"The empty mind is the devils workshop"

[seattlegal]

maybe you are right?

lol! +1.......

 

[radarmark]

SG, interesting. "Standard Quantum Mechanics" (quantum chromodynamics) shows a void (a space without matter or energy) is very unstable (see Infrared instability of the vacuum state of gauge theories and asymptotic freedom by Savvidy and Wiki articles on "virtual particles" or "QCD vacuum", which is what Savvidy does).

M-theory, super-string, and string theories postulate same thing (utter nothingness must concretize a spacetime and mass-energy).

 

[seattlegal]

SG, interesting. "Standard Quantum Mechanics" (quantum chromodynamics) shows a void (a space without matter or energy) is very unstable (see Infrared instability of the vacuum state of gauge theories and asymptotic freedom by Savvidy and Wiki articles on "virtual particles" or "QCD vacuum", which is what Savvidy does).

M-theory, super-string, and string theories postulate same thing (utter nothingness must concretize a spacetime and mass-energy).

Creatio ex nihilo?

 

[Lunitik]

Yes, it is an important aspect of my Beliefs, but I was merely correcting you, that's all.
Your pantheistic babble goes nowhere, none of us can travel back into time to experience what was this Universe before there was Light.

Are you sure we cannot? Of course, not physically, but since all is one Life, it is in the memory of the one Mind. You have read much, and you have accepted it blindly. Experience is the only way to know Truth, simply drop your ego, sacrifice it to the Real and you too will know. The alternative is to remain blind, accepting theories of men - for all that actually know will never say in any meaningful way, and those that don't will try to theorize till their inevitable death.

This false importance you keep placing on our perception of things is not the solution, whether we are aware of something or not does not make it real or not . . . there's that inflated ego again, the Universe revolves around you it seems, this is not the case, the Universe has watched you come and will watch you go, It will continue to do what it does despite if Lunitik is there there 'experiencing' it.

I myself watch this body come and go, you believe me to be this body though so you of course see an ego in my words. It is actually because I conflict with your ego that you are offended by me, yet you cannot see it. Truth is absolute, belief is the imagined, the cause of illusion. Encounter directly, but first you will have to admit you know nothing, you will have to accept that all you know is a mere fable. Only when you are willing to sacrifice all you cling to will truth be revealed, but you have not even understand what is meant by Higher Self - you seem to believe it is something unique to you, it is not, it is the universal Self, Brahman, God, you will have to drop the persona you are playing to know it, yet do you even realize your personality is false?

 

[radarmark]

creatio ex nihilo?

b-i-n-g-o!

 

[Lunitik]

Actually, Lunitik, if "darkness" was prior to "light," then time would be tied to space. Lightspeed would be a relativistic reference point for motion within space as a function of the experiencing of time.

Space and time are perceptions, truth is beyond space and time and thus your statement is irrelevant. This is the whole problem with Science, they are dealing with the result as they see it, rather than what is actually the case.

The absolute is not of space or time or light or dark, it is non-existence as far as human perception is involved, yet still it is the first cause and causeless. We can know ourselves as this, but still in life it will remain relative - only upon the final death, as far as man is concerned, do you live as the absolute itself free from relation.

 

[Lunitik]

Now let me throw a Zen koan in:

Two monks were arguing about the temple flag waving in the wind.
One said, “The flag moves.”
The other said, “The wind moves.”
They argued back and forth but could not agree.

Hui-neng, the sixth patriarch, said: “Gentlemen! It is not
the flag that moves. It is not the wind that moves. It is
your mind that moves.”

The two monks were struck with awe.​

Consciousness is tied to space.

Your conclusion is false, space is the result of consciousness trying to decipher what is the case - as is time. In the highest peaks of consciousness that man can experience, there is no space or time, and is experienced as a sort of blacking out as I have mentioned before. After this experience, you are energized beyond anything you can imagine, thus this space is similar to sleep, but more absolute and regenerative. Knowledge arises from this space, but there is no cognition of being taught or how the knowledge has been gained at all.

 

[Lunitik]

Actually, void is highly unstable, which would suggest just the opposite of utter inactivity. {References from Steven Hawking and Chuang Tzu provided upon request.}

There is nothing there to be unstable, to our minds it is simply non-existent, beyond this nothing can be said at all.

This can be known when we experience our own inner void, which is where I function from today. Outwardly is utter chaos, and yet the center is unaffected. It is as a wheel, the center is absent but without it the circumference would simply not function to move us along - without the absence, the wheel would be connected to the axis and spinning would be impossible.

 

[seattlegal]

There is nothing there to be unstable, to our minds it is simply non-existent, beyond this nothing can be said at all.

This can be known when we experience our own inner void, which is where I function from today. Outwardly is utter chaos, and yet the center is unaffected. It is as a wheel, the center is absent but without it the circumference would simply not function to move us along - without the absence, the wheel would be connected to the axis and spinning would be impossible.

The hub of the wheel is discipline, and the rim is mindfulness.

 

[Lunitik]

If true, that would be evil behavior. You agree?

I would say petty, childish, immature. Even the concept of evil is something which is damaging though, what are your lies affecting? They may affect others opinions of me but they have absolutely no impact on reality at all.

Emptiness, as you said: like a room empty of furniture. Like a building empty of a good foundation. Like a way of living that is not fully support by the principles. The emptiness, the darkness, and the evil, are all very real... as real as the history, the present, and the future. The matter and the emptiness that matter resides in are equally real.

Past and future are NOT real, though, they are dead and not yet born respectively, only the present is real and past and future exist in them - this is how prophecies are possible, the person has picked up on the image of some future event.

Matter, so says science, is utterly empty, so while matter resides in emptiness it is also empty. In deed, all is emptiness, a void, in reality, our perceptions simply to try make sense of it - this is how evil other silly concepts have arisen. In reality, everything is chaotically reacting to one another, as in an explosion such as the Big Bang. Your thoughts and actions are as particles in the explosion, and as you sent them off they interact with other things - where the result is destructive it looks evil.

If you sit and watch yourself do evil, and be evil... in my book, you are being evil. I am certain there is a path available for you to stop doing that.

God watches many doing evil - by your estimation - and does nothing. When you understand what has been described in my last statement, of course you will not wish to do any harm, you will be more aware of what the results will be. This overall oneness, this interconnectivity which can be seen in the Big Bang as the original particle which has caused all else in its expansion, allows you even to manipulate where other objects are flying - the case of many "miracles" in actuality. That oneness is what I mean by love, not the pathetic excuse for love that has permitted you to wrong your wife - that is not love at all, it is a dependence and familiarity of which I have mentioned often.

Then let us know when and where you think you honestly quoted Jesus, so that you can reveal it.

The quote is good enough to prove my point that the Bible supports divine animation - at least admitting it of Jesus.

The thing that you wish me to believe in, is to NOT believe in God, or to believe it is just my ego. True? If not, then what, or who, precisely, do you wish me to believe in?

I have said your current conception of God is serving to uphold your ego, yes. I simply do not uphold the value of belief at all, experience causes belief to be irrelevant. When you encounter directly, what purpose is there in any imagined absurdity? This is all I am interested in: How to cause others to experience. All you are interested in is theories and superstition, I have been trying to push you more towards the reality but you are too stubborn. The only way to directly encounter is through meditation, and you will not even attempt it. In fact though, it would cause your dieting to stop being necessary, for instance. You would become more aware of your body and thus know how much sustenance it needs - you would stop moving to the extremes of excessive eating and then fasting.

 

[radarmark]

Depends on what "consciousness" means. Usually one means a state of awareness inter-relating mental-experience and reality. Usually reality is defined as being "in" space and time. And (again) usually mental-experience is at least associated with a location and a time (where and when your brain is). Under all of those conditions, consciousness is in space and time.

However if one sees consciousness as "what fills up" that everyday definition of consciousness, it is possible it is not in spacetime.

Personally when I experience this latter consciousness I do not experience space nor time and I believe that "bits of stuff" from outside of reality (call it G!d, the divine or whatever) flow into that experience from elsewhere. Kinda like a quantum tunneling event, or the possibility that subatomic particles can "transport" from one multiverse to another.

It all gets much too complicated and intellectual for me. So I just focus on the experience (of this second use of consciousness) which I cannot prove or intuit or show or know to be inside or outside of spacetime.

However, if it is outside of spacetime I do not know what that means. I think that is the way of solipsism (do not know that). And by association (I have no consciousness without a physical aspect that I know of (in the same manner)) I cannot see (in the same manner) how that can happen. Could be, but it does not "feel right" in my prehensions.

I do think (believe, intuit, experience, grok) that something outside of my experiences exist as a "sweetener" or "spark" or "spice" (the "bits of stuff") which is eternal and transfinate (so nor within space and time).

Aside from conversation with my bride last night: "those experiences Phil Dick head were numinous, pre-cognitive, and prophetic. If he had kept a sense of the Divine, he would have been a mystic. But since he only saw things in terms of science, he thought himself insane."

Last thing: if a void or vacuum exists it is not static (transfinite and eternal) does not mean fixed. And if (and as far as we know it is) quantum theory (normal or stringy versions) is correct, that void will coalesce, make something. Is this true? Depends on what you mean by true. The idea of nothingness and somethingness as yin and yang, a self-creating dyad is quite natural, I think.

 

[Lunitik]

The hub of the wheel is discipline, and the rim is mindfulness.

It depends what you mean by discipline, but for me discipline IS mindfulness. It is not something which can be taught, it is a balancing act, bringing yourself always back to the center as soon as you realize you are out of balance in some way. Buddha has done the best perhaps at causing us to find our center, but it has been misunderstood. Buddha was not interested in ethics at first at all, it is only when the less aware have come to him and started causing trouble that he has brought about rules at all.

The trouble is, mind likes rules, it wants to feel like it is accomplishing something, but there is nothing to accomplish. The very attempt to accomplish it brings you out of the center. Many do not see this and thus dispute my words, but by mind Buddha has meant pure consciousness. When I say mind I mean thoughts, the clouds that go through the pure consciousness, and the ego which is empowered by them. Even Buddha says you much quiet the mind, instead I say drop the mind and come to a state of no-mind - simply pure awareness, just stop empowering the thoughts and it will naturally arise.

 

[Lunitik]

@radarmark

That which you intuit is actually your true or higher Self, the universal Self, if you can come to the state of no-mind I have just discussed, you will realize this.

Shankara says the same when he insists Brahman (God or spirit) and atman (Self or soul) are not in fact distinct. This is the most important conclusion the Vedas can give, and has been echoed in all the Mystery schools since time immemorial. Granted, however, that atman is the mirror of Braham, and not the absolute nature of Brahman when experienced.

 

[radarmark]

But Tatha-gatha says there is no self, no mind.

Just joking, kind-of. It is a chan-dao thing. The uses of "consciousness", "mind", and "self" have little to do with consciousness, mind, or self. A Godelian-Gordian Knot.

Something to be played with and experienced. But the dao which is said is not the dao. Grok? SG?

 

[Lunitik]

But Tatha-gatha says there is no self, no mind.

Just joking, kind-of. It is a chan-dao thing. The uses of "consciousness", "mind", and "self" have little to do with consciousness, mind, or self. A Godelian-Gordian Knot.

Something to be played with and experienced. But the dao which is said is not the dao. Grok? SG?

This is partly correct, however Buddha means there is no individual self, no individual mind - this he teaches through interconnectivity and again by saying separateness is a delusion, although rarely are these put together exoterically. Again, however, I have tried to word things in a way others will accept because saying outright 'mind must die' or 'ego must die' seems to urk them. Self is nothing but ego, however if we relate it again back to Shankara, even the ego that God expresses is a manifestation of maya - an illusion used to convey certain things to one who has advanced to this level. This ego has certain attributes which will be most effective for the particular seeker, whereas God the absolute is attributeless.

(this ego within the Advaita system answers to Ishwara, which means Lord)

This is also why Buddhist texts say there is a God who is delusional thinking he is the creator, but then still accepts a later ego's request to teach what he has known to the masses. Buddha has experienced the absolute, but has also encountered these distinct ego's which remain - collectively commonly known as the elohim or other pantheons through the religions. These all must eventually merge back with the Absolute however, and thus of little interest to the true seeker except to understand what has occurred - more curiosity, but non-the-less an egoistic pursuit of something which can be known in a purer sense upon attainment of the unattainable.

 

[seattlegal]

But Tatha-gatha says there is no self, no mind.

Just joking, kind-of. It is a chan-dao thing. The uses of "consciousness", "mind", and "self" have little to do with consciousness, mind, or self. A Godelian-Gordian Knot.

no-self and no-mind are interconnectedness/interactive-universe "archetypes/concepts," to mix metaphors

Something to be played with and experienced. But the dao which is said is not the dao. Grok? SG?

Or as Vaj likes to put it: The Tao that can be Tao'd is not the true Tao.

 

[seattlegal]

This is partly correct, however Buddha means there is no individual self, no individual mind. Again, however, I have tried to word things in a way others will accept because saying outright 'mind must die' or 'ego must die' seems to urk them.

Why don't you just say, "delusion must cease?"

 

[Lunitik]

Why don't you just say, "delusion must cease?"

Then it becomes possible to delude yourself into believing you are no more deluded, for until this concept of a distinct self is dropped, you will remain in delusion - this is why I say even Gods are delusional, although many go on worshiping them. What is the fundamental reason we cling to it? It is because for us it looks like death, it is something very scary and this is echoed in your protests. Fear makes the pursuit impossible, for it is the antithesis of divine love or metta if you prefer. Thus, for me, it is important that people attack this directly and conquer the very nature of fear.

Sugarcoating truth consoles us, it creates a certain comfort, but it is not going to help at all. This is how philosophy happens, now we can just think about what is said and never actually encounter it. As soon as fear is gone, you will be ready to let go to the real, otherwise this remains a mere concept. Truth that is not said truthfully is worse than a lie, because the lie is much less damaging to the pursuit.

It WILL be experienced as if you are going to die, but you have to remain detached, simply watch the squirming of the mind and see it is not actually you. Then you can pass through, otherwise you will pull out and never approach it again. My words prepare, sugarcoating keeps you safe.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Etu Malku:
Light is vibration

Bhaktajan:
Colors are each wave lengths of different frequencies.
What is the frequency of White Light?

Etu Malku:
It is simply all the colors blended together . . . why?

Bhaktajan:
Don't you see the number of paradoxes pointed out in this question?

All Colors have a distinct frequency wave length.
Blend all the frequencies together [or is it, "peel apart" all the frequencies?] ---and you get "White" where all colors "disappear" ---yet the white-light allows all colors to be seen.

This link show a chart of frequencies:

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/sound-and-sacred-geometry-14833-2.html#post261357


{{If light was other than White --would we be blind to certain spectrums of light? [this is an old time stoner question]}}

 

[radarmark]

Try painting a lightbulb with red, blue, or yellow paint (or buy one such). You will find that the color light makes everything we see of that color black. Yep, without the old frequency spread we would be blind to certain colors.

(UV bulbs were what I used to use, shades that have no blue in them are all black, that is why it is called a "blacklight")

Similarly, go down and buy a small bottle of basic red, blue, and ywlloe testor's (a brand name of model paint). Mix them... you get black. Why? We see things as red when they reflect red wavelengths, blue if they reflect blue, yellow if they reflect yellow. By mixing them nothing is reflected. Hence, black.