Open Thread 38 (free speech for comments)

Here's a new Open Thread.

Remember, off-topic comments should go in an Open Thread. 

If you don't see a recent comment, or comments, posted, it's because you've failed to follow the above rule. Keep to the subject of a blog post if you leave a comment on it. And if you want to use this blog as a "chat room," do that in an open thread.

As noted before, it's good to have comments in a regular blog post related to its subject, and it's also good to have a place where almost anything goes in regard to sharing ideas, feelings, experiences, and such. That place is an Open Thread.

Leave a comment on this post about anything you want to talk about. Remember that I'm moderating comments, so it could take a while for your comment to be published. Almost every comment submitted to an Open Thread will be approved. Personal attacks on someone are an exception, as is hate speech. Argue with ideas, not insults.

Though I haven't been doing too well on this, I'll try to remember to always have an Open Thread showing in the Recent Posts section in the right sidebar. If one isn't showing, I've added an Open Threads category in, naturally, the Categories section. You can always find an Open Thread that way.

So if you're a believer in some form of religion, mysticism, or spirituality, this is where you can put your "praise God," "praise Guru," or "praise _______" comments.

Comments

[S]

I know I’ve been posting a lot this week but that’s because I have the week off. Next week it’s back to the daily grind…

Anyway, here are a few things that I find helpful with regards to understanding the difference between knowledge and perception. I think the general idea is that knowing is “complete” whereas perception is very limited.

*******
“The confusion between your real self and what you have made of yourself is so profound that it has become literally impossible for you to know anything. Knowledge is always stable, and it is quite evident that you are not. Nevertheless, you are perfectly stable as God created you. In this sense, when your behaviour is unstable, you are disagreeing with God’s idea of you. You can do this if you choose, but you would hardly want to do it if you were in your right mind.”

“Knowing is not open to interpretation. You may try to ’interpret’ meaning, but this is always open to error because it refers to the perception of meaning. Such incongruities are the result of attempts to regard yourself as separated and unseparated at the same time. It is impossible to make so fundamental a confusion without increasing your overall confusion still further. Your mind may have become very ingenious, but as always happens when method and content are separated, it is utilised in a futile attempt to escape from an inescapable impasse.”

“The word ’image’ is always perception-related, and not a part of knowledge. Images are symbolic and stand for something else. The idea of ’changing your image’ recognises the power of perception, but also implies that there is nothing stable to know. Knowing is not open to interpretation. You may try to ’interpret’ meaning, but this is always open to error because it refers to the perception of meaning. Such incongruities are the result of attempts to regard yourself as separated and unseparated at the same time. It is impossible to make so fundamental a confusion without increasing your overall confusion still further. Your mind may have become very ingenious, but as always happens when method and content are separated, it is utilized in a futile attempt to escape from an inescapable impasse.”

[lotto in the grotto]

Unfortunately very last minute.

[S]

We traveled to a relative’s funeral today. It was a good funeral as far as funerals go. He died at 84 after having lived a wonderful life. Family and friends were there. Oddly enough, my mother kept saying to me, I wonder what killed him. I was like, I’m pretty sure old age killed him.

How long do we really expect to live?

[S]

I see a strange commonality between the very young and the very old—even a small amount of time seems to be a good amount of time in their eyes.

Being middle aged it’s a bit different…

[Today’s song]

https://youtu.be/0-7IHOXkiV8

S

[Hoolahans honor]

How much more €vid€nc€ do you need to blatantly see the Obvious??

https://youtu.be/SF6Ev_EXg9w

[Hoolahans honor]

The cataly$t of con$piracy in plain $ight

https://youtu.be/e0zAJfbP3gg

And the brainwa$hing m€chani$m for making it $o €a$y to r€$€t the $y$t€m

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158814871326091&id=543191090

[😂 🤪 777 🤪 😂]

Sure
😂 🤪 🤪 😂😂 🤪 🤪 😂
Because I m in Love with the Sweet Sound Currenr 18/7 but also while sleeping
further I don(t be/do much good, . . . but
Sure; I' m in Love with the Sweet Sound Currenr 18/7 but also while sleeping
😂 🤪 🤪 😂😂 🤪 🤪 😂

777

[S]

Hoo ho,

Why would Gates care so much about vaccines if he wasn’t interested in saving lives. And doesn’t the desire to save lives go against your conspiracy theory that he’s trying to curb population growth?

[S]

777,

At your age, whatever makes you happy…

[S]

Hoo ho,

India is suffering the worst from the Coronavirus. Do you believe that’s part of some big first world whit billionaire to curb population control?

Or could it perhaps be the result of a Hindu radicalism leader’s mindset. Religious fanaticism ultimately always destroys lives. India is proof of that.

[😂 🤪 🤪 😂😂 🤪 😂]

2 days to go for being 84

This explains it Sonia:

JAP JI :

By the Grace of the One Supreme Being,
The Eternal,
The All-pervading Purusha,
The Creator, Without Hate, Without Fear,
The Being Beyond Time, Self-existent, The Enlightener, Incarnated.

True at the Beginning, True in the Primeval age
True is He and True He shall be.

Thinking avails not, how so hard one thinks;
Nor silence avails, howsoever one shrinks Into oneself.
Nor hunger goes With the loads of the worlds.
Of a myriad cleverness, not one works.

How then to be True ?
How rend the Veil of shame, untruth?
His Will forsooth
Inborn in us, ingrained°°° in us,
Thou follow.
Thus is Truth attained

The Mighty sing of His Might, and the Blessed of His Light,
some sing that He is distant Far, . .
some sing that He see-eth , watcheth All

Oh Countless sing of countless things, . . He fills them all to overflowing.

True is the Master, True is His Name, . . what offer to make to see His Court,
What words to utter for His support?
meditate thou in the Ambrosial morn on the true Name.

THEY WHO HEARKEN TO THE WORD OF THE LORD,
KNOW THE SKY THE EARTHS, THE BULL, THE ISLANDS,
THE SPHERES AND UNDERWORLDS,
Deathless become they who who hearken to the word, . .
A devotee is foreever joyed and his pain and sin are destroyed.

THEY WHO HEARKEN TO THE WORD OF THE LORD,
fathom the deeps of virtue all,
are Glorious like a King, a SHEIKH , a PIR Divine, . .
even the Blind will see the Path Sublime.

They who hear the Word , are the creations Cream, . .
The are the ones approved suprime, . .
are honoured in the court of God, -such beings-,
look beautious in the Counsels of Kings
they fix their minds on the one Master only
they say and do what's thoughtful, Holy . .

And know that Gods doings are beyond the count of us beings, -
Who is it that supports them, . . 't is God,
Whose eternal finger has writ the features, . . and color , kind and form of
all creatures . .
Oh, would one dare to write the account, . . How staggering the count

How Great is His Power, . . How striking His Beauty, . . and of his gifts ,
Oh, who could tell with surity

One Word and the whole Universe throbbed into being,
and myriads rivers of Life came gushing, . .

Powerless am I , Oh Lord , to describe what thy excellence be, . .
sacrifice am I a myriad times unto thee, . .
that what pleaseth Thee is the only good done, . . O THOU the Eternal The
Formless One

Countless the ways of Recitation, . . Countless the ways of Devotion,
Countless the ways of worship, . . countless the aussterities, their
hardships, . .
Countless the books, . . countless the reciters, . .Countless the yogis, .
Countless the men of piety, . .countless the men of merci
Countless the devotees on Thee ruminate, . . in Silence meditate . .
Countless the Heroes who face the steel, . . how powerless I feel Oh Lord, .
..
To tell what Thy Excellence be, . . sacrifice I am a myriad times unto Thee.

That what pleaseth thee is the only good done, . . Oh Thou
The Eternal, The formless One .

Countless the Unwise in black ignorance reel, . .
Countless the usurpers and those that steel, . .
Countless the Rulers who force their way, . . .
countless the cut-throats whom violence sways, . .
Countless the sinners whom sin engages, . .
countless the liars who wander in Mazes, . .
Countless the wretches , . . have filth as fill, . .
countless the slanderers, carrying loads of evil, . . Himself much is vain, . . and will look small in God's
Domain
A King who's dominion is like an Ocean and
has a Mind like a Mountain equals not a worm in whom dwells The Lord

Limitless his praise, . .Limitless its ways, . . Limetless His workings, .
..
Limitless his givings
Limitless the Sounds, . . Limitless the sights, . .
Limitless the mysteries of His Mind . .
Limitless the Creation, . . Limitless the expanse, . .
Oh countless struggle to find , Who can?

The more one says , the more is Yet to say, . .
Great is The Lord , . . High , High is His Mansion
To know the Highest of the High one may try, . .
If one be as high as He, . . HE alone knows How Great He be.
It's GRACE that brings us Merci.

THE MAN WHO KNOWS GOD, . . HE REALLY CREATED THE UNIVERSES.

Priceless the virtues, . . priceless the Trade, . .
priceless the customers, . . priceless the purchase,
priceless the dealers, priceless the Treasures,
priceless the weight, priceless the Measures,
priceless the devotion, priceless the absorbtion,
priceless the Law Divine, priceless the Masters Court ,
His Shrine,
Priceless , beyond word, beyont thought,
They who seek to tell, knowing it Not, . .
The Vedas say, the Bibles say,
and the Learned they read, . .
interpreting as they may.

Say the Brahmas, say the Indras, say the Gopis, say the Krishnas,
say the Shivas, say the Siddhas,
say the many many Buddhas, . . . say the Demons, say the Gods,
the Seeers and the Sages,
some have said, . .some may say more, . .
others have said and left the shores, . . . .

How Great He is, . . only the the True One knows,
and he who presumes and says he knows , . .is a fool
among fools and as such he goes.

How does a human merge in the great peace of The Eternal Lord ?

Oh, . . He who has the Masters Nectar Name in his Mind and
Dwells on it, becomes invaluable
and all vegetation seemeth in blossom and bloom to Him

For Nanak, This is the Highest State of Bliss, . . that His Mind
remains imbued with Thy Name
Oh Tongue, utter thou the Lord's Praise, . . Night and Day, .
By the Lord's Grace do we dwell upon the Name

777

You are Young
You have that too
As you said: It's the attention

[Hoolahans honor]

'S' go check what Vandana Shiva (amongst quite a few others - including BG's (ex) wife) thinks about Bill Gates

That should give you some kind of hint as to his modus of operandi's, if you still think he's such a great evangelical philanthropist, then there's probably something slightly off que with the factual input.

(as to who was instrumental in developing the 'so called "deadly" virus' after tweaking and juicing up gain and function virology manipulations in laboratories both in the USA and in Wuhan China since 2015 - or perhaps earlier - well the jury's still half way out on that one - almost)

[umami]

1) https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-bill-gates-fake-3-billion-q-idUSKBN29Y20D

"Gates has long been a proponent of slowing unsustainable population growth ( here ) by targeting the root causes of poverty and unrest, and told Forbes magazine in 2011 that when he first entered public health, it was to focus on contraception ( here ). When he later saw data suggesting that when mortality rates fall, so, too, do birth rates, Gates shifted his focus from contraception to saving people already alive. He told Forbes: 'We moved pretty heavily into vaccines once we understood that.'”

2) https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9917566788

"Gates was talking about reducing the rate of population growth, not the population, by 10 or 15%.

"In past interviews, Gates has argued that improving vaccines and health care can paradoxically slow the rate of population growth in poor countries, because it lowers the child mortality rate. With more children making it to adulthood, Gates has said, parents may choose to have a smaller family size.

“'Amazingly, as children survive, parents feel like they’ll have enough kids to support them in their old age, so they choose to have less children,' Gates said in a 2012 interview."

[S]

Hoolahans Honor,

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with trying to slow unstable population growth when the intention is to improve quality of life. Yes, I believe in birth control/family planning. Not a proponent of abortion but I’m not going to go around preaching about it. People have to make those hard decisions for themselves.

Also, I think we have to be real here—security in old age to a certain requires different things in different cultures. I’m using the word cultures instead of 1st world and developing world purely out of respect. I don’t view first world cultures as superior to 2nd or 3rd. But I do recognize that quality of life is greatly exacerbated by weak governments and lack of resources.

The real issue here is quality of life.

unami’s last quote highlights a very real concern among parents in third world countries:

“'Amazingly, as children survive, parents feel like they’ll have enough kids to support them in their old age, so they choose to have less children,' Gates said in a 2012 interview."
Posted by: umami | May 17, 2021 at 07:57 AM

[S]

And, yeah, Bill’s a bit paranoid and eccentric but how many billionaires out there are known for being really grounded and “in touch”. They try.

[S]

777,

Most of that very beautiful. :)

I would like to add that the Lord/God/higher peer is not exclusive. There’s no difference between a master or a murderer in his book. That’s a hard pill for many to swallow. I’m not saying that our behavior isn’t important—of course it is. But not one of us is more holy than the other. Some just try harder to see God in everyone which naturally results in better behavior.

Self righteousness is hard to stomach. We are all equal and if you want to truly experience peace in this world then look upon a murderer the same way you look upon a Master—they are each a part of God. People behave according to your expectations of them. Projection makes perception.

[S]

I think humankind’s greatest flaw is the need to feel superior in one way or another.

[Hoolahans honor]

Billy boy and his vaccine philanthropic philosophy while philandering on his population curbing crusades, along with his monopolistic Monsanto maneuvers, has got a bad wrap in a lot of 3rd world countries especially central and east Africa and India, they don't want him back.

https://nypost.com/2021/05/13/ron-desantis-to-pardon-anyone-charged-for-defying-covid-rules/

Here's a real champion for you, make this guy president he'll fix your floundering country in no time. Get rid of the paranoid pandemonium pretentiousness, and breathe some fresh freedom back into your lungs.

[😂]

It is the translation by Gopal Sing
I bought the 4 heavy volumes
in Delhi long ago
I placed 5 or 10 pages on the link
that is at rightf /above of
my ANKHATONmusic site
It's also on books.google.com
but difficuly to read there

Yes all souls are the same
but Jeevas have different timespan
Can t imaging how a galaxy enjoys his existence yet

Nice is that there is this emergency exit
out of chaurasi which is sweet_ly decorated

777

[S]

777,

I wonder about the timespan difference. I think the idea is that we experience time differently in this realm. Right?

A day is like a 100 years… anyway, if you’ve ever done shrooms you know what I mean. 😉

[S]

@Hoolahans honor.

Okay.

[Hoolahans honor]

If you're trying to come across as a new age messiah for the overpopulated masses then you should keep your smoking gun firmly tucked away in your pants. Double jeopardy philanthropy don't make for a good story anymore, after all nature designed the sexual urge for the explicit purpose of procreation of the species.

Just because modern 'scientific' man has learned how to manipulate these urges to beat about the procreation bush does not let him off the hook when it comes to face the facts of karmic retribution.

From Clinton to Cuomo to Billy boy Gates, hailed heroes for the masses, trying to fix the world population paradigm when you can't even deal with your own unscientific naturally ordained urges shows how little control over the world population growth you actually have.

https://nypost.com/2021/05/16/bill-gates-allegedly-had-affair-with-microsoft-employee/?utm_source=NYPInstagram&utm_campaign=Native&utm_medium=Native

Try fact checking that.

[Hoolahans honor]

And people still think this 'charitably benevolent humanitarian' is (was) all about magnanimous altruism when base of the matter is a megalithic and monopolistic accumulating of extreme wealth, whether it gets done via selling AI generation software or manipulating genetic modification of organic seeds, or through amassing enormous swathes of farmers land, or by creating modified virus combinations through genome meddling to 'inoculate' against the very same virus your meddling inadvertently created, just shows that you think that you are big and bold enough to fiddle and fck with nature.

https://nypost.com/2021/05/17/jeffrey-epstein-gave-advice-to-bill-gates-about-ending-his-marriage/?utm_source=NYPInstagram&utm_campaign=Native&utm_medium=Native

[umami]

Hoolihans honor,

Ron DeSantis? No thank you. That hurt.

Take it easy, I get where you're coming from contrasting Vadana Shiva and Bill Gates.

At 12:05 in your own youtube link Edward Snowden says, "Often we often talk about conspiracy theories in order to avoid talking about proven conspiracies." Okay? Don't fall into that trap.

[S]

Hoolahans honor,

OK, this conversation has gone way beyond whether Bill Gates is a benevolent human being or not. I’m not going to argue that point with you. Besides, how do you know that Melinda didn’t fall in love with someone else as well? Who knows what really goes on behind closed doors.

As far as sexual urges only existing for the sake of procreation, I’ll have to disagree with you there. And we certainly don’t have to agree or even agree to disagree but I don’t think this is worth getting upset over.

I think something else is bothering you—not Gates or Monsanto.

It seems to me that you’re very proud of yourself for being chaste. Good for you. Can’t fault that.

[S]

Hooho,

So, I’m your book to married couples have more sex when they get older after the likelihood of having kids has passed?

Maybe couples in your culture who have a difficult time conceiving are actually luckier because they get to have more sec trying.

[S]

There are a lot of ways to avoid having kids without using modern day birth control. Practices that men have been using for thousands of years.

[S]

Hh,

I can’t believe I’m posting this many comments about this subject… thank god I’m going back to work tomorrow.

So here’s the thing—I now understand exactly what your round about point is. I do. I totally get it and I appreciate it. Let’s just leave it at that.

[Happy Birthday 777]

```````` * ` ` * ` ` *
'```````` 0 ` ` 0 ` ` 0
```````` ||___||___||
```` * ` {,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,} ` *
```` 0 ` {/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\} ` 0
'```_||_{_______”_____}_||_
```{/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\}
```{,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,}
```{/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\}
```{_____________”________}

[Appreciative Reader]

Hello, 777. Your birthday, is it?

I wish you many happy returns, old friend!

[777]

@Appreciative Reader and the Chrismas Tree Painter

Thank You Both Very much
&nd Dank je wel

but perhap it came from Kentucky
let s joke : Thank U Mitch OMG

[umami]

Happy Birthday, 🎰❗

🎂🎂🎂🎂🎂🎂🎂

[7]

@umami

Sukria

7

[🤪 7 🤪 Information Resistance 🤪 7 🤪]

Information resistance

As you resist the idea that YOU from Salem are The Allpervading Creator

Would you believe when I "take out" f.i. let vaporize a known Star
f.i Alpha Centauri together with her planets

Tell us

Would that chance yr mind set?

777

[S]

What leads to radicalism?

When you think about it, the context of a message composed of a string of words from any language gets lost in translation over time. Language is organic—constantly evolving and changing with time.

We can’t treat passages from “Holy Books” like scientific or mathematical formulas. Words only mean what a particular group of people agree that they mean at a given time. Which makes language itself seem somewhat abstract. Always open to interpretation.

Logic is “left brain” and language is “right brain”. Sometimes they meet in the middle but far too often they do not.

[🌺. 777. 🌺]

Although I start having great doubts on the IQ level
here on this blog (with some rare exemptions)
my Master tells me to go on

When I wrote what everybody can see on Google Earth : the two awesome pyramides
before the NY coast, bigger tha Cheops , deep on the atlantic bottom
nobody is asking the Google Earth coordinates to have a look

Now I doubt the next link will be interesting
with these rare exemptions, I mentioned

A report from almost a bataljon F-18 pilots, . . if not all of them
and footage of UFO s diving in the Ocean on a daily basis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8Fc24G73iI&t=337s

These 200 IQ Androids were always there
This is ALL about searching a way to acquire a Crown Chakra
without the need to incarnate
The whole universe ( since our "forefathers disappeared" way before the Sun )
is FULL of this question

[S]

Why wait for Heaven? Those who seek the light are merely covering their eyes. Enlightenment is but a recognition, not a change at all. Why wait to find it in the future, or believe it has been lost already, or was never there? It can so easily be looked upon that arguments to prove it is not there become ridiculous. Who can deny the presence of what he beholds in him? It is not difficult to look within, for there all vision starts. There is no sight, be it of dreams or from a truer Source, that is not but a shadow of the seen through inward vision.

A world in which forgiveness shines on everything, and peace offers its gentle light to everyone, is inconceivable to those who see a world of hatred rising from attack, poised to avenge, murder and destroy.

Yet is the world of hatred equally unseen and inconceivable to those who feel “God’s” Love in them. Their world reflects the quietness and peace that shines in them; the gentleness and innocence they see surrounding them; the joy with which they look out from the endless wells of joy within. What they have felt in them they look upon, and see it’s sure reflection everywhere.

Perception is projection. How we see the world is how we see ourselves.

[👽👽👽]

Well, aliens (if they exist) would be a form of incarnation.

[umami]

777,
I googled for the pyramids the other day but was confused because you also wrote "Boston." I looked again and found this. Same coordinates?
http://worldtripandtravel.blogspot.com/2016/08/two-large-underwater-pyramids.html?m=1

[Love is More]

“We have a love language problem.”

This article is entertaining and thought provoking. It’s a short read.

https://www.theminimalists.com/loveismore/

One paragraph from the article reminded me how very limiting language is.

“The Inuit dialect spoken in Canada’s Nunavik region has at least 53 words to describe snow. Imagine if we had even half that for love. Instead, in our culture, we stretch love to apply to people and pick-up trucks, friends and fried chicken, lovers and Louis Vuitton bags. But when you extend anything beyond its natural limits, it loses its strength. This is especially true with love.”

[S]

@umami,

OK, I just read the article you posted a link to above. That is super duper freaky. Truly bizarre. How in the world did ancient man build those? Or did 👽 👽 👽 build them? I wonder how old they are and what they’re composed of.

[777]

@
Love is More
Yes a good semantic would be great
I like
"Love is the desire to do good to someone"

Charan said
"to become One with someone"

Today in the RSSB Quote " To be consumed like fire" ( a Moth ) . . I understand but it goes way to far these days and only from 4th &UP region descended Souls understand
I might be wrong in the midst of hyper bad karma < they might understand - don't know!

[777]

@Umami

Yes it's that
I had it from another source : SECURE10 or sp
and found it on Google Earth
I placed the coordinates here on the blog but nobody reacted
The Boston ref is like an american saying milano is in Holland? aah
not so bad yet

@S
Yes awesome but when the moon was brought here from from another star
the buildings are peanuts

It places even the A/theist questions in another perspective - Many of us
did live indeed 5 Billion years ago in chaurasi
You told me your revelation <> That was way longer ago - So were mine but we can't tell
But we know the magnificances

777

PS
It seems that even today certain civilizations are taking a STAR
bring it elsewere

[777]

Go and use Streetview to go down

39°00’03.95" N 71°50’54.21" W

777

[S]

I’ve given up fighting aging. Time to embrace it. Sort of liberating. 🙂

[umami]

S,
Titanium would be my choice for a deep sea pyramid. It's the ninth most abundant mineral in the Earth's crust and saltwater doesn't corrode it. It would last until swallowed by plate tectonics. The Atlantic Ocean began to form about 200 million years ago as Pangea broke up. In another 250 million New York will smash into Africa.
Past...
https://youtu.be/ADsjdu27WaM
Future...
https://youtu.be/hos7w8xrcEs

[S]

@umami,

Those videos are pretty cool.

Yeah, titanium is a good choice. I’m dying to know what’s inside those titanium pyramids. 🙃

[S]

BTW, pretty sure the tunnel of light people see when they die is the inside of the black hole in the center of our universe. 🙂

S

[So strange]

It’s funny that we go “inside” to travel through the astral and realms beyond.

S

[umami]

Correction, I wrote 'mineral' but meant 'element' in the Earth's crust. Oxygen 46%, silicon 27.7%, aluminum 8.2%, iron 4.1%, calcium 3.6%, sodium 2.8%, potassium 2.5%, magnesium 2.0%, titanium 0.4%, hydrogen 0.1%, phosphorus 0.1%, manganese 0.1%.

[777]

My idea is ; like the Ant artica, structure our moon, Iapetus,The South pole of Saturnus
there are Tetrahaedron Anti Gravity mechanism in place, still active after 5 Billion Years

Like AntArctica holds people off with fear of death radiation
all these items are protected that way and also against the androids
They established no half work

Here is also : Only One who masters his mind can approach

remember : remnants of the Silver Yuga

777

I don t buy everything of Linda s aproaches
but on Reincarnation she is correct

[S]

Correction, I wrote 'mineral' but meant 'element' in the Earth's crust. Oxygen 46%, silicon 27.7%, aluminum 8.2%, iron 4.1%, calcium 3.6%, sodium 2.8%, potassium 2.5%, magnesium 2.0%, titanium 0.4%, hydrogen 0.1%, phosphorus 0.1%, manganese 0.1%.

Posted by: umami | May 24, 2021 at 11:31 AM

Thanks, I needed to know that. ;)

Actually I’m a total nerd at heart.

[Jen]

About UFO's...

LEAKED PENTAGON UFO FOOTAGE EXPOSED? .. (12:58)

The mysteries of UFO's - May 26, 2021

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVgcPBKbHVM

[🛸]

Jen,

I like that video because they debunked a lot of UFO hysteria in a gentle way. Although, you always have those crazy eye witness accounts. Who knows.

I’ve never had an interest in aliens for some reason. Occasionally something like the giant triangle UFO over Phoenix catches my attention but I think for the most part ufology is not terribly exciting.

Maybe these debunkers are actually aliens and trying to blend in and divert our attention away from what they’re doing. 😅

[Meditation 101]

One of the biggest issues people have with Surat Shabd Yoga meditation is anticipation. When you have books like ‘Path of the Masters’ and all these stories of inner experiences, people who practice SSY sit with anticipation. They believe that they are supposed to have “experiences” which kind of counters the effects of true meditation where you sit without any expectations.

Here’s an excerpt from Mindworks’ article, ‘How Meditation Changes the Brain’:

“Two of the vitally important effects that meditation has on the mind are the ability to remain attuned to the present moment without judgment, regret or anticipation; and the ability to observe sensations and emotions that arise in the mindstream without necessarily identifying with them. Meditation seems to increase the density of the posterior cingulate.”

Here’s the link to the article: https://mindworks.org/blog/how-meditation-changes-the-brain/

Maybe that’s why so many satsangis in the Q&A’s complain about feeling anxiety when they try to sit.

[Meditation 101]

Posterior Cingulate

“The posterior cingulate is connected with wandering thoughts and self-relevance – that is, the degree of subjectivity and referral to oneself when processing information. It seems that the larger and stronger the posterior cingulate, the less the mind wanders and the more realistic the sense of self can be.”

Here’s article explaining the role that the posterior cingulate plays in anxiety disorders:

‘Altered default mode network activity in patient with anxiety disorders: an fMRI study’

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17400412/

[Meditation 101]

I don’t see much difference at all between Kundalini Yoga and Surat Shabd Yoga. Both aim at pulling your energy upwards to the crown chakra. Satsangis should just say practice your yoga.

[Meditation 101]

‘Dangers of Kundalini Yoga’
https://yoga.lovetoknow.com/Dangers_of_Kundalini_Yoga

[7]

-
https://www.space.com/china-far-side-moon-rover-strange-substance.html
-

Does anybody heard about their spectographics
because the gel is said to be harder than diamand . .

7

[S]

There Are 6 'Strongest Materials' On Earth That Are Harder Than Diamonds

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/06/18/there-are-6-strongest-materials-on-earth-that-are-harder-than-diamonds/

[❤️❤️"😈" 777 is flabbergasted "😈" ❤️❤️]

@S Thank U
Typically You : Sonya Sophia :-)

This was SOO impressive as almost never
and always make me think
about my next birth in the UK and what Science then have to offer

Thank U very much

After all . . what they found on the moon
comes closest to graphene spiders diamond gel
or God knows what they invented , these Satsangis of 5 Billion years ago
Imagine that stuff being like 20 / 50 KM thickness
Would that be enough to make it resistant

BTW
It was reported that several Stars vanished, as if they never were
like some android race taking them to another vector of this tiny Pinda

PS
Sant Mat is rather impressive being sooo far above all these wonders
and U and I have seen that for a fact

777

[🐵🙈🙉🙊]

God doesn’t judge because he is light. Light illuminates. Darkness is illusion. Light is love. Illusion is fear.

Judgement belongs to the fearful. Courage belongs to the fearless.

[Spence Tepper]

The weights of all things establish themselves in the process of finding balance. Unincumbered, all things float down or up to their specific gravity. There is no external scale needed, no judge's pronouncements of size or weight needed. You can see just by understanding the properties of what you are looking at.

[🙉 77 🙉]

Spence said:
There is no external scale needed, no judge's pronouncements of size or weight needed.

me:
Right - only compassion we acted withh, will go go with us!

A friend of mine, satsangi was with a ( he declared ) competant
yogi in the Surinama Bush_Bush around 1948
One evening they visited a totally "wild" tribune in the forest
and people were enthousaiastically dancing around a fire

The yogi said : You see that little bit paler guy dancing
He was a brilliant Scientist, and a Lord
during queen Victoria
He had little compassion - He 's really good off

What I mean : Let's use the last remaining actually years/months
for compassion which is a tiny Love°thing
Stopping thoughts once in a while helps

777

[😈S😈]

Lucifer part 2 of season 5 just released today 🙌

I’ll be binge watching for the rest of the evening.

It’s a beautiful story. Entertaining and full of universal truths—you’re perfect just as you are.

[🍎]

Mortality is a gift. It makes you appreciate life.

[🍎 Apple's biggest Fake 🍎]

@ 🍎

Correcting History:

Is this Eve's fake apple that was a Steak

. . . an the Boss was so right closing the paradise premises
to make them find out about compassion

I don't believe it was EVE, . . another faker to denigrate women

777

[S]

In that story, the apple 🍎 symbolizes judgement. Judgement become the illusion of the loss of innocence.

It’s just a story, but it’s a story that we play out day after day because we’ve lost true vision.

“Mortality” in this form is a gift. No one should suffer forever. No one should suffer at all. There is no justification for suffering. But the soul lives on and will eventually reach it’s true home along with every other soul that has ever been created.

[umami]

Osho Robbins,

I can't recall. In your understanding is Baba Ji realised? Please discuss.

[S]

Not sure if this is just what happens when you get to a certain age or when your mind gets tired, but I appreciate nature so much more now. Like an old person, the sound of the birds chirping in the morning sounds like music. The colors of the trees and flowers are more vivid. The warmth of the sun and the gentle breeze are comforters. There’s a stillness in the air that is peaceful. It’s so simple and so beautiful. One of the gifts of age I guess. 🙂

[um]

@ S

>> The colors of the trees and flowers are more vivid.<<

The color of the buttercups is certainly more brilliant than in other years and so is the smell of the hawthorn more sweet.

If it is age ... than we have a shining future before us ... :-)

[Appreciative Reader]

Okay, Osho Robbins. I was thinking of a more structured, more conceptually oriented discussion. But absolutely, let’s do this your way.

-----

“It’s simple.
“There is only ONE - there is no other”
Fully accept that statement.”

This sounds weird, TBH. Why on earth should I accept some random, unevidenced positon?

But okay, I’ll play. Naturally I wouldn’t dream of actually “accepting” anything of the sort, but still, for the present, and in the spirit of fully participating, like I said I’ll play.

(And hey, I get what you’re trying to do here, which is basically replicate in your own way the process of that workshop you’d attended. Absolutely, I appreciate your taking the effort!)

-----

“ Notice what happens next.
To help you fully accept - let’s do a ritual or a meditation. Not something I am a great fan of, but we’ll make an exception here because we have a specific reason for it.
So, repeat the above statement 20 times with your eyes closed and repeat it slowly, letting the meaning and implications in.
“There is only ONE, there is no OTHER”

Done.

------

“Now think about this:
1. Can there be a separate soul?”

I don’t, in any case, believe in this sort of thing.

But purely in terms of your experiment, and having provisionally taken as my starting point your axiom that “There is only One, and no other”, the answer would be, obviously, No.

That is, I can go all solipsistic and imagine myself the only soul that’s the One we’ve taken as our starting point, but even then, there’d be no soul separate from Me.

-----

“2. Can there be a you and a me?”

Following from your starting point, No.

-----

“3. Can there be a separate god?”

Again, I myself don’t generally go in for beliefs in things I have no evidence of. The answer in any case would've been a No.

But in the spirit of this experiment, and following your assumption, No.

-----

“4. Can there be karma?”

Sure, why not? If that is how I, as the One, have formulated stuff (assuming I have the power to do that), then sure. If not, No.

That is, neither a Yes nor a No directly follows from our starting point.

-----

“5. Can “YOU” be separate from the “ONE”?”

Clearly a No, not if I go with your starting point.

-----

“6. So then what is this apparent “ME” that I experience?”

Projections. Either directly, as in a dream.

Or else an indirect simulation. For instance, I as the One may have worked out some kind of technology, from the things I have myself manifested and projected, and that technology may have created some simulation that I myself may have no control over, or even knowledge of. But in terms of causality, if not in terms of actual control, this would be my own projection, if indirectly.

-----

“7 how do “I” get realised, when there is no “I”

When and if I am able to penetrate this veil. For instance, if my VR technology equips me with a separate sense of self, then taking off the VR helmet will make me realize that I’m just the One, and this is all just chimerical. Or if this had been a dream, then I could just awaken from my dream.

-----------------

What now? I mean, those positions follow from your premise, that we’ve provisionally accepted as starting point, for our experiment, sure. But that’s kind of begging the question, isn’t it? Any conclusion at all can be arrived at, and anything at all “realized”, provided one were to unquestioningly accept the premises that lead to them.

But pardon me, I’ll leave off the conceptual examination for now. That can come later. For now I’m content to follow your lead.

[Appreciative Reader]

"@Appreciative Reader
On my previous post to you, I started with “There is only ONE and no other”
From there it’s simple because if there is only ONE, there cannot be individual souls and selves. There can only be the illusion of many.
So this is how we get to oneness.
1. Everything you see around you appears to be real. But it is only for a certain time. It is within time. Everything within time ends and dies eventually. Hence we could define this as temporary or unreal. Do you agree?"

-------

Sorry, but no. I don't think I can agree.

We’d been through this already last time, hadn’t we?
Transient ≠ Unreal.
Temporary ≠ Unreal.

(But purely as definitions, which you clarify later, I agree, sure. Not as conclusion, but as [re-]definition. I mean, if it's a definition, then there's hardly a question of "agreement" as such.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It’s a definition, not an opinion. I am creating the definition that real = that which remains forever. Unreal = that which ends."

-------

Okay, I’ll play.

For now I’ll abide by your definition.

But if I find you conflating this new definition of “real” (where “real” is defined as transient) with the everyday definition of “real” (where “real” would be something that does have substance, for something that does exist, whether eternal or otherwise), then I’ll point that out to you. Because this conflation, and indeed this kind of unnecessary redefinition, seems to me a sure recipe for confusion.

But still, I’ll play. Hopefully this will lead us to where you’re trying to guide this towards, let’s see.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“So then everything here is maya, illusion and unreal. It is here for the moment but not forever. It is as real as a dream while the dream is happening.”

-------

Disagreed, sorry.

Like I said, you’re conflating your re-defined sense of “real” with the everyday meaning of “real” here.

That which is temporary and transient, isn’t necessary illusory. Not unless you redefine the meaning of “illusion”, just like you’ve already redefined the meaning of “real”.

I’ll play along, I’ll continue to follow this as you direct me. But this redefinition business looks dodgy to me, just like it looked dodgy to me the last time we did this.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“ I am not denying that this is the only reality we know. I am accepting that but defining it as unreal.
To move forward you have to choose to accept my definition.
So, from here, the next step is to go into what real means. So real means eternal, forever, unchanging. Outside of time.
Within time = unreal
Outside time = real”

-------

Okay, done.

But again, if I find you conflating the two senses of your redefined words, I’ll point that out.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Within time there is no ONENESS. There is many. We perceive ourselves as separate. We also have the concept of a separate soul. We believe we need to unite with the separate god. We believe it will take time and effort and it’s a journey from separation to unity.

This is the trap. We are stuck in concepts and cannot see outside the trap because of the beliefs and because we think this is real.”

-------

I’m not sure I’m able to agree with your reasoning.

You’re saying our erroneous concepts and beliefs are the cause of our perceptions.

To me that sounds wholly topsy-turvy. I’d say it is the other way around. It is our perceptions that are the cause of our concepts and our beliefs.

Sure, sometimes are perceptions are a distortion of reality. And sometimes our concepts and beliefs are flawed. But that is not to say that all of our concepts and beliefs are necessarily flawed. And, while it’s true, sometimes erroneous beliefs do cause us to perceive things in accordance with our beliefs, but generally speaking the causality is the opposite of what you indicate here.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“So ONENESS seems to be bulkshit from this viewpoint. And actually I agree - it is bullshit - because there is no ONENESS here. To just say “we are all one” is nonsense because clearly we are not one.
So now examine “outside of time”
By the way at this point - it’s all conceptual - that is all it can be. But this leads to realisation only once you examine these concepts and get clear.
Outside of time means: no change (because change only happens in time).
Outside of time means no separation, hence only one thing everywhere that encompasses all time and all space. It cannot be otherwise. Two cannot exist outside of time and space.
So this means there is only ONE and no other.”

-------

This assumes there is something outside of time.

And as far as the ONE, we’ve only arrived back at our starting point here, you do realize that, right?

I’ll play on, absolutely. But I have to point out that this is only what had been your assumption all along. Not a conclusion that you’ve reasoned out.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“So this is where you arrive:
There are two states:
1. Maya
2. ONENESS
The first is what you see with your eyes.
Hence scriptures say “what you see - it is not. What IT is - we cannot say”
It’s referring to the ONENESS. You cannot meet it. You cannot experience it. You cannot see it. You cannot know it.
Why?
Because it’s not an “it”. It’s not a thing. It’s not perceivable.
Why? Because to perceive, TWO are needed. And there is only ONE.
So what happens is a deep insight that suddenly dawns on you. It’s can’t be called an experience.
That is the realisation.”

-------

Hang it all, Osho Robbins. I don’t mean to be rude or dismissive, at all, but NO! This is not what you “arrive” at, this is what you’d assumed all along! You’ve only drawn a huge circuit and walked right back to your starting block here!

This is textbook question-begging!

I think you’re getting misled here. You’ve just arbitrarily assumed your Oneness. And taken a long circuitous walk, and “arrived” right back to your starting point of Oneness, that’s all.

But pardon me! Having voiced my reservations, and my objection, I’ll (continue to) play along.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Once it happens you cannot explain it to anyone. What I have done is the best that can be done. I have described “about it”
Once you allow these ideas in - you get first a vague idea of what ONENESS might be. Then it grows and eventually becomes clear.
Now you can see that the two things co-exist.
The maya is like the dream state
and the ONENESS is the real state.
So your true form is the ONENESS.
But also that can be misunderstood so easily because I am not referring to the self that you consider to be “you” - that is illusory. I am referring to the ONENESS in which there are no individual souls.”

-------

Osho Robbins, thanks very much for taking this trouble, explaining this to me! But I’ve played along as best I could, but I could see nothing more here than question-begging. Nothing more than a somewhat convoluted buying-in into an arbitrary premise.

But again, sincere thanks for taking the effort to guide me, really! I’ll continue to follow your lead, whichever way you want to take this.

After which, if you’re willing, I’d like to try some more of the structured discussion that we’d left off from, some months back.

[Osho Robbins]

@Appreciative Reader
I have read your responses.
Here’s the issue.
The process of taking someone to realisation requires them to be open to examine these ideas.
If you are bot open to them, then nothing happens.
If this was being done in person, it would be very different because concepts can be challenged.
I will go though this in detail shortly.
So from the start, I started with the ONENESS like I explained.
Then I went into how I arrive at the idea of oneness.
I am not making any statement about what IS here in maya.
You and I - nether of us can know oneness. I wasn’t making that assumption. I was taking you on an imaginary journey.
I will go into detail in my next message

[Appreciative Reader]

Hey, sorry if my comments appeared dismissive, Osho Robbins. Absolutely, there's no point in talking unless one is open to a contrary idea. And I am, indeed, open to this business, absolutely.

But "open" only in terms of *considering* this with an open mind. You mustn't mind it if I plainly point out when something does not make sense to me, or if I do not unquestioningly accept your conclusions, because there's no way I'm doing that, not for Oneness and not for anything under the sun.

-------

I know this is getting involved. Take your time, please, and come back to this whenever you are able. As will I. Let's both bookmark this thread.

And again, thanks for taking the trouble to walk me through this!

[Appreciative Reader]

Let me, at this point, point out my primary objection to what you've said thus far.

See, in your last comment, you say, "... (then) I went into how I arrive at the idea of oneness...".

Well, how you arrived at the idea of oneness is plain as day. You've arbitrarily assumed it.

That was the starting point of our experiment, remember?

You asked that I accept your premise of Oneness, for the space of the experiment. I complied. Then, via your arguments, you circled right back to your original assumption of oneness. And then talk about how you "arrive at the idea of oneness". Which, pardon me for the plainspeak, is not right. How you arrive at your idea of oneness is, like I said, quite clearly by taking that as your (arbitrary) premise.

That's, like, textbook begging-the-question.

You see this, right?

[Osho Robbins]

I am dealing here with definitions
A dream appears to be real until you wake up.
During the dream you will assume the dream is real.
But once you awaken then you know it wasn’t real.
So now I want you to widen your definition of real so that you don’t mistake the dream state for reality.
How will you widen your definitions?

You need to make a distinction now between what appears to be real
And what is really real (in the waking state, for our purposes here in this discussion)

[S]

The color of the buttercups is certainly more brilliant than in other years and so is the smell of the hawthorn more sweet.

If it is age ... than we have a shining future before us ... :-)

Posted by: um | May 30, 2021 at 05:30 AM

Yes, indeed. I’m starting too see the advantages of getting older—and there are many!

[um]

>> I’m starting too see the advantages of getting older—and there are many!<<
by S:

There are also dis-advantages so to say. No longer involved in the many obligations that come with adult life, many things that have been lingering in one's mind can surface too, as these obligations also function as an distraction. Distraction gone many things are unearthed .. both pleasant and unpleasant.

[Osho Robbins]

@Appreciative Reader
Let me go into more depth.
I quote what I wrote earlier

“ Outside of time means: no change (because change only happens in time).
Outside of time means no separation, hence only one thing everywhere that encompasses all time and all space. It cannot be otherwise. Two cannot exist outside of time and space.
So this means there is only ONE and no other.”

This is the key part where we diverge.

So we know from observation that everything within time and space has certain characteristics
1. Everything is changing (with time)
2. There are separate things. Many things. Not oneness.
3. These separate things, move, interact, change, and eventually disintegrate or die.

So I am then taking the position that Outside of time and space (for now assume such a thing exists: I will deal with that assumption later) it’s the opposite: namely: no change, no separate things, no movement.

That makes sense. You cannot have separation and movement and birth/ death because the element of time is missing.
That is where the Oneness comes from. It’s not a circular argument.

If time and space contains separation and movement and birth / death and change,
Then -time and -space doesn’t have those.

Whether there is such a thing as -time and -space is another matter which we will go into next.

But for now, IF there is such a thing, then that is where the ONENESS comes from, because the no time / no space region (for want of another name) necessarily remains the same (no change, forever etc) which I have defined as real.
So I am defining that state (if it exists) as real and this one where everything ends as unreal.
The definitions are not something you can disagree with - as they are definitions.
The point I am making here is that if a no time / no space domain exists, that is where oneness would be.
Do you disagree with that point?

[Osho Robbins]

So now we have a different way of viewing life.
1. What I call unreal: this world
2. What I call real: changeless, eternal oneness, no separation.

I am not presenting proof that the second one exists.

Just imagine a two dimensional object. It has length and width. That is all that exists for it. Dimension no 3 doesn’t exist for this object. Because it (the object) only knows of two dimensions.
How would you prove to that object that there is a third dimension?
Just because you cannot prove it, doesn’t mean there is no third dimension.
It is just beyond the scope of the object.

If the two dimensional object could think, you might be able to explain to it that there is a third dimension and it might grasp the notion.

[S]

@um

I don’t know… I guess it depends. If you’re relatively healthy and enjoy spending time alone, then old age can be quite pleasant.

[S]

…and not afraid of death.

I think getting old could be scary and possibly even depressing for some if they are afraid of dying.

[um]

@ S

Death has no meaning for me. it never had; pain and other discomforts do however.

If the relationships with the world, the persons involved, slow down, disappear etc, things forgotten, sub conscious, suppressed, become to the foreground ...

silence and being alone for prolonged periods of time, work like an mirror in which all sorts of things become visible, both positive, as the colors of the butterbuts as other things ... like an shift of attention from "the other" towards "oneself"

[um]

To give and example ... the shift from asking questions etc about sant mat, its teachers and teachings etc towards how did I end up on the path, how did I behave, what did I learn and understand etc etc.

[um]

Or .. how did I became a seeker, student, disciple and finaly woke up in the theater of life.

[Osho Robbins]

“ You asked that I accept your premise of Oneness, for the space of the experiment. I complied. Then, via your arguments, you circled right back to your original assumption of oneness. And then talk about how you "arrive at the idea of oneness". Which, pardon me for the plainspeak, is not right. How you arrive at your idea of oneness is, like I said, quite clearly by taking that as your (arbitrary) premise.” - Appreciative Reader

That is not what happened. Like I explain in my last comment, I did not assume oneness in my argument. Not sure how you concluded that.

I took the view of a “no time, no space” existence and showed that such an existence would have no change and would be oneness (not an assumption).

Now I address the point of existence:
Does a state of “no space, no time” exist?

The problem here is with the word ‘existence’

In our world, existence means “within time and space”
Anything outside of that is beyond our scope, beyond our senses, so we would say non-existent.

Any sound that is beyond the range of our ears, we would call non-existent because we cannot hear it. However, we may develop tools that show it exists.

Beyond time and space we cannot develop any tools either because it would be a different dimension.

Just as someone who is dreaming cannot make a qualified judgement about the non-dream world, so we cannot make a qualified judgement about existence outside of time and space.
If it does exist, it doesn’t exist bad we define existence, so our opinion about this is meaningless.
If such a state exists then from that state - we would be non-existent because we are so temporary - here for a short while only.

If a dream character says the physical universe does not exist, how valid is it?

So how valid is our view that the no-time no-space reality doesn’t exist?

[Appreciative Reader]

Lots of food for thought in your comments, Osho Robbins.

I don't want to hurry through those comments. I've read them once, and I'll re-read them later again, for a more detailed understanding and critique, and further comments if such seem apposite. Meanwhile, though, some quick responses to some portions of your comments that kind of stand out:

-------

"The definitions are not something you can disagree with - as they are definitions.
The point I am making here is that if a no time / no space domain exists, that is where oneness would be.
Do you disagree with that point?"

..........I do disagree, actually.

Like you say, if you're simply defining them that way, then, as you say, that's not something I can disagree with. But why ask me, then, if I disagree?

Yes, if I critique your argument, qua argument (as opposed to definitions that I must take on faith), then I do disagree.

Here's why. Let's assume, like you say, that there's something beyond time and space. Why would that imply Oneness, at all?

Here, let me give you two concrete examples, how you can have Duality, and for that matter Multiplicity, outside of time and space.

Example 1 : Let's accept your solipsistic principle. Let's agree that all of this is nothing more than a dream. But how do you know that there is just one person dreaming? Think literally of dreams. Let's assume that this present universe is just my dream, okay. I'm asleep in my bed, dreaming that we're having this online exchange. So fair enough, Awake-Me is the Oneness that is the source of all of this. But that does not imply that, when I awaken, I will not find an Awake-Osho-Robbins there as well, and an Awake-Spence-Tepper, and an Awake-Brian, and so on. In fact that is what happens IRL. We all dream, but then we all awaken as well. So who knows, maybe we're all dreams of the some Dreamer, except there is not just One Dreamer, but Many Dreamers? That Awake dimension is outside of time and space as we know it and understand it. Yet, like I have shown, there might still be Multiplicity there.

Example 2 : Time and space as we know it started with the Big Bang. I'm relying on imperfect memory here, and might be mistaken about some of the finer details here, but I think it was Stephen Hawking who had formulated these "pocket universes". Multiple Big Bangs, and multiple universes. Within these universes, time and space would start with their respective Big Bangs. But outside of it, there are still many universes, not just one. That's another example of Multiplicity, not Oneness, outside of time and space.

-------

"A dream appears to be real until you wake up.
During the dream you will assume the dream is real.
But once you awaken then you know it wasn’t real."

..........But how the eff does one "wake up", then? What you're describing here is simply convincing oneself, while still dreaming, that one is dreaming. Which would be fine if one were actually dreaming; but then, as you say, we cannot know that until we're actually awake, we cannot know that as long as we're still dreaming. Which leaves us in essentially a circularity.

I repeat, your process seems to be simply convincing oneself, while still dreaming, that one is dreaming. That crucial factor, waking up, which is an entirely different matter, that seems missing from your process.

-------

" I am then taking the position that Outside of time and space (for now assume such a thing exists: I will deal with that assumption later) it’s the opposite: namely: no change, no separate things, no movement"

..........Okay, we'll come back to a defense of your assumption later. For now we'll simply take it on faith that there is such a thing as "beyond time and space".

But how are we saying that there is" no change, no separate things, no movement" beyond time and space? We know nothing at all of that condition. Do we? If we don't, then how do we know even this much, that there is none of those things there?

I take your point, that those things are associated with time and space in the here and now. But it does not follow, at all, that the absence of time and space necessarily implies an absence of those things as well? It may, or it may not; we simply don't know, at all.

-------

"Just imagine a two dimensional object. It has length and width. That is all that exists for it. Dimension no 3 doesn’t exist for this object. Because it (the object) only knows of two dimensions.
How would you prove to that object that there is a third dimension?"

..........I think there's two ways to answer that question of yours. And neither of those ways agrees with your position.

The first is to refer to string theory. As you know, string theory postulates many more dimensions than our usual three (or four, if you include time). Some speak of 10 dimensions, some of 11, some I think actually go more than 20 dimensions. Now while we don't directly observe these extra dimensions via our direct senses, nevertheless they do have impact on the math, on the results they give us concerning our everyday world. To the extent that they help us make predictions that are borne out, to that extent we accept them as provisionally true, same as anything else in science. Similarly, in your 2-D world, we'd accept your formulations of a 3-D world if and only if those formulations would let us make predictions that we could test in our 2-D world, and if those tests did prove those predictions correct. Otherwise we don't accept the 3-D world. (That is, we may continue research on them, but we don't take it as given.)

And the second answer is to simply point out that one cannot prove a negative claim. Therefore, in the absence of evidence, one does not accept such claim: insisting for proof of the opposite is fallacious. If we live in a 2-D world, and if you come and tell us that there actually are three dimensions, not two: then how that works is not that you demand that we prove that a third dimension does not exist; how one goes about it, is to accept your claim about the third dimension only if there is evidence to support such a claim. This is pretty much straightforward.

-------

"That is not what happened. Like I explain in my last comment, I did not assume oneness in my argument. Not sure how you concluded that."

..........Sorry, but that was exactly what you did assume. That was the starting point of your experiment. Here, I'll quote, below, your exact words from that first comment of yours (the first, that is, in this exchange, and that I've quoted in my first comment in this thread):

“It’s simple.
“There is only ONE - there is no other”
Fully accept that statement.”

-------

"If a dream character says the physical universe does not exist, how valid is it?

So how valid is our view that the no-time no-space reality doesn’t exist?"

..........Agreed, absolutely. But that agreement is subject to accepting, for the sake of argument, that we are dream characters, and that there is a no-time-no-space that is analogous to our waking state. Not otherwise.

---------------------------------------

Osho Robbins, if we're dreaming, I'd love to wake up. Believe you me, there's nothing I'd wish for more than that. But if only wishes were horses! As it is, this whole Oneness argument seems riddled with holes all through.

See if you can deal with the objections I've raised in this comment, and show me where I'm mistaken. Believe me, nothing would give me greater pleasure than if you were able to do that, because that would indicate to me that "awakening" is truly a thing, and therefore a thing that I might one day arrive at. But it would be intellectually dishonest of me to let my wishes guide my conclusion, or to let my goodwill for you color my thinking. I'm sorry, but the argument, as you've presented thus far, seems full of ...let's say, places where it simply doesn't hold.

[777]

@Osho To be One

To Know HIM, you must BE HIM

777

[Appreciative Reader]

Hello, 777, old friend.

And how do you suggest we "be Him", then?

I guess you'll say via RSSB-style meditation, am I right? The whole Charan-GSD deal? Fair enough, if you do. I mean, if it works for you, great!

Or have you something different than that in mind?

[Osho Robbins]

@Appreciative Reader
You wrote
“ But how are we saying that there is" no change, no separate things, no movement" beyond time and space? We know nothing at all of that condition. Do we? If we don't, then how do we know even this much, that there is none of those things there?”

Here is how:
Change needs the dimension of time to happen. Change cannot possibly happen if you remove the dimension of time.
Movement cannot happen if you remove time. All movement takes time to happen.
A little time or a lot of time.
If a thing moves we determine how fast it moves as distance (space covered) / time taken.
So both space and time are part of the equation.
So if I remove the dimension of TIME then movement is impossible.
If a thing moves, TIME must be present.

Any and every change necessarily needs time to happen. Hence no time means change and movement are both impossible.
If you remove space, there can be no objects. All objects need space.
For two objects to exist, each object needs space around it. The space creates the boundary for it,
No space means no boundary.

So no boundary means only one thing can exist, but it has no boundary. Or you can say that zero objects exist.
In both cases, there cannot be multiple objects.

This is the part you are ignoring

[Osho Robbins]

No time and no space necessarily means no separate objects because there are no boundaries. And no change.

This state I am defining as REAL - an arbitrary definition.
Now you might understand the reason for these new definitions.
Real means unchanging, eternal, forever, and ONE.
By the new definitions - you and I are unreal. We end, we die. We are not permanent.
But the ONE is permanent.
The only objection you can have is: does it (ONE) really exist?
But you are not qualified to ask because the definition of “existence” is inadequate since it only applies within time and space.
By our definition it’s doesn’t exist because everything that exists has to be within time and space.
It is beyond the scope of our definition

[Osho Robbins]

We all know that our existence here is going to end. We are getting older and one day, we will die. Our life is over. Finished. Ended. Just like every dream.
Every dream is doomed to end.
This life is also doomed to end.
We consider the dream unreal only because it ended. If it was real, it would NOT have ended.
But we have come out of the dream state into a bigger dream.
That dream lasted only minutes. This dream lasts a number of decades. But this dream also ends.
Then what happens?
Then you exit this dream and enter the ONENESS I spoke about. But in that state, you never exit, because that one is forever and never ends.

I cannot prove this to you. Why not? Because it’s a different level of reality. If I was a dream character in your dream, I could not prove to you that the real you is sleeping in the bed and dreaming and that I too (the one in your dream) am just as unreal as you. It is impossible to prove from within the dream.

The method is different from logical proof. The method is to ask you who you think you are. No matter what answer you give, all you can point to is something that you are not. Your body, your personality, your mind; they all change. You don’t know who you are. Your sense of “I” is illusory. You cannot find yourself.
You can find your personality, your mind, your body, your name, your parents name, your job, your address, your car, etc. But who are you? Who is the one who owns all these?
All you can say is that you cannot find the real you. Because there is no real you.
There is only the unreal.

[Osho Robbins]

Now let’s take YOUR definition of real.
You say that all this is real. You, your life, your personality, your things, are all real.
Why? Because you can experience them.
You can feel the room you are in. You can watch the television. You can drive the car. So they are all real. Right?

But, you did all this in the dream state also.
There is no way that you would ever accept that the dream is unreal. You feel it’s real. It appears to be as real as the waking state.
You don’t know you are dreaming.
You think you are awake. So you are not a reliable witness.
You were deluded in the dream. What makes you think that you are not deluded now?
You cannot prove it because every answer you give was also true in the dream state.
You thought the dream was real.
You think this is real.
In the first case you were wrong.
Maybe you’re also wrong now.

If you were wrong about the dream state, why can’t you be wrong about this state?

You know for a fact that this will end.
Once it ends, where will you go?
You too will end.

All unreal things end.
Only real things are forever.

You are unreal, temporary and just a passing phase. There is nothing real about you at all.

Will you remain forever? No!
You only exist for a short while.
Just like your dream.
You are as real as the dream.

The only difference between our definitions is that you call this temporary existence real. I call it unreal.

By your logic, you would have to call the dream real also. Are you willing to do that?

[777]

Osho, You are in the UK, . . go MooJi
who pretends The Maharshi and U will have a great time

Everything consciousness adventuresis real and unreal
It depends all from which perspective you look at it

Only the Love, even a tine bit will survive
that is
when we (in Him) reflect on what happened with us long "ago"
in the endless presence

But U have to BE Him
Stop yr Thoughts a minute by meditation
777

[Appreciative Reader]

Osho Robbins, my response to your last set of four comments:

.

"Here is how:
Change needs the dimension of time to happen. Change cannot possibly happen if you remove the dimension of time.
Movement cannot happen if you remove time. All movement takes time to happen.
A little time or a lot of time.
If a thing moves we determine how fast it moves as distance (space covered) / time taken.
So both space and time are part of the equation.
So if I remove the dimension of TIME then movement is impossible.
If a thing moves, TIME must be present.

Any and every change necessarily needs time to happen. Hence no time means change and movement are both impossible.
If you remove space, there can be no objects. All objects need space.
For two objects to exist, each object needs space around it. The space creates the boundary for it,
No space means no boundary.

So no boundary means only one thing can exist, but it has no boundary. Or you can say that zero objects exist.
In both cases, there cannot be multiple objects.

This is the part you are ignoring"

"No time and no space necessarily means no separate objects because there are no boundaries. And no change."

.

..............I've quoted all of your first comment here from your last four comments, above, as well as the first part of your second comment (that you further expand on in that comment).

You keep saying this, Osho Robbins, but I'm not sure this is as self-evident as you make it out to be.

Sure, change, as well as transience, are an inevitable part of our world. And our world is one of space and time. But it does not follow that space and time are what cause change and transience, or that space and time are necessary for change and transience. To reason thus is to conflate correlation with causation.

The state beyond time and space, assuming such exists, is, to repeat what I'd said earlier, is one that is simply beyond our understanding and indeed our conception. It doesn't really make sense to say either that change and transience are features of that state, or that there can be no change or transience in that state. The fact is we simply don't know. I don't see how you can keep making these unsupported statements about something that we know nothing about.

And the same can be said about Oneness as well. In this world of space and time we encounter multiplicity. To therefore conclude that an absence of space and time necessarily implies an absence of multiplicity is again something that simply doesn't follow, given that we know nothing of such a state, should such exist.

.

---------------------

"But the ONE is permanent."

.

..............Yes, but only because you've assumed its existence, and, further, defined it to be permanent. All of this is simply tautological.

.

---------------------

"The only objection you can have is: does it (ONE) really exist?"
But you are not qualified to ask because the definition of “existence” is inadequate since it only applies within time and space.
By our definition it’s doesn’t exist because everything that exists has to be within time and space.
It is beyond the scope of our definition"

.

..............Well, like I said, that's not my only objection. I've already presented my other objection already, above, just now in this comment.

The rest does seem reasonable. If I define existence as predicated within space and time, then a state that is beyond space and time is indeed beyond the scope of our definition.

.

---------------------

"I cannot prove this to you. Why not? Because it’s a different level of reality. If I was a dream character in your dream, I could not prove to you that the real you is sleeping in the bed and dreaming and that I too (the one in your dream) am just as unreal as you. It is impossible to prove from within the dream."

.

..............You cannot, and haven't, proved it to me. Nor can you have proved it to yourself. Therefore, I don't see you have any rational basis for arriving at this conclusion at all.

(The part about the other kind of proof, that you discuss after this, follows right after this.)

.

---------------------

"The method is different from logical proof. The method is to ask you who you think you are. No matter what answer you give, all you can point to is something that you are not. Your body, your personality, your mind; they all change. You don’t know who you are. Your sense of “I” is illusory. You cannot find yourself.
You can find your personality, your mind, your body, your name, your parents name, your job, your address, your car, etc. But who are you? Who is the one who owns all these?
All you can say is that you cannot find the real you. Because there is no real you.
There is only the unreal."

.

..............Actually I do have a fairly clear idea of who and what I am. Our entire body, our brain, our nervous system, the bacteria that dwell within our body, all of these is what we are. Our consciousness, as well as our sentience, is an emergent property of all of this. That seems a pretty clear answer to that question.

.

---------------------

"Now let’s take YOUR definition of real.
You say that all this is real. You, your life, your personality, your things, are all real.
Why? Because you can experience them.
You can feel the room you are in. You can watch the television. You can drive the car. So they are all real. Right?

But, you did all this in the dream state also.
There is no way that you would ever accept that the dream is unreal. You feel it’s real. It appears to be as real as the waking state.
You don’t know you are dreaming.
You think you are awake. So you are not a reliable witness.
You were deluded in the dream. What makes you think that you are not deluded now?
You cannot prove it because every answer you give was also true in the dream state.
You thought the dream was real.
You think this is real.
In the first case you were wrong.
Maybe you’re also wrong now.

If you were wrong about the dream state, why can’t you be wrong about this state?"

.

..............Sure, I could be wrong about this as well, it's possible. I agree, cent per cent.

Thing is, all of what we know is provisional. The scientific method has uncovered for us a sliver of knowledge, amidst a vast mass of not knowing. And even that little sliver of knowledge is entirely provisional, and susceptible to being overturned at any minute as we update our knowledge. Therefore, to claim that nothing beyond this little sliver that we have within our grasp is possible, is both arrogant and essentially fallacious.

However, this little sliver of knowledge is all we do have. Because this sliver is small, and because this little sliver of knowledge is provisional in nature, does not mean that we should assume random unevidenced things.

Translated into our specific discussion, this principle would translate as: Sure, it is possible that this world is a dream, that we will one day awaken from. By all means let us keep ourselves open to that possibility. And by all means let us conduct research and gather evidence, both subjective and objective, towards this end. But rationally speaking, we can accept this world-is-a-dream proposition only when we are presented with conclusive evidence, and not until then.

.

---------------------

"The only difference between our definitions is that you call this temporary existence real. I call it unreal.

By your logic, you would have to call the dream real also. Are you willing to do that?"

.

..............Not quite, Osho Robbins. You're defining as "real" that which is permanent, eternal, changeless. While our everyday definition of "real" is that which has substantial existence, that which can be perceived and objectively evidenced. It isn't as if we're saying that anything that is temporary and transient is real. I'm saying that reality has to do with substantial existence; it has nothing to do with whether the thing that exists is transient or not.

Therefore, when we dream in our sleep, or for that matter hallucinate while awake, then that dream, and that hallucination, they are fact, sure, obviously. But the CONTENT of the dream, and the CONTENT of the hallucination, that is what is not real. Not because they are short-lived and impermanent, but because they lack substantial existence.

By my logic, by my definition of reality, which is the general everyday logic and definition, absolutely, the dream state is real; but no, the content of the dream, the things within the dream, they are not real, because they have no objective, substantial existence.

We do have evidence of our wakeful state. Therefore, from within that wakeful state, we do look on dreams as chimerical. I agree, should we ever have evidence of some Permanance, then from within that Permanence we might then look on our everyday life as equally chimerical. But in the absence of evidence, and in the absence of having directly accessed that Permanence, all of this no more than fanciful speculation, and, at most, the subject of further research, no more. (And what is more, to further stipulate specifics to that unevidenced Permanance, such as Oneness and Eternal-ness, is to compound the fallacy, and to pile on more and more layers of implausibility.)

.

---------------------

.

In conclusion, then: might we be dreams, might our world be a dream? It is possible, sure. That can be subject of speculation, and of research, sure. But we will accept that our world is a dream only when we have evidence to support this claim. Not until then. That holds for any and every thing, including this Oneness.

Now assuming that we are a dream, what are we dreams of? We don't know! We don't know if there is state beyond this dream. If there were, then we don't know anything about that state. We do not know whether such a state, should it exist, might be susceptible to change or not. We do not know if such a state might be wholly homogeneous, that is to say, One, or if it might admit of multiplicity. We don't know, we simply don't know. Hell, we don't even know if it exists.

And until we do know, that is to say, until we do have sufficient to say that such a beyond-state exists, we will, obviously, not accept, not believe, that such a state exists. And until we do know, until we have evidence, about specifics of such a state, until such time we will not believe random formulations about that state, such as Oneness and Changelessness and Permanance.

Sure, it is *possible*. Anything is *possible*. But because it is possible, doesn't mean that is what *is*. Carl Sagan's garage dragon thought experiment might be apposite at this point: It is *possible* that there is an invisible dragon in my garage that is undetectable by any means we have at our command, sure. But while such a thing is possible, and while I am free to speculate about it and to conduct research and (try to) collect evidence, until such time as I find actual evidence to support this claim, I have no reason to accept, I have no reason to believe, that there is indeed an invisible dragon inside my garage. Ditto this Oneness.

[Solomon]

Hello Osho Robbins

I have been following your recent posts and find them very interesting.

You wrote-

" You are unreal, temporary and just a passing phase. There is nothing real about you at all. Will you remain forever? No! You only exist for a short while."

Please explain how "karmas and the numerous births or lives that the consciousness or soul takes" fit into all of this.

[S]

Karma is the guilt trap that keeps us coming back lifetime after lifetime. Do you think that’s really God’s will. No, it’s our will and when we finally understand what Love truly is we stop returning to this illusion.

Why do we attribute such horrible attributes such as judgement to God? Even the negative power has been deceived by this. The negative power believes he’s relegated to Trikuti and fears God’s judgement. He fears being alone if all souls return home. But even he is not trapped here. And, no, judgement was never part of God’s plan. God never created that role for an entity to carry out. Again, why do you attribute such terrible qualities to Love? Love would have all souls return home today.