Just because it is separate does not mean that it is not > real. It is as real as the ultimate unity. Wihtout it, the ultimate unity > would not exist. > > Love, > > Zenbob > > ================== > > Sorry, no. those are just concepts. Unity is a concept. No one will ever > experience unity...but they may come close! > > Namaste, Shawn > > > Sponsor > /join > > > > > > All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, > perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside > back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than > the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. > Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is > where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal > Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously > arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. > > > > Terms of Service > <> . > > > > Sponsor > > Click here to find your contact lenses! > > /join > > > > > > All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, > perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside > back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than > the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. > Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is > where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal > Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously > arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. > > > > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.375 / Virus Database: 210 - Release 7/10/2002 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2002 Report Share Posted July 15, 2002 Sorry, no. those are just concepts. Unity is a concept. No one will ever experience unity...but they may come close! The word concept can be used to characterize any framework of words...which, as I have posted earlier, are just symbolic units designed to express ideas. Saying that "such" or "thus" are "just concepts" does not refute the underlying reality, even if our words or symbols are necessarily imperfect and fall short of a perfect description. Neither you nor I are merely concepts or the result of being discussed in conceptual terms. We have independent existence, and also can transcend that individual state of separation. I have personally experienced the ultimate union that you seem very eager to criticize. That state is not easily (if at all) describable in simple verbal symbols...nor is that state one that diminishes the individual identity, even though the individual is unified with the totality of the Super State Union. My best approximation is one that would be understood by professional singers...one can sing a note or measure solo, or can sing the same note or measure in a large choir, in which various other singers harmonize and augment the song that you sing. While you are singing you are now part of a greater unification, and it builds in harmony, beauty and complexity. It also would lose some portion of that harmony and beauty for each individual singer who stops singing. At no point do any of the singers feel or think or believe that they have totally ceased to exist as individual entities, but the joy and experience of the harmony is total and overwhelming. Also, it can be said that the group can function intelligently as a "community" of singers, as changes in the tempo, key, or nuance can be sensed, and the entire ensemble will adjust to these changes as if of one mind. Later, they can all agree or disagree on whether Chopin was better at mood music, or Brian Eno. Later still, they can all join in again. I state these ideas in the various analogies, knowing full well that they are analogies. A degree of agreed upon suspension is necessary to accept any verbal description for a real thing, or to accept that words have any use at all. When we say that there is an Ultimate or Supreme Doer, it means that in some state of existence, all consciousness and all parts of the universe must exist in a timeless state of totality. One cannot take a portion of "all" and place it in another state, except by verbal legerdemain. I also fall back on models well proven in physics, because the language and rules not only approximate reality, they can be duplicated objectively, and although complete picture of the universe is impossible to ascertain, we can make some good approximations based on the nature of particles, waves and matter. I think it would be an error to dismiss these underlying principles as just mere "concepts." Remember, if a car hits you, you will be injured despite your beliefs or lack of beliefs. If the car is moving faster, the odds are you will be more seriously injured. The heavier or more massive the vehicle, the less likely that the vehicle will bounce off of you. If you weighed a ton and the vehicle only a half ton, and it was not moving too fast, then it would bounce off of you. Why are all of these "worldly conditions" of any concern or importance, when it can be said that the "world is just a shadow...maya...an illusion generated by a single cosmic mind?" Because, everday events and conditions set the rules and boundaries for Karma and Dharma. The rules dictate that our actions will and do create the Ultimate Universe, and also our state of existence in this and in other lives. An understanding of Hinduism, yoga, Buddhism and Jain teachings makes these lessons quite clear. There is no need to practice "mindfulness" if there is really no individual mind. But Yoga and Hindusim do not suggest that individuals do not have a mind...they teach that the individual is potentially part of a greater unity...where such senses of self and ego are submerged in a sea of love, harmony and timeless integration. Does this help explain my comments? I hope so, but I am stuck with this awkward mechanism of words to exchange with you...and I cannot seem to send you the full mental image, although I have been making attempts. :-) Blessings, Zenbabaji Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2002 Report Share Posted July 16, 2002 ZenBobaji & Friends, First things first, Bob: I'm glad to hear that your experience of Unity/near unity has occurred. We hear so much bullshit here masquerading as experience. 2nd, and in a much more serious vein, I think that the notion that all this is "unreal" is an outmoded conceit that has outlived it's usefulness, both as a conceptual explanation of things, and, more importantly, as a "view to support practice". perhaps, if there is a bit of theoretical support for such a notion, I'll write more about this concept. I haven't brought my views up here because there seems to be no conceptual framework for acceptance, at least as I have been able to read things here over the last year or so. At any rate, congratulations on your breakthrough, even if it occurred sometime back. Only success can prove out these otherwise theoretical concepts. yours in the bonds, eric , zen2wrk@a... wrote: > In a message dated 7/13/02 2:42:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > shawn@w... writes: > > > > Sorry, no. those are just concepts. Unity is a concept. No one will ever > > experience unity...but they may come close! > > > > > > The word concept can be used to characterize any framework of words...which, > as I have posted earlier, are just symbolic units designed to express ideas. > Saying that "such" or "thus" are "just concepts" does not refute the > underlying reality, even if our words or symbols are necessarily imperfect > and fall short of a perfect description. > > Neither you nor I are merely concepts or the result of being discussed in > conceptual terms. We have independent existence, and also can transcend that > individual state of separation. I have personally experienced the ultimate > union that you seem very eager to criticize. That state is not easily (if at > all) describable in simple verbal symbols...nor is that state one that > diminishes the individual identity, even though the individual is unified > with the totality of the Super State Union. > > My best approximation is one that would be understood by professional > singers...one can sing a note or measure solo, or can sing the same note or > measure in a large choir, in which various other singers harmonize and > augment the song that you sing. While you are singing you are now part of a > greater unification, and it builds in harmony, beauty and complexity. It > also would lose some portion of that harmony and beauty for each individual > singer who stops singing. At no point do any of the singers feel or think or > believe that they have totally ceased to exist as individual entities, but > the joy and experience of the harmony is total and overwhelming. Also, it > can be said that the group can function intelligently as a "community" of > singers, as changes in the tempo, key, or nuance can be sensed, and the > entire ensemble will adjust to these changes as if of one mind. > > Later, they can all agree or disagree on whether Chopin was better at mood > music, or Brian Eno. > Later still, they can all join in again. > > I state these ideas in the various analogies, knowing full well that they are > analogies. A degree of agreed upon suspension is necessary to accept any > verbal description for a real thing, or to accept that words have any use at > all. > > When we say that there is an Ultimate or Supreme Doer, it means that in some > state of existence, all consciousness and all parts of the universe must > exist in a timeless state of totality. One cannot take a portion of "all" > and place it in another state, except by verbal legerdemain. I also fall > back on models well proven in physics, because the language and rules not > only approximate reality, they can be duplicated objectively, and although > complete picture of the universe is impossible to ascertain, we can make some > good approximations based on the nature of particles, waves and matter. I > think it would be an error to dismiss these underlying principles as just > mere "concepts." > > Remember, if a car hits you, you will be injured despite your beliefs or lack > of beliefs. If the car is moving faster, the odds are you will be more > seriously injured. The heavier or more massive the vehicle, the less likely > that the vehicle will bounce off of you. If you weighed a ton and the > vehicle only a half ton, and it was not moving too fast, then it would bounce > off of you. > > Why are all of these "worldly conditions" of any concern or importance, when > it can be said that the "world is just a shadow...maya...an illusion > generated by a single cosmic mind?" Because, everday events and conditions > set the rules and boundaries for Karma and Dharma. The rules dictate that > our actions will and do create the Ultimate Universe, and also our state of > existence in this and in other lives. > > An understanding of Hinduism, yoga, Buddhism and Jain teachings makes these > lessons quite clear. > > There is no need to practice "mindfulness" if there is really no individual > mind. But Yoga and Hindusim do not suggest that individuals do not have a > mind...they teach that the individual is potentially part of a greater > unity...where such senses of self and ego are submerged in a sea of love, > harmony and timeless integration. > > Does this help explain my comments? I hope so, but I am stuck with this > awkward mechanism of words to exchange with you...and I cannot seem to send > you the full mental image, although I have been making attempts. > > :-) > > Blessings, > > Zenbabaji Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2002 Report Share Posted July 16, 2002 Hi Eric. You wrote: > ...that the notion that all this is "unreal" is an outmoded > conceit that has outlived it's usefulness, I so concur... > ...both as a conceptual explanation of things, and, more > importantly, as a "view to support practice". perhaps, > if there is a bit of theoretical support for such a notion, > I'll write more about this concept. Please do. Good thing that in addition to "theoretical support" you have the support of life's reality. > I haven't brought my views up here because there seems > to be no conceptual framework for acceptance, at least > as I have been able to read things here over the last year or so. Things have changed here... Eric... You did not notice? Wim --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.375 / Virus Database: 210 - Release 7/10/2002 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2002 Report Share Posted July 16, 2002 Such nice post... Zenbabaji! Wim zen2wrk (AT) aol (DOT) com [zen2wrk@ aol.com]Monday, July 15, 2002 5:05 PMTo: Subject: Re: Re: Zenbob and unityIn a message dated 7/13/02 2:42:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time, shawn (AT) withouraloha (DOT) com writes: Sorry, no. those are just concepts. Unity is a concept. No one will ever experience unity...but they may come close! The word concept can be used to characterize any framework of words...which, as I have posted earlier, are just symbolic units designed to express ideas. Saying that "such" or "thus" are "just concepts" does not refute the underlying reality, even if our words or symbols are necessarily imperfect and fall short of a perfect description. Neither you nor I are merely concepts or the result of being discussed in conceptual terms. We have independent existence, and also can transcend that individual state of separation. I have personally experienced the ultimate union that you seem very eager to criticize. That state is not easily (if at all) describable in simple verbal symbols...nor is that state one that diminishes the individual identity, even though the individual is unified with the totality of the Super State Union. My best approximation is one that would be understood by professional singers...one can sing a note or measure solo, or can sing the same note or measure in a large choir, in which various other singers harmonize and augment the song that you sing. While you are singing you are now part of a greater unification, and it builds in harmony, beauty and complexity. It also would lose some portion of that harmony and beauty for each individual singer who stops singing. At no point do any of the singers feel or think or believe that they have totally ceased to exist as individual entities, but the joy and experience of the harmony is total and overwhelming. Also, it can be said that the group can function intelligently as a "community" of singers, as changes in the tempo, key, or nuance can be sensed, and the entire ensemble will adjust to these changes as if of one mind. Later, they can all agree or disagree on whether Chopin was better at mood music, or Brian Eno. Later still, they can all join in again. I state these ideas in the various analogies, knowing full well that they are analogies. A degree of agreed upon suspension is necessary to accept any verbal description for a real thing, or to accept that words have any use at all. When we say that there is an Ultimate or Supreme Doer, it means that in some state of existence, all consciousness and all parts of the universe must exist in a timeless state of totality. One cannot take a portion of "all" and place it in another state, except by verbal legerdemain. I also fall back on models well proven in physics, because the language and rules not only approximate reality, they can be duplicated objectively, and although complete picture of the universe is impossible to ascertain, we can make some good approximations based on the nature of particles, waves and matter. I think it would be an error to dismiss these underlying principles as just mere "concepts." Remember, if a car hits you, you will be injured despite your beliefs or lack of beliefs. If the car is moving faster, the odds are you will be more seriously injured. The heavier or more massive the vehicle, the less likely that the vehicle will bounce off of you. If you weighed a ton and the vehicle only a half ton, and it was not moving too fast, then it would bounce off of you. Why are all of these "worldly conditions" of any concern or importance, when it can be said that the "world is just a shadow...maya...an illusion generated by a single cosmic mind?" Because, everday events and conditions set the rules and boundaries for Karma and Dharma. The rules dictate that our actions will and do create the Ultimate Universe, and also our state of existence in this and in other lives. An understanding of Hinduism, yoga, Buddhism and Jain teachings makes these lessons quite clear. There is no need to practice "mindfulness" if there is really no individual mind. But Yoga and Hindusim do not suggest that individuals do not have a mind...they teach that the individual is potentially part of a greater unity...where such senses of self and ego are submerged in a sea of love, harmony and timeless integration. Does this help explain my comments? I hope so, but I am stuck with this awkward mechanism of words to exchange with you...and I cannot seem to send you the full mental image, although I have been making attempts. :-) Blessings, Zenbabaji Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2002 Report Share Posted July 17, 2002 on 7/15/02 2:04 PM, zen2wrk (AT) aol (DOT) com at zen2wrk (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote: In a message dated 7/13/02 2:42:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time, shawn (AT) withouraloha (DOT) com writes: Sorry, no. those are just concepts. Unity is a concept. No one will ever experience unity...but they may come close! The word concept can be used to characterize any framework of words...which, as I have posted earlier, are just symbolic units designed to express ideas. Saying that "such" or "thus" are "just concepts" does not refute the underlying reality, even if our words or symbols are necessarily imperfect and fall short of a perfect description. >>So, are you saying you experienced some sort of union but now it is gone? But even though the experience is gone, you believe that the union exists? I hate it when that happens! Neither you nor I are merely concepts or the result of being discussed in conceptual terms. We have independent existence, and also can transcend that individual state of separation. >>I am saying the personality, Bob...the personal "Zenbob" is an idea. Not even *an* idea, but a bunch of memories and identified- with-reactions to life...But by no means *believe* this, *see* if it is true! I have personally experienced the ultimate union that you seem very eager to criticize. That state is not easily (if at all) describable in simple verbal symbols...nor is that state one that diminishes the individual identity, even though the individual is unified with the totality of the Super State Union. >>Good for you! I too have experienced grand beautiful union-like stuff and guess what: "Shawn" is still the same poor suffering slob, but now with *more* stuff to identify with and make "my union experience." What I was alluding to is the fact of *identification*...MISTAKEN IDENTIFICATION... the experience of "union" is in exact porportion to your own transcendence, ie. to the extent that "Zenbob" is there experiencing, Zenbob will add this on to "his identity"...this is how karma works. It only operates when Shawn is the doer. When I am transparent to my Self all binding motivations are released, all "doing" is done by God or the Self, my Beingness. I am trnsparent when the Witness is alive and *noticed*. We are moved by Love and that Love *is* totally selfless. My best approximation is one that would be understood by professional singers...one can sing a note or measure solo, or can sing the same note or measure in a large choir, in which various other singers harmonize and augment the song that you sing. While you are singing you are now part of a greater unification, and it builds in harmony, beauty and complexity. It also would lose some portion of that harmony and beauty for each individual singer who stops singing. At no point do any of the singers feel or think or believe that they have totally ceased to exist as individual entities, but the joy and experience of the harmony is total and overwhelming. Also, it can be said that the group can function intelligently as a "community" of singers, as changes in the tempo, key, or nuance can be sensed, and the entire ensemble will adjust to these changes as if of one mind. Later, they can all agree or disagree on whether Chopin was better at mood music, or Brian Eno. Later still, they can all join in again. >>Yes, I prefer Talking Heads and Gershwin....but yes, nice analogy. I state these ideas in the various analogies, knowing full well that they are analogies. A degree of agreed upon suspension is necessary to accept any verbal description for a real thing, or to accept that words have any use at all. When we say that there is an Ultimate or Supreme Doer, it means that in some state of existence, all consciousness and all parts of the universe must exist in a timeless state of totality. >>This is where you loose me. But it is just me. I prefer not to conceptualize to this degree. Hahaha. I hold no belief in "A Supreme Doer" nor in some state of existence other than This Now. One cannot take a portion of "all" and place it in another state, except by verbal legerdemain. >>...you see, I cannot go there: "portion" and "all" this stuff is only in the mind and has NO basis in reality! I also fall back on models well proven in physics, because the language and rules not only approximate reality, they can be duplicated objectively, and although complete picture of the universe is impossible to ascertain, we can make some good approximations based on the nature of particles, waves and matter. I think it would be an error to dismiss these underlying principles as just mere "concepts." >>Quantum physics now concludes that there *is* NO OBJECTIVE REALITY. It has concluded that the very *act* of being observed *changes* the observed. Remember, if a car hits you, you will be injured despite your beliefs or lack of beliefs. If the car is moving faster, the odds are you will be more seriously injured. The heavier or more massive the vehicle, the less likely that the vehicle will bounce off of you. If you weighed a ton and the vehicle only a half ton, and it was not moving too fast, then it would bounce off of you. >>Ouch, but if I am certain that *I* am not only the body-mind? Why are all of these "worldly conditions" of any concern or importance, when it can be said that the "world is just a shadow...maya...an illusion generated by a single cosmic mind?" Because, everday events and conditions set the rules and boundaries for Karma and Dharma. The rules dictate that our actions will and do create the Ultimate Universe, and also our state of existence in this and in other lives. >>This is a beautiful thought, and I don't disagree...only differ in what I am emphasizing: The importance of the phrase, "the world is an illusion" is that it be used as a motive for self enquiry, and then the real profound and *found* illusion becomes apparent, the person, what the idividual thinks of as itself, the "soul" is just nowhere to be found, but is only a case of mistaken identity! But as for practical stuff, I agree with you for the most part and am reminded once again of that wonderful tale of the man who was walking through the jungle, when another man runs by him, shouting ,"get out of the way ,...a wild elephant is on the rampage and is headed this way!" This particular man was of a certain religous belief that all was God, and so thought there was no harm to be done... so he didn't get out of the way and the elephant trampled him. The man came back and saw the other laying there dying and asked, "Why? Why didn't you move? " "Well, I believe," the man replied,"that all things are God and He would do me no harm, since I love him and he, me." "Well, you seemed to forget," the healthy one replied," I am God also and *I* told you to get out of the way!" An understanding of Hinduism, yoga, Buddhism and Jain teachings makes these lessons quite clear. There is no need to practice "mindfulness" if there is really no individual mind. But Yoga and Hindusim do not suggest that individuals do not have a mind...they teach that the individual is potentially part of a greater unity...where such senses of self and ego are submerged in a sea of love, harmony and timeless integration. >>This is my point...the sense of self, the ego is the instagator of trouble in the world, if indeed you see trouble! It makes no difference if you think you're being good or bad in your actions....if you don't see through the notions of "good" and "bad" you'll contribute to the chaos and war between them. This seeing does not result in a kind of amorality...this idea is only a figment of the mind...you see? Instead of seeing it, the ego-mind guesses what that would be like, because to see beyond this is to leave this mind behind! This transcendence is a Love that never holds back...NEVER!! This Love confronts the "individual" in each moment. If you take on the "Witness" you watch the individual come up like ripples from a stone thrown long ago, they come and go...but if there is no noticing of the "personality", then that is like you are still throwing the stones... Does this help explain my comments? I hope so, but I am stuck with this awkward mechanism of words to exchange with you...and I cannot seem to send you the full mental image, although I have been making attempts. :-) Blessings, Backatcha my brother, Shawn Zenbabaji >> Sponsor /join All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. Terms of Service <> . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2002 Report Share Posted July 17, 2002 Hi Shawn: Superb posting! I think this dialogue is very constructive and illuminating for others, too! You clarify some very good points of reference. I think that your statements regarding the supreme quality of love are very harmonious...I cannot think that we have a divergence of opinion here...except that perhaps you might have thought that I did not believe in that concept...which in fact, I do... We are merely splitting a few hairs when it gets down to practical day to day "beingness" or "suchness." Also, there is a sort of over simplification in your comment about Quantum Physics: >>Quantum physics now concludes that there *is* NO OBJECTIVE REALITY. It has concluded that the very *act* of being observed *changes* the observed. >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the act of observation changes the outcome of the experiment. So does expectation. But this in no way suggests that there is no "objective reality." Please read Heisenberg and Bohm carefully. What they are suggesting, as best that I can condense, is that we are all part of a dynamic universe, in which even thought has substance, albeit very small, at a quantum level. We are all participant actors, directors and in the end, the universe is the stuff of dreams...but it does have a measurable reality...otherwise the experiments would not reveal a specific outcome. Furthermore, quantum physics can produce real and quantifiable results that allow for real breakthroughs in technology. Not only is high speed data communication possible because of Quantum Tunneling Diodes, but there is now the announcement from Australia that a team of scientists has managed to demonstrate a form of single molecular "teleportation" using quantum mechanisms. Sure, it all sounds like magic, but it is magic that works time and again. We know from quantum physics that the atoms in everything are in a state of random chaos, and that they go in and out of perceived existence in this universe (blinking on and off like Christmas tree lights). However, in no way does this invalidate or make useless a device such as a mundane light switch, that when thrown in one direction turns on an incandescent light bulb when AC power is available, or turn it off again when thrown in the opposite direction. We not only believe that it will work, we are surprised when it fails! In the same way, just because there is "no observor" to an event does not mean that the event never happened. We are all just energy. No argument there. And this energy is just information, organized out of chaos. I am simply suggesting that organized information should be able to discern between random chaos and organized information in the form of physicality, as big things can hurt you if you are not careful, and that barring a parachute, if you fall from a goodly height, you will fall at about 9.8 meters per second squared, and such a velocity can indeed do real damage to the organized information that the concepts of "Shawn" or "Zenbob" happen to be inhabiting at any given moment. Namaste, Zenbabaji Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.