GENIUS FORUMS

jupiviv wrote: There is no two-fold nature. There is only one nature. Relative and absolute are really the same "Buddha nature."

While it is true that the absolute and the relative are not different (separate), it is not true that they are identical; else there would be no basis upon which to differentiate between them. The one (absolute) cannot be without the many (relative), for ‘one’ and ‘many’ (not one) constitute a dichotomy, and so are interdependent and complementary. Together, the relative (apparent) and the absolute (real) are jointly exhaustive of all that which is called ‘Being’ or ‘Existence’; and beyond these two there is naught else.

David Quinn wrote:

Loki wrote:

David Quinn wrote: What if we were to shrink our perspective down indefinitely? I presume these entities would also have to shrink indefinitely as well, in order to maintain the appearance of a constant size. Which would mean that your thought-experiment here doesn't really negate the idea of reality being infinite, after all.

You mean zoom out? What happens when we zoom out? Well, the reason these little particles appeared to begin with was because we zoomed in on the microcosm to the point where we reached a threshold, and once this threshold is reached, these little specks blink into existence. So when you zoom back out, it's just a matter of zooming out to a certain point (the threshold) at which these specks just disappear - they don't shrink, they just blink out of existence. They don't shrink indefinitely, it's either they appear or they don't appear. It's very black and white with these guys. They are there, or they are not there. There is no shrinking or anything like that.

For some reason, you are exempting these "guys" from everything else in the world, in that you're saying that their appearance, unlike everything else, doesn't enlarge when we move closer to them. The question is, why?

Also, you seem to be placing an arbitrary barrier on how small our perspective can theoretically go. What is to stop our perspective from theoretically shrinking beyond the threshold, beyond the "guys", and shrinking down even further?

Isn't it possible that laws of reality are connected to the mind, and that all minds can only zoom in so far? When we invent cameras that can zoom in on things, we tend to think that the capacity to zoom has nothing to do with the outside word and everything to do with the technology of the camera. However, what if it's true that the outside world places limits on how far perception can zoom in?

i don't really believe in this, but i thought i'd put up an idea from the other side of the fence.

why should we question our existence? it is what it is. we don't question that grass is green or that birds fly.

listen to rush's 'roll the bones'.

why are we here? because we're here. roll the bones.

I really don't like asking why we are here either - it's immature, you know it can't be answered, yet you beg for one. It's foolish.

From: Andy-_-_-_-_- Sent: 8/27/2005 7:49 AM

first law of thermodynamics states that "no matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed - merely altered"

this means the Big Bang was not the beginning, but merely an alteration from some previous form or state. Therefore according to the first law of thermodynamics, Creation was never created - it has always existed in one form or other and shall always remain

if Creation was never created - either there is no Creator - or Creator created itself, manifest in Creation

in my humble opinion, Creator "created" itself - or manifest itself in the form we observe as our infinite Universe

God is everywhere - Creation is everywhere
God is in everything - Creation is in everything
God knows all things - Creation 'knows' all things
God has "always been" - Creation has "always been" (according to the First Law of Thermodynamics)
God will "always be" - Creation will "always be" (according to the First Law of Thermodynamics)

ONLY God and Creation itself (Universe) are possesed of these 5 attributes - which leads me to believe that Creator(Yin) and Creation (Yang) are one and the same critter


Reply

From: jufa Sent: 8/28/2005 11:14 AM

Thermodynamics, as all else one is aware of is not a law, it is an effect. This means thermodynamics does not prove God, it only prove there is a Cause. That Cause is what makes one aware of all that is manifested in their awareness. And that Cause is Consciousness. But Consciousness does not prove God, it only proves that Consciousness is as you have stated the five attributes to be, and their infinity.

Interjection: Loki stated

Isn't it possible that laws of reality are connected to the mind, and that all minds can only zoom in so far? When we invent cameras that can zoom in on things, we tend to think that the capacity to zoom has nothing to do with the outside word and everything to do with the technology of the camera. However, what if it's true that the outside world places limits on how far perception can zoom in?

To prove God, one must prove they are His emanation as creation. To prove this would make that one null and void of personal singularity of awareness concerning their own personality, and intellect because they also will be the awareness of totality's attributes.

jufa

jufa wrote:While it is true that the absolute and the relative are not different (separate), it is not true that they are identical; else there would be no basis upon which to differentiate between them.

They're identical if they are defined to be identical, as in this case. The distinction between relative and absolute is not intrinsic to anything. Everything can be called "absolute," as everything is a logical entity. But their absoluteness is bounded by their logical limits, so it is only because of their relativity(to other things) that they are absolute, and vice versa.

jupiviv wrote: They're identical if they are defined to be identical, as in this case. The distinction between relative and absolute is not intrinsic to anything. Everything can be called "absolute," as everything is a logical entity. But their absoluteness is bounded by their logical limits, so it is only because of their relativity(to other things) that they are absolute, and vice versa.

In the conventional philosophical use of the terms ‘absolute’ and ‘relative’, an ‘absolute entity’ is one that is possessed of its own intrinsic causes, and so is not dependent upon any other thing; while a relative entity is one that is wholly dependent upon other things for its existence. These two modes of being are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive of the entire realm of Being, there being no intermediate mode possible.

The absolute mode is that which accounts for the ‘existential nature’ (thatness or suchness) of all things, while the relative mode accounts for their ‘essential nature’ (whatness). With respect to their existential nature, all things are one and the same (identical); this is the ‘fundamental unity’ of all beings; however, with respect to their essential nature, all things are different. Herein lies the profound meaning of the Principle of Identity: that everything is the same with itself, but different from another.

Relativity is the nature of Thought; Interpretation, Its Awareness of Itself.

The unconditioned awareness of you is pure relativity, without comparison. The conditioned awareness of you is of good and evil relativity, comparison-based. Good and evil relativity is an extension of (a thought of) pure relativity. Conditioned awareness does not acknowledge unconditioned awareness until unconditioned awareness is awakened within conditioned awareness.

The two ways of relative interpretation in man's conscious awareness of both cannot co-exist in the same moment, for only one thought can stand in man's awareness "at a time." Since pure relativity is the invisible cause of the visible effect of good and evil (comparison) relativity, it is the visible effect of belief in the opposites that is absorbed into the invisible cause of pure relativity. God (Pure Relativity) in Christ, (Awareness of Pure Relativity) reconciling (absorbing/healing/dissolving) the world (of good and evil relativity) unto Himself.

movingalways wrote:Relativity is the nature of Thought; Interpretation, Its Awareness of Itself.

The unconditioned awareness of you is pure relativity, without comparison. The conditioned awareness of you is of good and evil relativity, comparison-based. Good and evil relativity is an extension of (a thought of) pure relativity. Conditioned awareness does not acknowledge unconditioned awareness until unconditioned awareness is awakened within conditioned awareness.

The two ways of relative interpretation in man's conscious awareness of both cannot co-exist in the same moment, for only one thought can stand in man's awareness "at a time." Since pure relativity is the invisible cause of the visible effect of good and evil (comparison) relativity, it is the visible effect of belief in the opposites that is absorbed into the invisible cause of pure relativity. God (Pure Relativity) in Christ, (Awareness of Pure Relativity) reconciling (absorbing/healing/dissolving) the world (of good and evil relativity) unto Himself.

I think you would be close if you didn't say God, or Good, and Evil. Seems that they came from old books. Good is very general in itself. Evil is a misinterpretation of probably an Autistic disassociation of others. God, is most likely the Aether in your example. It may be that you are slightly Autistic, as genius often are, and you keep using Evil as examples of your mind, which could be a slight disassociation of other's pain.

Hi jupiviv, you attributed the following to me:

jufa wrote:
While it is true that the absolute and the relative are not different (separate), it is not true that they are identical; else there would be no basis

just want to bring to your attention these are the words of Jehu in response to your below post:

jupiviv wrote:
There is no two-fold nature. There is only one nature. Relative and absolute are really the same "Buddha nature."

While it is true that the absolute and the relative are not different (separate), it is not true that they are identical; else there would be no basis upon which to differentiate between them. The one (absolute) cannot be without the many (relative), for ‘one’ and ‘many’ (not one) constitute a dichotomy, and so are interdependent and complementary. Together, the relative (apparent) and the absolute (real) are jointly exhaustive of all that which is called ‘Being’ or ‘Existence’; and beyond these two there is naught else.

Pincho Paxton wrote:

movingalways wrote:Relativity is the nature of Thought; Interpretation, Its Awareness of Itself.

The unconditioned awareness of you is pure relativity, without comparison. The conditioned awareness of you is of good and evil relativity, comparison-based. Good and evil relativity is an extension of (a thought of) pure relativity. Conditioned awareness does not acknowledge unconditioned awareness until unconditioned awareness is awakened within conditioned awareness.

The two ways of relative interpretation in man's conscious awareness of both cannot co-exist in the same moment, for only one thought can stand in man's awareness "at a time." Since pure relativity is the invisible cause of the visible effect of good and evil (comparison) relativity, it is the visible effect of belief in the opposites that is absorbed into the invisible cause of pure relativity. God (Pure Relativity) in Christ, (Awareness of Pure Relativity) reconciling (absorbing/healing/dissolving) the world (of good and evil relativity) unto Himself.

I think you would be close if you didn't say God, or Good, and Evil. Seems that they came from old books. Good is very general in itself. Evil is a misinterpretation of probably an Autistic disassociation of others. God, is most likely the Aether in your example. It may be that you are slightly Autistic, as genius often are, and you keep using Evil as examples of your mind, which could be a slight disassociation of other's pain.

PP, as I have stated before, words that I use are living metaphors, the conscious activity of going through the mind to go beyond the mind. This is how man steps out of his intellectualism of himself so as to pop the bubble of his recycling human feeling thoughts. The living metaphor "God" could be replaced with the living metaphor "Life" or "Light" or "Consciousness" or "Pure Awareness" or "Aether", whatever is comfortable for the one on the path of being lifted up out of his or her condition of dualism. Good and evil could be replaced with the metaphors "pleasure and pain" or "attraction and repulsion" or "positive and negative." In order to step into the spirit awareness of oneself, there has to be a relinquishing of one's conditioning to the affect words have upon one's soul (soul being another metaphor for one's contained/possessed prejudicial attachments to image or concept).

By labeling me "autistic" and "genius" and of being slightly disassociated of other's pain, you have not attached these feeling-thoughts on me, only on yourself. From my comprehension of the Law of the Spirit of Life, which is omnipresent to the law of "no thought returns void", it is not possible to disassociate from oneself, for it is not possible for one to leave one's awareness of one's feeling-thought continuum. One can be ignorant of the law of "no thought returns void" and thereby suffer the labels they believe they are putting on another, but they cannot escape this Law of Life/Thought. This same principle of "no thought returns void" is also known by Buddhists as the Law of Karma, or Kamma in the realm of samsara (belief in dualism).

movingalways wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:

movingalways wrote:Relativity is the nature of Thought; Interpretation, Its Awareness of Itself.

The unconditioned awareness of you is pure relativity, without comparison. The conditioned awareness of you is of good and evil relativity, comparison-based. Good and evil relativity is an extension of (a thought of) pure relativity. Conditioned awareness does not acknowledge unconditioned awareness until unconditioned awareness is awakened within conditioned awareness.

The two ways of relative interpretation in man's conscious awareness of both cannot co-exist in the same moment, for only one thought can stand in man's awareness "at a time." Since pure relativity is the invisible cause of the visible effect of good and evil (comparison) relativity, it is the visible effect of belief in the opposites that is absorbed into the invisible cause of pure relativity. God (Pure Relativity) in Christ, (Awareness of Pure Relativity) reconciling (absorbing/healing/dissolving) the world (of good and evil relativity) unto Himself.

I think you would be close if you didn't say God, or Good, and Evil. Seems that they came from old books. Good is very general in itself. Evil is a misinterpretation of probably an Autistic disassociation of others. God, is most likely the Aether in your example. It may be that you are slightly Autistic, as genius often are, and you keep using Evil as examples of your mind, which could be a slight disassociation of other's pain.

PP, as I have stated before, words that I use are living metaphors, the conscious activity of going through the mind to go beyond the mind. This is how man steps out of his intellectualism of himself so as to pop the bubble of his recycling human feeling thoughts. The living metaphor "God" could be replaced with the living metaphor "Life" or "Light" or "Consciousness" or "Pure Awareness" or "Aether", whatever is comfortable for the one on the path of being lifted up out of his or her condition of dualism. Good and evil could be replaced with the metaphors "pleasure and pain" or "attraction and repulsion" or "positive and negative." In order to step into the spirit awareness of oneself, there has to be a relinquishing of one's conditioning to the affect words have upon one's soul (soul being another metaphor for one's contained/possessed prejudicial attachments to image or concept).

By labeling me "autistic" and "genius" and of being slightly disassociated of other's pain, you have not attached these feeling-thoughts on me, only on yourself. From my comprehension of the Law of the Spirit of Life, which is omnipresent to the law of "no thought returns void", it is not possible to disassociate from oneself, for it is not possible for one to leave one's awareness of one's feeling-thought continuum. One can be ignorant of the law of "no thought returns void" and thereby suffer the labels they believe they are putting on another, but they cannot escape this Law of Life/Thought. This same principle of "no thought returns void" is also known by Buddhists as the Law of Karma, or Kamma in the realm of samsara (belief in dualism).

It's impossible to read a post where you can replace words for whatever words you want to use. What is wrong with using terms that have evidence? I have stated that I have certain evidence for the Aether, and I have listed this evidence out. When you use the word God there is no evidence, yet you then say it is the breaking cycle of dualism, which the Aether could do, as it makes all things, therefore nothing makes it. It doesn't reflect light because it makes light, you can't touch it because it makes touch, you can't hear it because it makes sound. I think it is Aether that you are talking about, and rather than replacing your metaphor it is more convenient for me to give you the real word that you are looking for.

it's impossible to read a post where you can replace words for whatever words you want to use.

I do not replace your terms with my terms; why do you replace mine with yours?

What is wrong with using terms that have evidence? I have stated that I have certain evidence for the Aether, and I have listed this evidence out.

In a previous post to you, I asked you how you can give evidence to all of the Aether, as if it is THE absolute truth of the Aether, when you are in the Aether and you are of the Aether, but you chose not to answer my question.

When you use the word God there is no evidence, yet you then say it is the breaking cycle of dualism, which the Aether could do, as it makes all things, therefore nothing makes it.

God is another word for Awareness or Life, both terms I have used interchangeably. If I replace "God" with "Awareness" or "Life", then the cycle of dualism is broken immediately in the moment of saying these words, because there is no opposite to "Awareness", nor is there an opposite to "Life." I also understand "God" or "Awareness" or "Life" to be the maker of all things, which leads me to believe that your definition of "Aether" is, by relatedness, the same as my definition of "God."

And, since "God" or the "Aether" is the maker of all things, those things that are made by "God" or the "Aether" are of the same nature as "God" or the "Aether", are they not? Which means that any awareness contrary to this awareness of being of one nature, is an awareness of illusion, is it not? Which means that since you have put yourself in the position of giving evidence of the "Aether", of which you are of the same nature, are you not then presenting yourself as being separate in nature from the "Aether", therefore, of the nature of illusion?

The question that eventually awakens every sleeping man, posed in different ways, but of the same essence is: Why am I trying to give evidence of that which I (already) am?

Another way of stating what I stated above is: Only That which created the Aether or God or Awareness can give evidence of the Aether or God or Awareness, and if the Aether is of the nature as you stated above, that "nothing makes IT", then how can you give evidence of the Aether, unless you are the creator/maker of the Aether? Are you saying that you are the creator/make of the "Aether?"

It doesn't reflect light because it makes light, you can't touch it because it makes touch, you can't hear it because it makes sound.

You are the IT of which you speak. If this were not so, how could you be aware of IT?

I think it is Aether that you are talking about, and rather than replacing your metaphor it is more convenient for me to give you the real word that you are looking for.

PP, you cannot give me "the real word I am looking for." Every word used by an individual is real only unto them, and only in the moment of the speaking of the word. This makes words between individuals only relative to the collective human understanding of agreement that "this word is relative to that word."

Through your defining of "Aether" as the maker of all things, I understand the pointer word "Aether" to be relative to the pointer words "consciousness" and "light" and "life" and "God." You may or may no agree with my relating of your word to my words, but until you do, it is not beneficial to either one of us for you to arbitrarily replace my pointer words with your pointer words. This is why it is beneficial to step into one another's posts, statement by statement, or paragraph by paragraph, and get as close as is possible to relatedness of understanding.

OK so I shall give you an example of when the Aether becomes visible even though it creates all things. It creates light as a wave, but it needs to take an origin of that wave, and an end point. The Photon is its origin, and the Electron is its end point. You now have a wave between the two points. But the two slit experiment is disturbed by an observer, because light also needs to get to, and from the observer. So another line is drawn to the observer. The observer flattens the other wave, the Aether wave is flattened.

So this gives two results.

If light is observed it is flattened by the observer.
If nobody is around the light is left to vibrate all over the place.

Because of these two states, the Aether can be monitored even though it is invisible. because by taking some photographic paper, and checking where the light is going, you can see that an observer leaves a dot on the screen, and no observer allows light to create a wave. The invisible becomes visible, because it plays two different roles in this experiment.

Pincho Paxton wrote:OK so I shall give you an example of when the Aether becomes visible even though it creates all things. It creates light as a wave, but it needs to take an origin of that wave, and an end point. The Photon is its origin, and the Electron is its end point. You now have a wave between the two points. But the two slit experiment is disturbed by an observer, because light also needs to get to, and from the observer. So another line is drawn to the observer. The observer flattens the other wave, the Aether wave is flattened.

So this gives two results.

If light is observed it is flattened by the observer.
If nobody is around the light is left to vibrate all over the place.

Because of these two states, the Aether can be monitored even though it is invisible. because by taking some photographic paper, and checking where the light is going, you can see that an observer leaves a dot on the screen, and no observer allows light to create a wave. The invisible becomes visible, because it plays two different roles in this experiment.

PP, tell me how you know what is happening when there is no observer to observe?

You say that if nobody is "around", the light is left to vibrate all over the place. How can you know this, without observing this? You say that "no observer allows light to create a wave". How can you know this, if there is no observer observing the light creating a wave?

You continue to sidestep my questions to you about your conclusions about the Aether when you are of the Aether and are in the Aether....again, I ask you: how do you conclude that of which you are but an extension/expression?

Pincho Paxton wrote:If light is observed it is flattened by the observer.
If nobody is around the light is left to vibrate all over the place.

Pincho,
Explain this in your language.

Introduction to the Cosmic Microwave Background

Click the illustration for a bigger view > http://www.talkingscience.org/2009/12/i ... background

PP, tell me how you know what is happening when there is no observer to observe?

If you believe in cause and effect then doesn't it logically follow that one must believe that causality also flows through what we don't observe in order for what we do observe to be existent? Otherwise there would be this huge hole in our ability to investigate or predict anything.

I'm not supporting what Pincho said, cause I haven't read the above. I'm just pointing out that the idea that the only reality is observed reality, is quite dumb.

movingalways wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:OK so I shall give you an example of when the Aether becomes visible even though it creates all things. It creates light as a wave, but it needs to take an origin of that wave, and an end point. The Photon is its origin, and the Electron is its end point. You now have a wave between the two points. But the two slit experiment is disturbed by an observer, because light also needs to get to, and from the observer. So another line is drawn to the observer. The observer flattens the other wave, the Aether wave is flattened.

So this gives two results.

If light is observed it is flattened by the observer.
If nobody is around the light is left to vibrate all over the place.

Because of these two states, the Aether can be monitored even though it is invisible. because by taking some photographic paper, and checking where the light is going, you can see that an observer leaves a dot on the screen, and no observer allows light to create a wave. The invisible becomes visible, because it plays two different roles in this experiment.

PP, tell me how you know what is happening when there is no observer to observe?

You say that if nobody is "around", the light is left to vibrate all over the place. How can you know this, without observing this? You say that "no observer allows light to create a wave". How can you know this, if there is no observer observing the light creating a wave?

You continue to sidestep my questions to you about your conclusions about the Aether when you are of the Aether and are in the Aether....again, I ask you: how do you conclude that of which you are but an extension/expression?

The photographic paper shows you what happened when nobody was around. With an observer you get a dot. With no observer the photographic paper shows a wave of interference. Look for the two slit experiment on Wikipedia.

Tomas wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:If light is observed it is flattened by the observer.
If nobody is around the light is left to vibrate all over the place.

Pincho,
Explain this in your language.

Introduction to the Cosmic Microwave Background

Click the illustration for a bigger view > http://www.talkingscience.org/2009/12/i ... background

In my theory there is a background web, a froth that is uniform, aligned. It vibrates because the Universe is a constant eruption of energy. A vibration is radiation, because it can shake your atoms, and make them red hot like a microwave oven. The simple way to imagine the froth is to make one in your sink with washing up liquid, and then shake it. All of the bubbles are like links in a chain. You shake one end, and the wave goes through the bubbles up till the end of the chain. That is light. The difference between the bubbles in the sink, and the Aether froth is that the bubbles in the sink reflect light, but the Aether makes light, so it can't reflect it.

Jamesh wrote:

PP, tell me how you know what is happening when there is no observer to observe?

If you believe in cause and effect then doesn't it logically follow that one must believe that causality also flows through what we don't observe in order for what we do observe to be existent? Otherwise there would be this huge hole in our ability to investigate or predict anything.

I'm not supporting what Pincho said, cause I haven't read the above. I'm just pointing out that the idea that the only reality is observed reality, is quite dumb.

What is the nature of reality if you don't believe in cause and effect?

theories abound.

movingalways wrote:

Jamesh wrote:

PP, tell me how you know what is happening when there is no observer to observe?

If you believe in cause and effect then doesn't it logically follow that one must believe that causality also flows through what we don't observe in order for what we do observe to be existent? Otherwise there would be this huge hole in our ability to investigate or predict anything.

I'm not supporting what Pincho said, cause I haven't read the above. I'm just pointing out that the idea that the only reality is observed reality, is quite dumb.

What is the nature of reality if you don't believe in cause and effect?

How about it's like Heads or Tails.. Cause.. then effect, but being as the brain doesn't really need to be totally random, and can make decisions, you can have....

Heads or Heads
Cause
Effect

Now you have equal beginning with two different forks. That is why cause is broken. The physical meaning of this could be left spin / right spin of an electron, or photon. I have seen articles where they can be switched by an observer when they have interfered with one another. It seems random enough to break cause.

Loki wrote:Isn't it possible that laws of reality are connected to the mind, and that all minds can only zoom in so far? When we invent cameras that can zoom in on things, we tend to think that the capacity to zoom has nothing to do with the outside word and everything to do with the technology of the camera. However, what if it's true that the outside world places limits on how far perception can zoom in?

As I mentioned to Pincho, there are undoubtedly limitations on how far our physical perspective can shrink. It's possible that we may never be able to observe what is underneath the quantum realm. But this has no bearing on the issue of whether there really are realms beneath the quantum realm or not.

Theoretically, it is entirely possible that there are, and science is inherently incapable of ruling it out.

-

David Quinn wrote:

Loki wrote:Isn't it possible that laws of reality are connected to the mind, and that all minds can only zoom in so far? When we invent cameras that can zoom in on things, we tend to think that the capacity to zoom has nothing to do with the outside word and everything to do with the technology of the camera. However, what if it's true that the outside world places limits on how far perception can zoom in?

As I mentioned to Pincho, there are undoubtedly limitations on how far our physical perspective can shrink. It's possible that we may never be able to observe what is underneath the quantum realm. But this has no bearing on the issue of whether there really are realms beneath the quantum realm or not.

Theoretically, it is entirely possible that there are, and science is inherently incapable of ruling it out.

-

Well, I think I know exactly what is inside an atom, and if I'm right it completely rules out scaling down any further. Not only that, but it can be proved eventually.