[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by north

first define " proytle " I cannot find the meaning of this word in any of my dictionaries

noumena > defined as > a posited object or event as it appears in itself independent of perception by the senses.

involutionary> defined as , in this case > inward curvature or penetration.

am I on the right track so far?

I am not surprised that you find no mention of the Protyle atom north,it is an obscure term used in early theosophy,and is mentioned in the Secret Doctrine by H p Blavatsky,
As I have been reading through these books for over 30 years,I forget that today they
are obscure,I aploligise for this foolish oversight.

The "Atom" was seen as the first Substance,from which all matter and motion flowed
from,a singularity from a point appearing within the face of the deep (void)noumena!

hope this helps.

regards michael.

[north]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick

I am not surprised that you find no mention of the Protyle atom north,it is an obscure term used in early theosophy,and is mentioned in the Secret Doctrine by H p Blavatsky,
As I have been reading through these books for over 30 years,I forget that today they
are obscure,I aploligise for this foolish oversight.

The "Atom" was seen as the first Substance,from which all matter and motion flowed
from,a singularity from a point appearing within the face of the deep (void)noumena!

hope this helps.

regards michael.

first appology accepted

as for the void , there never was . energy/matter always was and for ever shall be since absolute Universe of nothing can never exist.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by north

first appology accepted

as for the void , there never was . energy/matter always was and for ever shall be since absolute Universe of nothing can never exist.

That depends on your understanding of nothing or no-thing=all-thing.You only have
to look through Nobody's marathon theory of nothing thread to see some of the implications and varied understandings as to what is nothing??

I partially agree with you about energy/matter,yes they are always there,but,when the cycle of existence winds down,and all falls back into obscouration,then energy and matter
are "turned off" become absorbed within,and are then again "unrealized potential"!



regards michael.

[Profpat]

[quote=mkirkpatrick;33661]

I am one,and "I" transcend matter,time,and space,therefore,I am,within the eternal now,
and without need of motion,as "I" am ubiquitous,now I am also within temporal space
and also informed of dence matter,so here in the illusary relative universe "things" are
very different from the "Thing" of the absolute.

Michael that quote describes the epiphany I experienced when I tranced myself and had the OBE, where only darkness and light existed, and knowledge of what is real.(Only darkness and light all else illusion ) No Profpat only I AM.
Well put my friend, and an interesting thread I somehow missed.

But I don't think, time, space or motion are illusions rather they are concepts. Man made definitions.
Its matter that is the illusion, and therefore we have problems with measurement, in that we are measuring an illusion.
Something that you pointed out ( correctly )is relative and not absolute.

Well just some thoughts I had.

Best to all,

Pat

[mkirkpatrick]

[quote=Profpat;33712]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick

I am one,and "I" transcend matter,time,and space,therefore,I am,within the eternal now,
and without need of motion,as "I" am ubiquitous,now I am also within temporal space
and also informed of dence matter,so here in the illusary relative universe "things" are
very different from the "Thing" of the absolute.

Michael that quote describes the epiphany I experienced when I tranced myself and had the OBE, where only darkness and light existed, and knowledge of what is real.(Only darkness and light all else illusion ) No Profpat only I AM.
Well put my friend, and an interesting thread I somehow missed.

But I don't think, time, space or motion are illusions rather they are concepts. Man made definitions.
Its matter that is the illusion, and therefore we have problems with measurement, in that we are measuring an illusion.
Something that you pointed out ( correctly )is relative and not absolute.

Well just some thoughts I had.

Best to all,

Pat

Thanks Pat,when we look out with our physical eyes,we become confused with the "many"
when we look within,with the eyes of conscious consciousness,we see a far different picture unfolding before us.All that seems without is in reality an illusion.

regards michael.

[north]

[quote=mkirkpatrick;33716]

Originally Posted by Profpat

Thanks Pat,when we look out with our physical eyes,we become confused with the "many"
when we look within,with the eyes of conscious consciousness,we see a far different picture unfolding before us.All that seems without is in reality an illusion.

regards michael.

yet if I were to go into the arctic , regardless of my ability to " see " the cold of the without strikes its own reality to my body .