[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick Mohan my friend,you are a true traveler of the way,one day I will shake you by the hand and treat you to a glass of lassi! An interesting question,what kind of cycle?I accept and embrace the idea and concept of an evolutionary cycle,one that has an ever upward arc,but does come to an end,then, after a long pause begins again,only with the expansions,(developments)somehow imprinted within its matrix,so that this next cycle there will be a step forward and upward ever onward towards realized perfection,which will take many cycles.or great breaths of Brahman! regards michael.

Thanks Michael,
And what could be the last breath. What would be the limit of perfection.
Who will decide that????

[Mohan.C]

I believe reality cannot be relative. All the things in everything is relative. But is everything relative. If it is relative then it should be a part of a bigger picture, which would make it not everything. So everything isn't relative. Its like nobody said absolute cannot be relative. If it can be reached. but all the trial and error we can think of would be relative to each other depending on their success. SO does that mean it is impossible to reach the absolute??

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C Thanks Michael, And what could be the last breath. What would be the limit of perfection. Who will decide that????

We will of course,however by that time even we would be non-existent,leaving just
the I AM>.

what a great exciting time lies before us my friend,embrace it,accept it,and move on!



regards michael.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Mohan.C I believe reality cannot be relative. All the things in everything is relative. But is everything relative. If it is relative then it should be a part of a bigger picture, which would make it not everything. So everything isn't relative. Its like nobody said absolute cannot be relative. If it can be reached. but all the trial and error we can think of would be relative to each other depending on their success. SO does that mean it is impossible to reach the absolute??

No it does not Mohan,we are within the absolute and the relative simultaneously,lets say
for simplicity that the outer temporal you is within relative time and space,while the inner
you,your soul/higher self exists within the timeless void of the absolute,all this occurs of
course without you having to do anything!It is a natural universal law operating within
the ufolding sequence of evolutions outworkings.


regards michael.

[Sapius]

.
Nobody;

I define observable reality as a time-dependent illusion, seemed and deemed "real" to observers; and I define the sum total of all the above-noted time-dependent bubbles as the equivalent of what is between those bubbles. So we cannot say that it IS when it only IS from observers' time-dependent vantage points, and when it ISN'T to the time-independent universe.

Time-independent universe does not exist, because from your own realizations there isn’t any such vantage point possible, so only time-dependency is all that there is. And if one considers that an ‘illusion’, then are collusions and reasoning that totally depend on time-dependant framework, illusions? What compels you to take me seriously or vice versa? Give me a reason to believe you are not a figment of my imagination.

"Nothing begets nothing." Agreed, as always. Yet, the illusion is not something.

If you say so, but in my opinion, if one can even imagine it, then it is necessarily “something”. Even nothing is something as a concept.

Just a further note re: Descartes' "I think, therefore I am." Perhaps, I think, therefore I think I am.

I have thought over that too, but I feel that that doesn’t help much.. What exactly does it imply really? That I should then not take you or myself seriously? One cannot think one self out of existence however hard one tries any ways, and further more say I'm conscious of 'unconsciousness'.

And I believe we have ‘objectivity’ right here and now. Two subjectivities confirm each other’s objectiveness. Otherwise you could never ever anticipate a coherent reaction from another or your environment to any degree. It is no “illusion” that I coherently understand and reply your post, which should give you the surety that it is not “you” whose thinking manifests my post.

In a similar manner, absolutely no thing need think to BE, it will however BE if and when the causal conditions are favorable. It doesn’t matter to anything or anyone else if I think or not, they necessarily operate independent of my thinking, otherwise I could at least think something out of existence, if I cannot create via just thinking.

.

[Sapius]

.

Hi sapius, I had said i would come back to that post later so here i am. Sapius I had tried to explain how the universe could have come from nothing. But I believe it is contradictory to the topic of the thread as I was of the opinion that nothing had infinite potential, as it could take every other value. But if it is proven right that nothing has potential then I am ready to accept it.

Hi Mohan,

Nothing cannot have any potential by definition, that is the reason we call is ‘nothing’, If we defined it differently, then we would have to create another word for it, and then it would be what that word defines it to be, but not the word itself which is but a symbol that represents its definition.

It’s the territory that is important, not the map that points to it. So clarity of definitions are necessary to begin with, if coherent conclusions is what one aims for.

.

[N0B0DY]

Originally Posted by Sapius .Time-independent universe does not exist, because from your own realizations there isn’t any such vantage point possible, so only time-dependency is all that there is. And if one considers that an ‘illusion’, then are collusions and reasoning that totally depend on time-dependant framework, illusions? What compels you to take me seriously or vice versa? Give me a reason to believe you are not a figment of my imagination.

If we correlate imagination and consciousness as processes that are determined by time, and it is time that is illusory, then we are both figments of a shared imagination. We cannot prove that there is an objective reality other than the one subjectively realized, but we can prove that there can be no reality without consciousness because reality is defined via observations.

What would be the reality of a rock when unobserved? I propose it is the same shared subconscious reality set according to probablistic explanations.

Originally Posted by Sapius If you say so, but in my opinion, if one can even imagine it, then it is necessarily “something”. Even nothing is something as a concept.

Again, nothing is a defined contextually in relative terms representative of lacking something; and therefore cannot commonsensically conceptually refer to something, imo.

Originally Posted by Sapius One cannot think one self out of existence however hard one tries any ways, and further more say I'm conscious of 'unconsciousness'.

That would be the point...not trying...not consciously interfering; then that is exactly what results, 'you' no longer exist. In the West, there is an implied 'seek and you shall find'; and in the East an implied 'seek without seeking'. Everything that is already done by the universe in no time, eventually is realized by the individual in time. Seeking and interfering is like trying to settle waves on water, instead of realizing that every point of the waves are already settled.

Originally Posted by Sapius And I believe we have ‘objectivity’ right here and now. Two subjectivities confirm each other’s objectiveness. Otherwise you could never ever anticipate a coherent reaction from another or your environment to any degree. It is no “illusion” that I coherently understand and reply your post, which should give you the surety that it is not “you” whose thinking manifests my post.

What is the difference between you and me? What can possibly separate the process by which the words are read and the words? Only the time it takes for potential information to set effectual parameters, which creates the media used to communicate. The confusion lies in understanding that the universal medium cannot exist, and therefore any thing or process 'said' to exist within such a medium must be deemed illusory - false; the 'free space' of science should better be coined 'full space' imo. So full that the information you're reading now has no possible means of objective transfer; then 'c' is the abstract basis for determining the rate at which information propagates over an infinite number of zero-dimensional (t=0) points. It must extend the points into one-dimensional timeframes which allows for an infinite number of variable velocities, of which finite velocities set the standard processing rate (a.k.a., the brain). Instead of thinking in terms of branes creating brains, think in terms of potential brain configurations setting the space-time parameters of the branes; the brain configuration is a partial extraction based on its temporal persistence of relative existence.

Originally Posted by Sapius In a similar manner, absolutely no thing need think to BE, it will however BE if and when the causal conditions are favorable. It doesn’t matter to anything or anyone else if I think or not, they necessarily operate independent of my thinking, otherwise I could at least think something out of existence, if I cannot create via just thinking.

I agree it doesn't matter to 'anything or anyone' if you think or not, but it matters to him/her if he/she thinks because without that process there can be no such defining of matter. It seems as though you are caught in your own mental construct of reality, and feel the absolute universe is forced to conform to that standard of reality. Yet, when your mind is realized as the central gateway of 'existence' then you can realize that things are created exactly as you disregarded above - by thinking that 'they' BE real.

Nothing and everything are synonymously-full of potential because neither absolute exists, and by default an infinite number of relative states - any state - can be realized.

The mathematical representation of the means of relativity is 0/0 btw. Just to give an alt. context, with the probabilities lying within 1 and 0.

[Mohan.C]

Now, if nothing has potential then it is not nothing but something.

But now my question is what is the potential of everything?
Everything has the potential to give everything away, here we don't have to say it has infinite potential because it is bounded by the limits of everything. Now, assume there was a point of time when everything in the universe was compressed to zero dimensional space time. It gave out everything or is still giving it out. What is left at the end of process at that point is nothing. So it immediately has to acquire a potential to take in everything. So the cycle repeats.
It is just an assumption though.
What are your views on this.

[swoarg]

Now, assume there was a point of time when everything in the universe was compressed to zero dimensional space time. It gave out everything or is still giving it out. What is left at the end of process at that point is nothing. So it immediately has to acquire a potential to take in everything. So the cycle repeats.

hi Mohan
if the cycle repeats it self from nothing, then it will repeat its self in exactly the same way it did before, meaning our future has allreay been mapped out ?.

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by swoarg hi Mohan if the cycle repeats it self from nothing, then it will repeat its self in exactly the same way it did before, meaning our future has allreay been mapped out ?.

It need not be the same way as before. It can go in randomly.
??