True for a fact.

[melanie]

What do I know to be TRUE for a FACT.

How do I know I know?

Who (or what) is it that knows?

Perception - "that which is always becoming and never is"

"only the mind is born , not you"

Seeing is immaterial.

Who asks the question: "are there objects?" ?

Beyond this... It is all conjecture.

And no 'conjecture' can ever be 'real'

There is no 'out there' beyond 'no One'... beyond the edge of reason.

Separate objects exist only within mentation, they have no separate distinct non-relational existence on their own.

Where does the 'mountain' end and the 'valley' begin?

Is a 'river' ever separated from the 'ocean'?

Is a 'bracelet' ever anything but gold?

Where was the state of Texas a thousand years ago?


The 'Oneness' of which the sages speak is forever unavailable to the thinking mind...as the mind is not separate from it.

Taken a tiny step further and over the edge of thought.

If everything is one thing -nothing exists - nothing ever happened.

[melanie]

Illusion is the only reality.

- Houdini



Reason is the illusion of reality.

- Hazrat Inayat Khan

[melanie]

REALITY

Because the substratum (Infinite Consciousness) is real, all that is based on it acquires reality, though the reality is of the substratum alone.

The universe and all beings in it are but a long dream.

To me you are real, and to you I am real; even so the others are real to you or to me. And, this relative reality is like the reality of the dream-objects.

Whatever there is here which exists and functions here is real to the self and not to another who does not perceive it and is unaware of it.

Therefore, all these creations and creatures that exist within the field of the energy of consciousness are true to the perceiving self and are unreal to the non-perceiver.

All the notions and the dreams that exist in the present, past or the future are all real, because the self which is the self of all is real.

One can say that this world-appearance is real only so far as it is the manifestation of consciousness and because of direct experience;

and it is unreal when it is grasped with the mind and the sense-organs.

Wind is perceived as real in its motion, and it appears to be non-existent when there is no motion: even so this world-appearance can be regarded both as real and unreal.


~ Vasistha

[SteveA]

Logic appears "blind" to time and unable to recognize it.

I think consciousness is an interactive constructive process that alters those structures, though to the extent these are truly undetermined it would appear that ones own perception of time is potentially unique - because there's no rigid logic/form to describe change itself or when changes occur, then in that sense, time and change could be seen entirely self determined by whatever ones conscious interactions are.

Also, in communication or mathematics, the qualities of experience aren't communicated but instead quantities/numbers are used. That could be seen similar to referencing points in a logical structure (they could fundamentally each possess a unique reference/address though it could exist in terms of qualities that are consciously experienced and interacted with).

Yes, it's possible we're figuratively talking to reflections, and in many ways I think that's true - the elements that are intentionally or controllably referenced would appear to have to be things that are determined by oneself and in that manner already a part of oneself.

On the other hand, I think that's also partly a logical illusion - logic only describes itself. It doesn't describe the manner in which it is created or altered in context etc. It also doesn't explain how time can exist.

Consider this - if you flip a coin, how many unknowns could be involved in the result? One unknown or many unknowns would appear to be logically indistinguishable. How many "different hands" can build a house?

Something that occured to me recently is that there appears to be a way to extend logic, to some extent, to work with acausal or logically disconnected creative actions.

In a sense, because logic doesn't "see" time, we can potentially rule out the existence of something like a universal "clock" that counts time in a linear manner and replace logic similar to a structure of memory that simply records what has occured. Laws of physics would then regard the manner in which present actions inherit a context that's determined by the past, but don't determine what occurs relative to that context.

A better way to look at this is to imagine that there could be multiple creative "sources" without common units of time in terms of any duration or span in which things will connect over time that can cause things at specific rates, except for just a sequencial order (which might be observer determined) of these.

Basically, there's a way to cut the chain of cause and effect across time and replace it with a sequentially determined freedom operating within a common space - so yes, in some ways, only one form of "time" is operating at any moment and these could be entirely self determined, but before and after this, other alterations could be made by some other form of time and the "distances" in time between these could be seen as meaningless - it's simple the "next entity". It's also not impossible that these could be multiplexed within the same space, similar to leaving messages in a mailbox or creating a library to communicate across conceptual strucures that could appear to be timeless or eternally relative to each other (similar to one sleeping when the other is awake and visa versa (or any number of such sequences, multiplexed in arbitrary ways) and communicating via the environment or subconsciously etc. The duration of time between these could be in terms that wouldn't be physically measurable).

That still implies some structure that would allow such "next" events to occur, so it's still a connection and likely the form of it would still be determined by "self" but such a very minimally restrictive mechanism could allow communication with quite an array of things. It's also possible that qualities of experience arise from shared aspects as well.

I don't think there's any precise logical way to describe how anything "beyond" can exist, but precise logic also appears unable to describe how the perception of time exists and if time is an illusion, well it's a rather impressive one . So in that sense, there appears to be evidence that at least one thing exists that defies a precise description ... the next question would appear to be whether or not such is required to be singular (I personally think there are aspects of both and I believe that the "motive"/entropy of time arises from a diversity that doesn't lend itself to being something entirely determined in form, though some preexisting relationship would appear to have to be assumed - it seems best described as a mix of both - logic and change, noun and verb, a dynamic symmetry, never quite described as stable, yet not quite described perfectly as formless, one and many etc.).

[austintorn@aol.com]

Mel, I need a kiss in Bogie's quantum wave thread:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...tml#post131550

[Meem]

If everything is one thing -nothing exists - nothing ever happened.

A choir is one thing, as is a car, train, boat, person. Some choir's dont work very well though if one were to remove one of many things. The same goes for the other things mentioned. Many of the parts have sub parts within these many things which have parts listed. Many of them very different, working together unknowingly to carry out an over-all funtion. Of course, the gas pedal doesn't really know or care what the crankcase is doing in the car. But in a choir, the case isn't so much the same. In some of them, one part resents the other for their part, maybe even to the point of working against the part.

If nothing exists ( I have to say, in this sense-for me at least-I get the impression you mean nothing, not sumthing) there was no point in making the effort. Surely, sumthing exists, it just might be me or you, even if it's no-things.


I think conciousness could care less about time, but awareness, that might be another story.