Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: time

Lee , your belief is founded in faith and hence is unshakeable.

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:45 PM, leerevdouglas@googlemail.com
<lee@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> Yes indeed RP we have been over these ground before.
>
> That is not my belife I'm afraid.
>
> When we look at religion as a whole, and by that I mean if we look at
> the dogma of as many religions as we can, it seems clear to me that
> God says 'Come to me, choose me'.  Both of which hold conertations of
> free will or freedom of choice.
>
> If we have free will, then I must ask who's will is it that is free,
> who has the power of choice?
>
> The answer must be that each of us has this power, that you have a
> Self that is differant from my Self, which in turn is differant from
> God's Self.
>
> Yes I agree that there exists an illusion of seperation from God, but
> before that seems to contradict what I say above let me explain
> further.
>
> A tree is a whole being, yet a leaf and a bud are not the same, part
> ofthe same yes, but differant form each other.  Imagine then God being
> the whole tree and all else being part of the tree. Further imagine
> that God has granted each leaf of the tree freedom of choice.  To drop
> in the autum or to cling to God's branches.
>
> Getting back to time for a sec, and retaining the tree anology.
> Before the tree exisited there existed only the idea of the tree, or
> God in spirit.  For whatever reasons God thought, let the be all kinds
> of matter, let matter experiance itself, and lo from just the idea or
> spirit of God, God manifested itself as matter, matter made from
> spirt.
>
> On May 4, 6:04 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Lee , the Self of every individuality is One and He continues in
>> eternity. Eternity is because of the Self and not vice versa. If you
>> remove the illusory coatings of individualities the one Self shines
>> through and whether I know it or not I will continue in eternity. I am
>> the Self and this RP Singh or Lee or Orn are just illusions because
>> these are but identities whereas  The real I or Self is unborn ,
>> primeaval and indestructible. The self-sense has a beginning and an
>> end , the Self or Atman or God is the core of all individualities and
>> is One and is Eternal.
>>
>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:42 PM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
>> > Indeed RP, as we know that is part of my belife structure also.  Yet
>> > unless you have reached God in what ever manory your faith defines for
>> > you, can it be said that you, mean you RP Singh of here and now, will
>> > continue into eternity?
>>
>> > On May 4, 3:22 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Lee, eternity to my mind is no imagination but a fact. This universe
>> >> came to be and will disintegrate but that is not the end of Creation ,
>> >> there have to be other universes in parallel and there is a continuity
>> >> in Creation-- I mean that no matter how many universes disintegrate
>> >> there are still other universes.God is incomplete without Creation and
>> >> so the concept of eternity is valid and a " fact ".
>>
>> >> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:32 PM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com
>>
>> >> <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
>> >> > Hey OM.
>>
>> >> > I guess what we are talking about are forces.  I see that perhaps you
>> >> > do not count time a s force, or that perhaps our understanding of what
>> >> > time is must be constrained by the type of being we are.
>>
>> >> > Yes I agree that the reality maynot be wholey how we percive it to be,
>> >> > as you know this has been my stance for a long while now.
>>
>> >> > Back to forces though.  We still don't know how gravity works, but we
>> >> > are sure that such a thing exists, we see it's effects all around us
>> >> > and can apply sciences to measure it.  Like time we can see the
>> >> > effects of it.  Now I'll not discount the idea that the effects of
>> >> > time may be down to something else entirly.
>>
>> >> > The thing with imagining enternity or existing within it, is that it
>> >> > is just imaginagtion isn't it.  I can also imagine that I'll a tall
>> >> > man with broad shoulders, but the reality of the situation is I am
>> >> > not.
>>
>> >> > On May 4, 10:34 am, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Lee, I sense that what we perceive as being 'external' - energy and
>> >> >> movement - is that. However, beyond this, our notions of what things
>> >> >> are...even the letters and associated words for SETI... only exist in
>> >> >> thought...no where else.
>>
>> >> >> As an aside, for those who may have missed it, SETI has been defunded.
>>
>> >> >> And, no, I didn't miss your caveat. I just disagree and suspect that
>> >> >> having thought about what one thinks is real, which does include the
>> >> >> concept of time, all one's lifetime...the notion of time becomes so
>> >> >> ingrained in one's world view that it is assumed to be an actual thing
>> >> >> rather than merely a thought.
>>
>> >> >> Yes, when one *thinks* about such things, they appear to be real. The
>> >> >> operative words here are "appears to be". As a mental exercise Lee,
>> >> >> I'll ask you to do your very best to imagine existing in
>> >> >> eternity...that which has no beginning and no end.
>>
>> >> >> Got the vision?.....from this perspective (the actual 'reality'), time
>> >> >> just is meaningless... especially if one also imagines no perceiver(s)
>> >> >> involved anywhere at all.
>>
>> >> >> On the other hand, I do know that there is life and that we, as human
>> >> >> beings do think and project our understandings upon the fabric of what
>> >> >> we project as being 'external' to ourselves. I don't deny this...it is
>> >> >> obvious that we do. It's just that what we project comes from mind and
>> >> >> not from whatever is actually there. What is actually there is not
>> >> >> what we perceives as time...it isn't color (except clear light as TTS
>> >> >> notes...something I've been contemplating for years now...something
>> >> >> that to the rational/thinking mind just can't be grasped)...it isn't
>> >> >> SETI...it isn't shape...it isn't anything that human senses perceive
>> >> >> and then apply some sort of belief about what is being
>> >> >> perceived...based upon previously attached beliefs. We don't in our
>> >> >> everyday mode perceive reality as it actually is. We do use
>> >> >> conventions mind agrees upon...for practicality's sake...its just that
>> >> >> in any ultimate sense, these conventions are nothing more than
>> >> >> that...they are not what is actually there. Remove the observer (and
>> >> >> associated senses) and what exists? Get it? No thinking...no
>> >> >> thoughts...no concepts...no words...no notions of reality....
>>
>> >> >> No, this isn't the conventional approach to things ontological nor
>> >> >> epistemological....yet, the exercise can be of enormous value in my
>> >> >> experience. No, I'm not attempting to impose a belief system upon you
>> >> >> or anyone else...in fact, it is almost like a diminution of belief if
>> >> >> anything at all!
>>
>> >> >> So, yes, how does one think about not thinking!!!
>>
>> >> >> Well...we have gone down this road quite often Lee...and you stop
>> >> >> after only a couple of paces which is fine.
>>
>> >> >> For me, I hunger to know beyond my own set of beliefs...which are
>> >> >> almost all things that I've attached to long ago and were formed based
>> >> >> upon words...and, not having created those words...there is little
>> >> >> that I actually know associated with these terms fed to me by others.
>>
>> >> >> To do this search, deconstruction [of beliefs] seems to be one method.
>> >> >> It isn't a road often traveled nor does it seem to be for everyone. So
>> >> >> be it!
>>
>> >> >> On May 4, 1:47 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > Hey Om,
>>
>> >> >> > Don't be shocked mate you might have missed this bit:
>>
>> >> >> > ' I must though disagree with you about concepts not existing without
>> >> >> > somebody to concive of them.  Sure I could probably think of a concept
>> >> >> > or two where this is applicable, time though is not one of them.'
>>
>> >> >> > I like you exanples OM, but we know in a scientific way what colours
>> >> >> > are, and yes without the eyes to sense them, they still exist.  The
>> >> >> > same with sound waves, yes of course with out the ears to hear and the
>> >> >> > brain to make sense of them, we can ask do they really exist, but the
>> >> >> > answer must be yes.
>>
>> >> >> > Think of it like this.  SETI have been listening to radio waves from
>> >> >> > space for many years now, prior to SETI being setup, where these radio
>> >> >> > signals simply not there?  Yes of course they where, we just didn't
>> >> >> > have the now how to listen to them.
>>
>> >> >> > There is a valid reason why we call somethings inventions and others
>> >> >> > discoverys.
>>
>> >> >> > I'm trying hard to Grok yoru meaning but you know that old fashioned
>> >> >> > reasoning keeps interfearing.
>>
>> >> >> > On May 4, 5:43 am, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > "…Naaaa I do not think that is what you are saying. " – Lee
>>
>> >> >> > > Lee, in many ways, it is exactly what I'm saying.
>>
>> >> >> > > First, a few examples: Color – we perceive color(s)…and different
>> >> >> > > people perceive colors differently for one another too. And I'm not
>> >> >> > > even thinking about the color blind nor the totally blind here. With
>> >> >> > > no human brain, what we know as color just will not exist. There may
>> >> >> > > be some sort of vibration/movement in the universe but there will be
>> >> >> > > no color because it takes a human being to see them. Please don't add
>> >> >> > > other life forms to the equation, the principle is the same. No
>> >> >> > > perceiver, no color.
>>
>> >> >> > > That is only one thing. How about country music? Again, while there
>> >> >> > > may be vibrations/movement, without a person to 'translate' these
>> >> >> > > vibrations into what we call country music, there just isn't any such
>> >> >> > > thing. It is a concept (country music) and doesn't exist without mind.
>>
>> >> >> > > I really was shocked when you said that you disagreed with me about
>> >> >> > > concepts not existing without a perceiver/thinker! Just how could say
>> >> >> > > a concept of 'freedom' exist without mind? It just doesn't.
>>
>> >> >> > > Adding a little more, when you bring in 'labels', yes, all concepts/
>> >> >> > > words (labels) are subjective and without mind they just don't exist.
>> >> >> > > Even when there *is* mind things like say the earth can be
>> >> >> > > deconstructed into atoms and/or molecules etc…stuff that is not what
>> >> >> > > we think about as being the planet. I haven't gone into this very
>> >> >> > > deeply but hope you grok.
>>
>> >> >> > > On May 3, 9:36 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
>> >> >> > > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > > Hahahah OM old chap, you and I have been round and around on manny
>> >> >> > > > matters, as you say though this is just fine.
>>
>> >> >> > > > Yes of course the perception of time is a construct of human thought,
>> >> >> > > > it is as I say the way we measure decay.
>>
>> >> >> > > > Yes of course if we do not project time upon the eternity then time
>> >> >> > > > cease to have any meaning.
>>
>> >> >> > > > Yet all that we know is contained in the universe and it is clear that
>> >> >> > > > within this universe time exists independant of human thought.
>>
>> >> >> > > > All that is physical, all that is matter is subject to decay at a
>> >> >> > > > certian rate, this is time working.
>>
>> >> >> > > > Do you belive then that whatever is apart from the universe does not
>> >> >> > > > come under the juristriction of time?  Are you saying that this thing
>> >> >> > > > we call God in some places is not subject to time, and that this is
>> >> >> > > > also true of
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -