origin of the universe,a product on mind,.

[mkirkpatrick]

To me it seems that all things in the last analysis,are a product of mind.
and that would include this universe,and any other as well.

Thought stuff,or chitta,as it is somrtimes called,in the east,focussed
thought,directed energy,seem to bring about manifestation of form.
or in other words,matter.what then is matter,surely it is just condenced
thought.As water can express itself in,liquid form,or gas,or solid,like ice,
I would suggest that thought can do the same,after all an artist thinks
about his painting first,then brings it to life,so to speak,by intension.

there is a saying in the east that,thoughts are things,and those things
can become a universe.

regards michael.

[dleviwing]

Michael;
Thought is a "THING" by definition of a spoken word or language and not by the definition of physical existence. What you are stating is Religion, Not Science.
Are you trying to say that only thought manifests physical reality? The universe existed long before any creature acquired the ability to think!

[Mr. Nobody]

"A world, a reality existing independantly of what can be said about it, is void of any meaning. It is obvious that any property or feature of reality "out there" can only be based on information we receive. There can not be any statement whatsoever about the world or about reality that is not based on such information. It therefore follows that the concept of a reality without at least the ability in principle to make statements about it, to obtain information about its features is devoid of any possibility of confirmation or proof. This implies that the distinction between information, that is knowledge, and reality is devoid of any meaning. In other words, it is impossible to distinguish operationally in any way reality from information. Therefore, following Occam's razor, the notion of the two being distinct should be abandoned, as the assumption of the existence of such a difference does not add anything that could not also be obtained without it"

What if you take this statement one step further and revise it to: A world, a reality existing independantly of what an observer can say about it, is void of any meaning

[mkirkpatrick]

Before the big bang,there was an unmindful potential,a complete absence of
thought,an infinite ocean of absence potential,then there arose a idea
that became a projected reality,via a focussed intent of absolute mind,and it is still outworking that awesome intent and will not be entirely expressed until the
idea is fully realised,when that happens,all will fall back into obscuration,and will return to the thinker.there will be no more universe,for a while.I have read
most of the current theories on how the universe came to be,and have also read some of the older ideas,they all have merit and have all been Thought out,and that brings me back to that very thing.Thought,we think about things,a builder
designs a house,from his mind he then gathers the materials together to make this happen.it started of as a idea,a product of mind,would we deny some
infinite intelligence of being able to do something,that we do all the time?I wonder.It seems to me that sooner or later,and personally.I think it will be within the next five years,there will infinite coleus the understanding that all that we know Andover will know,including where the universe came from,will Andover to be a distinct product on Mind.
kind regards,michael.

[Guille]

Michael,

Thoughts don't exist in the physical world as thoughts, as their own substance: they only exist as electrical charges and neuron connections. Thoughts in the mind are also not objects. They are subjects. If they were objects then they would be objective, universal. But they are not: a thought can only exist within a particular mind, not in other minds. Even if my thought that the capital of France is Paris is the same as yours, they are still different.

[mkirkpatrick]

Michael,

Thoughts don't exist in the physical world as thoughts, as their own substance: they only exist as electrical charges and neuron connections. Thoughts in the mind are also not objects. They are subjects. If they were objects then they would be objective, universal. But they are not: a thought can only exist within a particular mind, not in other minds. Even if my thought that the capital of France is Paris is the same as yours, they are still different.

As it is written in the ageless wisdom "thoughts are things"and if a thought remains
focussed and intent aligned then that thought becomes a physical reality,we use words
like other minds,but would suggest there is but one mind that we all tap into?


regards michael.

[Graybeard]

Someone once said ...... That nothing exists unless we perceive it.
A prominent spiritual leader, looking out of his study at a tree in the Quadrangle below, was moved to make this reply .....

'That God ... must find it exceedingly odd
When he finds that this tree
continues to be ..... when there is no one about in the Quad'

But God said ......

'Dear Sirs .... I find your astonishment odd. !!!
As I'm always about in the Quad
And thats why this tree ..
continues to be ..
Since observed by yours faithfully ... God'

Mango.

[mkirkpatrick]

That is so true Greg,many thanks mate.

It is exceedingly odd when we all accept that a relative human being such as an architect
can visualise and concieve of a plan and shape for a building,commit this plan to a drawing from his mind,then when fully drawn and measured out,assemble the materials
to have this "idea" made manifest and constructed into a tangible visible building.

Yet we think it ridiculous and an affront to our intelligence to imagine that an Absolute
Being could visualise and concieve a universe from its Being and project that idea
and intention out into manifested tangible form?

Maybe we should re-examine the role of the Architect!

regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Yes MK, the real architect, and the self-circuitry of... For without this understanding, we're only babbling... Hint, look for the rational understanding of infinity... Infinity can be rationalized into its absolute essence, with computational logic, thus can not be sucessfully used as a manifestation of god or spirit. One only need use the self-proving logical computations of the cesium atom's decay, the cmbr as test-tube proof, in relation to the known laws of physics in all its dynamic realities.

regards,

[mkirkpatrick]

Prehaps Lloyd your ego is suggesting that YOU are the architect,and that reality
spirals around your presumptuous bloated ego?Check it out,you may be suprised!

regardsmichael/