[Drifter]

Mankind has wrongly personified "God" as a person. It is a Being in the sense that it is that mysterious creative energy that has given rise to all things. I thought this was explained quite clearly in the T. o. n. thread but I guess it will always remain a vague and incomprehensible idea to many?
The Creative Force, Power, or Energy that is the uncaused cause or the fist cause of everything and all things was intentionally misinterpreted by the Roman Catholic church which helped finance the mighty Roman Empire.
Timothy Freke does quite an excellent expose of this in his book; The Laughing Jesus.
so mankind, including most of those associated witin the R. C. Church and most others perpetuate the falsification of the true records of Christ and exactly what that means.

Originally Posted by Profpat

Hi Nobody;

I don't think I can better express the concept of wuji.
I can't say it's nothing because that implies "things".
Being a theist I assume God is eternal, and was the creator of all things. But God by definition would be a
Person or Thing. I started my particle creation Idea with the Void, but included Brahman, Joy and Life, in that Void. As the link I posted said: " The name that can be named is not the true name " So, I don't know that the concept of wuji is capable of being expanded upon.

Fredrick and I get along fine. It was he that told me on one of my first post that I surely could mention God on his thread. Ever since I have great respect for him.

Austin, God bless him, was the one who was able to transport my pdf file to an actual post and made it easier to read in the process.

I actually welcome all input regarding my Idea, which includes not only you, but Austin and Fredrick, and all others.

Best to you,

Pat

[N0B0DY]

No, you're right, Pat. A non-existent state can't very well be expounded upon or expressed at all without causing confusion. As I had once mentioned to Fredrick, stating that "nothing" exists when what is meant by that is nothing doesn't exist - it is not an unknown "something" that exists - is a limitation in terms.

Yet, the mechanism for creating the dimensions from the point particles, and the mechanism for creating the point particles from the absolute frame of wuji, can be expounded in various ways. The point particles have been likened to any macroscopic object from a great distance, and we can deduce from this implication that the point particles - though infinitesimal - are multi-dimensional if their respective scales were increased.

The point where the mechanism for all of creation comes in is at the absolute center of the point particle - not the infinitely decreased scale - which would have to equate to the non-existent state of wuji in order for there to be any concept at all of dimensions. If you follow, from what I gather there is a time mechanism that breaks the absolute symmetry of the wuji state into point masses, charges, strings, membranes, etc..

What I tried to point out to MJA, is that it is only possible to observe what is observed - any proclaimed truth of nature is limited to this - and this limit is based on asymmetrical phenomena. The popularized noumenon, if ever observed, would be likened to the absolute unification of the light spectrum - it would be absolute light, but this light would not be white or black, which are variable shades of gray; it would have to be colorless and completely static because of its fullness. So I simply infer that this substanceless "substance" is non-existent. It can't exist in and of itself.

[N0B0DY]

Just to give perhaps a clearer example of what might not be too clear from my previous post regarding the center point of dimensions.

If we think in terms of "up and down" and imagine ourselves at the center of a vertical line between what we would observe as up and what we would observe as down, that center point as well would have its own center which would render another observable up and down reference. This could continue to infinity, but in order for there to be any possibility of up and down - without requiring verification - the absolute center would have to have no up and down reference frame; and this center of the absolute frame would have to (not exist) at the center of all relative dimensional measurements.

[Drifter]

Two but not Two.
http://cs.astronomy.com/asycs/forums...52.aspx#356652

Originally Posted by Profpat

Actually MJA the wuji state is probably as close as we'll get to your absolute =. I guess it would be similar to the void. There is no differenciation. All is the same, NOTHING.

Now Mr. Smartie Pants for your wedgie.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by Drifter

Mankind has wrongly personified "God" as a person. It is a Being in the sense that it is that mysterious creative energy that has given rise to all things. I thought this was explained quite clearly in the T. o. n. thread but I guess it will always remain a vague and incomprehensible idea to many?
The Creative Force, Power, or Energy that is the uncaused cause or the fist cause of everything and all things was intentionally misinterpreted by the Roman Catholic church which helped finance the mighty Roman Empire.
Timothy Freke does quite an excellent expose of this in his book; The Laughing Jesus.
so mankind, including most of those associated witin the R. C. Church and most others perpetuate the falsification of the true records of Christ and exactly what that means.

Hi Drifter;

Maybe I should expand my thoughts on God.
To me God is Person, Place and Thing. Everything if you will.

To me only Love is real, and God is Love.

Now some may say what about suffering and pain, all part of Love. This is perhaps best expressed in Kahlil Gibran's beautiful essay on Love which is in his book THE PROPHET. A section of it is quoted below:

Kahlil Gibran on Love
When love beckons to you, follow him,
Though his ways are hard and steep.
And when his wings enfold you yield to him,
Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound you.
And when he speaks to you believe in him,
Though his voice may shatter your dreams as the north wind lays waste the garden.

For even as love crowns you so shall he crucify you. Even as he is for your growth so is he for your pruning.
Even as he ascends to your height and caresses your tenderest branches that quiver in the sun,
So shall he descend to your roots and shake them in their clinging to the earth.

The complete poem/essay can be accessed at:
( http://www.katsandogz.com/onlove.html )

Light
Organized
Vibrating
Energy

Best to you,

Pat

[Drifter]

Yes Professor. I first read Kahil Gibran's The Prophet some 35 years ago. I still have a copy on the shelf.

When the flesh [ego, and all its attachments] is "crucified on the cross", , if done with sincerity and conviction, the True Self can and does arise.

Self Creation
http://archives.zinester.com/70603/67979.html

Creation of the Universe.
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brdup/brhad_I-04.html

Originally Posted by Profpat

Hi Drifter;

Maybe I should expand my thoughts on God.
To me God is Person, Place and Thing. Everything if you will.

To me only Love is real, and God is Love.

Now some may say what about suffering and pain, all part of Love. This is perhaps best expressed in Kahlil Gibran's beautiful essay on Love which is in his book THE PROPHET. A section of it is quoted below:

Kahlil Gibran on Love
When love beckons to you, follow him,
Though his ways are hard and steep.
And when his wings enfold you yield to him,
Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound you.
And when he speaks to you believe in him,
Though his voice may shatter your dreams as the north wind lays waste the garden.

For even as love crowns you so shall he crucify you. Even as he is for your growth so is he for your pruning.
Even as he ascends to your height and caresses your tenderest branches that quiver in the sun,
So shall he descend to your roots and shake them in their clinging to the earth.

The complete poem/essay can be accessed at:
( http://www.katsandogz.com/onlove.html )

Light
Organized
Vibrating
Energy

Best to you,

Pat

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

No, you're right, Pat. A non-existent state can't very well be expounded upon or expressed at all without causing confusion. As I had once mentioned to Fredrick, stating that "nothing" exists when what is meant by that is nothing doesn't exist - it is not an unknown "something" that exists - is a limitation in terms.

Yet, the mechanism for creating the dimensions from the point particles, and the mechanism for creating the point particles from the absolute frame of wuji, can be expounded in various ways. The point particles have been likened to any macroscopic object from a great distance, and we can deduce from this implication that the point particles - though infinitesimal - are multi-dimensional if their respective scales were increased.

The point where the mechanism for all of creation comes in is at the absolute center of the point particle - not the infinitely decreased scale - which would have to equate to the non-existent state of wuji in order for there to be any concept at all of dimensions. If you follow, from what I gather there is a time mechanism that breaks the absolute symmetry of the wuji state into point masses, charges, strings, membranes, etc..

What I tried to point out to MJA, is that it is only possible to observe what is observed -

any proclaimed truth of nature is limited to this - and this limit is based on asymmetrical phenomena. The popularized noumenon, if ever observed, would be likened to the absolute unification of the light spectrum - it would be absolute light, but this light would not be white or black, which are variable shades of gray; it would have to be colorless and completely static because of its fullness. So I simply infer that this substanceless "substance" is non-existent. It can't exist in and of itself.

Hi Nobody;

It appears you have a better understanding of the wuji state than I do. I have to admit I'm not that comfortable with this wuji state, in that as you can see above I believe in God as Creator.

Best,

Pat

[N0B0DY]

God can be said to create a great many things, good, bad and ugly, and I agree that the wuji state is not a comfortable state, primarily because it is non-existent. Though, some less-fortunate folks say that they are not too comfortable with this imbalanced world.

The wuji non-state is considered transcendental, if, say, heaven were to be an infinite distance away and you were to travel at an infinite speed, it would take an eternity to reach heaven. In other words, it would never be reached. Alternatively, even if an infinite distance away (from the heart and mind), the wuji state can get you there in no time at all.

It's very difficult to express, it's true.

[dipayankar]

Hi can anybody help me with what wuji exactly means???

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

God can be said to create a great many things, good, bad and ugly, and I agree that the wuji state is not a comfortable state, primarily because it is non-existent. Though, some less-fortunate folks say that they are not too comfortable with this imbalanced world.

The wuji non-state is considered transcendental, if, say, heaven were to be an infinite distance away and you were to travel at an infinite speed, it would take an eternity to reach heaven. In other words, it would never be reached. Alternatively, even if an infinite distance away (from the heart and mind), the wuji state can get you there in no time at all.

It's very difficult to express, it's true.

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

Hi can anybody help me with what wuji exactly means???

Hi Dipayankar;


What is there before the outset? And how does something come from nothing? Those are the deep philosophical questions posed by the diagram on the left.
The initial emptiness, the empty circle, is called Wuji in Chinese (the characters on the right). In this context it is translated as "without polarity". Strictly, there is nothing, not even the boundary of the circle, but in making it the object of discussion we symbolize it. Of course we should not, because "nothing" isn't, because the name that can be named is not the true name. But we need it as a point of contrast with what is.

If you go to post #240 you'll see a further discussion on this matter and a link to the internet regarding it.

Best,

Pat