|
Post by paul on Oct 31, 2018 13:48:32 GMT 9.5
>Space, time, matter, all things as one singular mass.
Prior to a big bang?
Nevertheless it seems to me that the concept of pralaya considers a cyclical state in which matter, time and space do not exist.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Oct 31, 2018 22:25:54 GMT 9.5
>Space, time, matter, all things as one singular mass. Prior to a big bang? Nevertheless it seems to me that the concept of pralaya considers a cyclical state in which matter, time and space do not exist. Im saying the same. What is matter if its the same in form as space and time? What is time if its the same form as space or matter? You could not say its one thing over any other. Basically regardless the perspective, the singularity would appear the same. In a singularity all things are equal (perfect balance).
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 1, 2018 7:11:26 GMT 9.5
>In a singularity all things are equal (perfect balance).
The pralaya is supposed to be a state of no thing, no space, no time, no intelligence
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Nov 1, 2018 7:52:58 GMT 9.5
>In a singularity all things are equal (perfect balance). The pralaya is supposed to be a state of no thing, no space, no time, no intelligence Ya that is a bit different I think. In a singularity "nothing" and "something" would be the same thing. Is that different?
Im not sure how something could be perfectly balanced, when it consists of nothing. Kinda sounds similar to me.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Nov 1, 2018 9:38:07 GMT 9.5
This quote I think mirrors this other quote about initial singularity.
Everything and nothing, eternal and finite, a single..... existence? Not sure what to label this.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 1, 2018 10:26:46 GMT 9.5
>at the beginning of the Universe, a body containing all mass, energy, and spacetime in the Universe would be compressed to an infinitely dense point.
From where originated the mass of the Universe?
From where did the energy come that was used to compress the universe?
The big bang theories all start with a large amount of energy-matter without explaining whence it came or why it was in that particular state and formation.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Nov 1, 2018 13:53:08 GMT 9.5
>at the beginning of the Universe, a body containing all mass, energy, and spacetime in the Universe would be compressed to an infinitely dense point. From where originated the mass of the Universe? From where did the energy come that was used to compress the universe? The big bang theories all start with a large amount of energy-matter without explaining whence it came or why it was in that particular state and formation. I agree completely. It is quite possible pralaya is describing this event. To this point more then anything else i have seen. The question now is, is that supposed to be our fate? Eternally recycled back into life over and over? Or is there some way to break the cycle into a new one(energy can only change or transfer)? Like a cosmic puzzle that has some kind of a grand prize. Failing to do so in "time" resulting in a restart? No more lives, out of continues, the end. Just like the original nintendo games, you never wanted to have to restart. It would take so long and so much energy to get so far in the game. But when its bed time, its bed time and its gotta get turned off.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 1, 2018 14:22:00 GMT 9.5
>is that supposed to be our fate? Eternally recycled back into life over and over?
There are 2 directions to approach this:
- the intent of the cosmic entity in which we are part of the microbiome - the origin of the energy pattern of the human system.
Both directions deal both with purpose and functionality.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Nov 1, 2018 22:17:49 GMT 9.5
>is that supposed to be our fate? Eternally recycled back into life over and over? There are 2 directions to approach this: - the intent of the cosmic entity in which we are part of the microbiome - the origin of the energy pattern of the human system. Both directions deal both with purpose and functionality. What is your feeling as to the cosmic intent?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 2, 2018 5:44:52 GMT 9.5
When I put my attention to the entity that uses this galaxy as its body of incarnation, I get the sense of it trying hard to connect with its body.
When I look at the being that uses our universe as its body, its attention is upon relationship with other universes.
The being that uses this solar system as a body wishes to transcend its body and extend its awareness through the local family of solar systems.
Those actions however are only means to ends that are beyond my perception.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Nov 2, 2018 9:36:19 GMT 9.5
Ahh yes, it is difficult to discover how these "bodies" connect to each other, or more to the point what they have in common.
A body is a single system, with a will guiding its inner elements.
So lets start with the top and work down. God/creator would be a will guiding its inner elements. If multiple dimensions of this exist, each dimension would be like another body. This also shows a type of social aspect or interaction.
Within our own dimension there are galaxies, nebulas, and many other bodies of mass. Each has their own shape, design and appearance. Like a will of their own, even if due to causality.
Within these bodies are solar systems. Same things again. Individual design, different abilities (like life), a will guiding its inner elements.
Then to planets.
Then to the bodies created within the planets. I think this would be anything that can grow, or at least anything with "will".
Then the bodies created within life. Different abilities like or anything we are able to create. This is a strange spot though in this path of thought. Everything is getting smaller until this point. Where things get as small as a thought, then grow into reality outside of the body. Art, building, writing, etc... However the perspective does start to go smaller again after this.
Within the bodies of things created on Earth they are made of individual molecular compositions. Again another system with individual signatures from the others.
Then these are made of individual molecules, same things again.
Then to atoms.
We so far can only speculate a quark is next.
They also suspect it will probably never stop.
In all of this thought/interaction, sense, and reasoning, all work in the same way across the board. This is the literal sense of "as above so below". Every "level" is the same in effect, just different in perception/perspective.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 2, 2018 9:55:11 GMT 9.5
>A body is a single system, with a will guiding its inner elements.
Humans typically contain multiple systems that may or may not cooperate, partly because of multiple wills being present.
>God/creator would be a will guiding its inner elements.
For example, having learned how to swim I no longer guide the various limbs, balance and breathing processes. They are all subconscious - being delegated to another intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Nov 2, 2018 9:55:44 GMT 9.5
Put yourself in place of what you seek, and react as you would normally in that scenario. With who you are at your core. You have already been shown what to work with. Now you just have to put the pieces together.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Nov 2, 2018 9:57:56 GMT 9.5
>A body is a single system, with a will guiding its inner elements. Humans typically contain multiple systems that may or may not cooperate, partly because of multiple wills being present. >God/creator would be a will guiding its inner elements. For example, having learned how to swim I no longer guide the various limbs, balance and breathing processes. They are all subconscious - being delegated to another intelligence. That is why I chose to say "guiding". Its more like a hope that may or may not occur depending on our "social plane".
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Nov 6, 2018 2:53:52 GMT 9.5
I hope this advice was helpful. Just curious if your thoughts have gone anywhere on this?
This process has served me well, just curious how it is working for others.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Nov 6, 2018 13:02:45 GMT 9.5
Im trying to find the most effective and accurate way to discover something you dont currently know. Like on the ball -0+ how do you see whats on the other side of your field of view, in this case knowledge.
Instead of having the unknown as your focus, with all your knowledge pestering you behind you. You have the unknown behind you, and see what knowledge is closest to it.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 6, 2018 13:29:17 GMT 9.5
>how do you see whats on the other side of your field of view, in this case knowledge.
The term Knowledge is a reification:
"Reification is a complex idea for when you treat something immaterial — like happiness, fear, or evil — as a material thing. "
Thus the state of knowing is considered to be an object (knowledge) and thereby subject to packaging and transfer.
For example after I read a book on engineering, am I an engineer?
Knowing, for humans, is generally based on physical, emotional and mental experiences that allow the intelligent system of the human to grasp the reality.
Years ago I had some peripheral connection with the training of thermal power station operators. The generators were very heavy and rotated at 3600 rpm so were very dangerous if they lost oil pressure in the bearings. The boilers were tricky too.
The operators used a computerized control system but there were problems with warning lights that did not operate when they should and warning lights that operated when they should not.
Thus the operators needed to expand their awareness through the complex system so that they would know what was the reality rather than the reported state.
Thus we discover that knowingness is a relationship between the human and the observed system.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Nov 6, 2018 23:55:50 GMT 9.5
>how do you see whats on the other side of your field of view, in this case knowledge. The term Knowledge is a reification: "Reification is a complex idea for when you treat something immaterial — like happiness, fear, or evil — as a material thing. " Thus the state of knowing is considered to be an object (knowledge) and thereby subject to packaging and transfer. For example after I read a book on engineering, am I an engineer? Knowing, for humans, is generally based on physical, emotional and mental experiences that allow the intelligent system of the human to grasp the reality. Years ago I had some peripheral connection with the training of thermal power station operators. The generators were very heavy and rotated at 3600 rpm so were very dangerous if they lost oil pressure in the bearings. The boilers were tricky too. The operators used a computerized control system but there were problems with warning lights that did not operate when they should and warning lights that operated when they should not. Thus the operators needed to expand their awareness through the complex system so that they would know what was the reality rather than the reported state. Thus we discover that knowingness is a relationship between the human and the observed system. I really am horrible at explaining things arent I? HAHA Seeking what fits, for a better understanding. We have a Weinig molder (12000 rpm) at work that has some aftermarket parts affecting its normal procedures. A worker lost the tip of his finger because of how it affected the process it was designed for. Like with just about any trade I found you have to learn it from those who do it every day. Even with this, you can occasionally find new methods not yet used for better efficiency. In construction, we would get crane operators fresh out of "crane college" that most considered a nightmare and a few wouldnt even work with them. Our lives are at stake to an experienced operator, and one EARNED the nickname "crash boom". He was a good guy and people liked him, but he just didnt have the experience. We have to learn by acquiring knowledge, then applying it to how it works. The only way to know how something works is to experience it for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Nov 7, 2018 5:10:20 GMT 9.5
Another way to see this is. Knowledge is to prepare us for the field. Once your in the field though things aren't like on paper. You have to use what works, and some of those tricks you can only learn in the field.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Nov 14, 2018 6:35:30 GMT 9.5
Last Sunday morning I woke up from some strange dreams I cannot remember, but I was left with the lingering message running in my head "Who would take into account the acquisition of their own will?".
At first I thought "this is how God works, in a way we allow freely and without friction.". It didn't last long though, as we all question the deliverance of our will. When we are handed something on a silver platter, we start looking for the hidden strings or catch. In fact it is considered negative to be naïve and take things at face value. It can show a lack of depth or understanding.
What if this whole time on Earth, God has been fulfilling our will left and right. It is we as people who cannot find it in ourselves to accept it as such?
|
|