[N0B0DY]

Okay, thank you, Austin.

It's sort of like the Earth joined by two poles rotating in one direction, but two.

[austintorn@aol.com]

(The drawing of the mosque was from a site of pictures from old books, this one from 1840.
Amazingly, a little contrast fixed up a really dull picture and brought it to life.)

Do you have to squint to read this?:

[N0B0DY]

No need to squint on that one, Austin, though I did anyway because it is a very controversial read. I think if we put the two together in a particular fashion, we could end up with the many versions of Roman Catholicism.

I stand firm on what is not speaking through the rear, Austin; that there is neither freedom nor restraint in this world...try holding your breath. Yet their is a way to breathe without breathing that is quite liberating.

It is one thing to have a luxury of standing back and taking in the world in its many wonderous forms, or partaking in this, that or the other. Yet what can be done about the cancer patient confined to a bed, or the ones who lost their arms in a war for freedom. They might decide to draw with their toes, or maybe drink themselves to death. Should we care about them, or is that merely a part of universal expression or cosmic justice for things folks only think they are responsible for?

The Earth analogy I used can be thought and has been referred to as being simplistic, but it conveys perspectives and holistic transformation by flipping the world on its head in order to realize the potential buried within the subconscious mind. The folks looking top-down at the Earth are arguing with the folks looking bottom-up at the Earth, each claiming they know which way the Earth is spinning, when the Earth isn't spinning at all.

As implied in the above-linked except, there is only relative motion, never any such absolute motion; and the motional leads to emotional and mental imbalances that can never be controlled using the means that causes such unbalance.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Maybe it’s more like existentialism, since we were all thrust into this virtual existence and must live by what light there is.
All our DNA is imperfect and we help as we can those less fortunate.

“What, without asking, hither hurried whence?
And, without asking, whither hurried hence!” (Omar)

I gave up Catholicism in 5th grade, but had to remain in the school through eighth grade.
In sixth grade, I fell in love with the nun, staying afar, but she ran off with our priest. I should have made my move.
In seventh grade, they separated the boys from the girls, which led to a boys’ behavioral disaster.

“Another and another Cup to drown
The Memory of this Impertinence!”
concludes Omar.

[Fluent Piffle]

Everything is an illusion. There is no Truth to be found that is different than the truth you see, but there is a better experience of control over the illusion (reality) when the self is negated

Then surely your 'control' is an 'illusion' also?

I am conversant with 'Tao', but the 'old masters' lived at a time when Human understanding was little tested in the physical world. This must be taken into consideration, as their descriptions are relevant to their time, and ours must be, likewise, relevant to this time, in order for effective communication to take place (otherwise, you have 'nothing', eh?). A person of 'now', cannot possibly grasp the entire understanding of a person 5000 years his elder, when the entire 'climate' was different. We now have other, relevant information.

Everything is not 'illusion', it is just impermanent, flowing, forever changing. 'Everything is illusion' is a definitive statement, and as such, an extreme 'siding' over a balanced Reality. 'Impermanence' negates this, and allows for both perceived 'sides' to be expressed equally, bringing the old 'Tao' recognitions more into alignment with Reality. The old 'Daoists' have been mis-quoted from a 'western' perspective, but the newer ones...

When you check your mind, do not rationalize or push. Relax. Do not be upset when problems arise. Just be aware of them and where they come from; know their root. Introduce the problem to yourself: “Here is this kind of problem. How has it become a problem? What kind of mind has made it a problem? What kind of mind feels that it’s a problem?” When you check thoroughly, the problem will automatically disappear. That’s so simple, isn’t it? You don’t have to believe in something. Don’t believe anything! All the same, you can’t say, “I don’t believe I have a mind.” You can’t reject your mind. You can say, “I reject Eastern things”—I agree. But can you reject yourself? Can you deny your head, your nose? You cannot deny your mind. Therefore, treat yourself wisely and try to discover the true source of satisfaction. - Lama Yeshe http://www.lamayeshe.com/lamayeshe/mymo/mymo_1.shtml

...have moved 'spirituality' into the 21st century, by understanding that the 'ancients' were talking about a fledgling 'psychology'.




pif.

[N0B0DY]

Originally Posted by Fluent Piffle Then surely your 'control' is an 'illusion' also? I am conversant with 'Tao', but the 'old masters' lived at a time when Human understanding was little tested in the physical world. This must be taken into consideration, as their descriptions are relevant to their time, and ours must be, likewise, relevant to this time, in order for effective communication to take place (otherwise, you have 'nothing', eh?). A person of 'now', cannot possibly grasp the entire understanding of a person 5000 years his elder, when the entire 'climate' was different. We now have other, relevant information. Everything is not 'illusion', it is just impermanent, flowing, forever changing. 'Everything is illusion' is a definitive statement, and as such, an extreme 'siding' over a balanced Reality. 'Impermanence' negates this, and allows for both perceived 'sides' to be expressed equally, bringing the old 'Tao' recognitions more into alignment with Reality. The old 'Daoists' have been mis-quoted from a 'western' perspective, but the newer ones... ...have moved 'spirituality' into the 21st century, by understanding that the 'ancients' were talking about a fledgling 'psychology'.

People highly underestimate the influence psychology has on their belief systems, and like you cited we should be wary to believe anything...believe nothing. There is no "denying" the mind, which is synonymous to trying, but an absolute "letting go" of everything - even the breath and pulse - and then the "realizations" begin in various ways. The control has been indicated as illusory as well, pif, and the way is always consistent, but like trying to describe a scene of an accident or the taste of something, it is difficult to express clearly.

The balance point is easy enough to realize both scientifically and philosophically, as the canceling out of opposites, and anything extending from the absolute center (non existence) breaks universal symmetry or balance or absolute connection, and is thenceforth an illusion - all of it - because absolute solidity and absolute vacuity are representative of the same impenetrable state.

You mention the "times," but past and future are as illusory as the present, and the information database recording all experiences and knowledge is carried throughout all "times" from deep inside-out. This can be proven only to ourselves because first people won't believe you anyway, and second it is not about beliefs or proving our stuff to others. How many times have you lived, and how long does it take to live again?

I agree the problem and hence confusion lies in inferring "nothing" can refer to an existence, as in your statement: "otherwise, you have 'nothing', eh?" You can't "have" nothing, but Austin brought up a good point about imperfect DNA - indirectly, no doubt - with implications of which that can be applied to the ultimate Tao mentioned above, and can perhaps better explain the absence of the lack of abstractions. That the perfection is not an absolute state of changeless bliss, but the ultimate mastery of the illusory process based on understanding the sequences of decay in order to prevent its consequence; the decay rates and subsequent mutations are what time is made of, and controlling time - "time travel" - is the key to universal destiny.

We can both make the scientific prediction that the vacuum will always be observed as filled with some unknown substance, and extending this implication to the absolute level renders a vacuum that is full of the nameless (?).

[N0B0DY]

I thought I'd share one of the most interesting scientific books I've read.

http://www.hpcoders.com.au/theory-of-nothing.pdf

[Fluent Piffle]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY People highly underestimate the influence psychology has on their belief systems, and like you cited we should be wary to believe anything...believe nothing. There is no "denying" the mind, which is synonymous to trying, but an absolute "letting go" of everything - even the breath and pulse - and then the "realizations" begin in various ways. The control has been indicated as illusory as well, pif, and the way is always consistent, but like trying to describe a scene of an accident or the taste of something, it is difficult to express clearly. The balance point is easy enough to realize both scientifically and philosophically, as the canceling out of opposites, and anything extending from the absolute center (non existence) breaks universal symmetry or balance or absolute connection, and is thenceforth an illusion - all of it - because absolute solidity and absolute vacuity are representative of the same impenetrable state. You mention the "times," but past and future are as illusory as the present, and the information database recording all experiences and knowledge is carried throughout all "times" from deep inside-out. This can be proven only to ourselves because first people won't believe you anyway, and second it is not about beliefs or proving our stuff to others. How many times have you lived, and how long does it take to live again? I agree the problem and hence confusion lies in inferring "nothing" can refer to an existence, as in your statement: "otherwise, you have 'nothing', eh?" You can't "have" nothing, but Austin brought up a good point about imperfect DNA - indirectly, no doubt - with implications of which that can be applied to the ultimate Tao mentioned above, and can perhaps better explain the absence of the lack of abstractions. That the perfection is not an absolute state of changeless bliss, but the ultimate mastery of the illusory process based on understanding the sequences of decay in order to prevent its consequence; the decay rates and subsequent mutations are what time is made of, and controlling time - "time travel" - is the key to universal destiny. We can both make the scientific prediction that the vacuum will always be observed as filled with some unknown substance, and extending this implication to the absolute level renders a vacuum that is full of the nameless (?).

The preacher-politician 'sees' this much, and decides that the 'remedy' should be to indoctrinate people into believing there is no such thing as 'choice' (only the word of 'god', or 'state', etc). In doing this, he neglects his own truth, that he has had to choose this option himself, and thus become a hypocrite to his own doctrine. Slowly, this hypocrisy weaves its way into the fabric of his 'preaching', and becomes acceptable to the entire 'culture' dependant on his 'word', who consequently have an 'unforeseen problem', such as the one we are trying to negotiate.
As a product of these negotiations, there is talk of such things as 'cancelling out' of opposites. This helps to arrive at a 'nothing' conclusion. However, in Reality opposites do not actually 'cancel out', do not become 'non-existent', just because we train our minds to believe it so. The psychology is, that we usually have trained our minds to accept and choose only one side of the possibility, to choose what we 'want', in favour of negating the 'wrong' or the 'bad', and this makes us wilfully 'blind' to the true Reality. This has become such a common-place occurrence for Humans, that the problem is a deep and profound one, and thus we seek 'deep and profound' 'remedies'. This brings us 'full circle', back to a state of needing another preacher-politician, who can only hypocritically 'tell how it is'.

How do we get out of this viciously circular thinking?

perfection is not an absolute state of changeless bliss, but the ultimate mastery of the illusory process

Just a short, randomly selected passage from your text... How is it possible to 'master' an 'illusory process'? The only thing we currently understand for sure, is that all things constantly change, how, then, can there be such a thing as 'perfection'? Surely, the moment something 'attained perfection', it would be doomed to change back into the non-perfect? Is it not the actuality that 'perfection' is simply a wishful-thinking mind-state, developed by Humans? Is not 'changeless bliss' another catch-phrase sucked out of old 'venerated' texts, themselves subject to the same hypocritical 'unforeseen-ness' as we have investigated earlier?

I think, if we begin somewhere that is already a part of the previous 'vicious circle', we will not have a sufficiently clear 'cornerstone' on which to build anything more significant than the same as before. The vicious circle is, basically, 'dualistic thinking', and people do not like to lose this as it is their 'comfort zone'.

For me, rather than 'cancelling out' opposites, the 'remedy' is to become accepting of all the possibilities (not just 'both'). Necessarily, this puts many things 'outside the comfort zone', but this is the only way to Truth, which is not always 'comfortable'.



pif.

[Zach?]

The theory of nothing is tricky to explane. My Physics teacher, Who is a very smart man, and on like most teachers I've ever had he is very open to all theory's, just can not comprehend it. He totally pushes it off knowmatter the evidence. But after giving each other are arguments numerouse times I relized are arguments are basically the same, We just enterpret the evidence in different ways. Basically it comes down to this, I say that everything in excitence is put into two Catogory's the physical and the none physical. Anything that is physical is part of everything, and the none physical is part of nothing. So everything is made of protons, Neutrons and electrons, and "nothing" is simply not. it is common knowledge the protons and neutrons make up the nucleus and the electrons circle around the nucleus and never touch, and that the electrons never come in contact with the nucleus. So what force holds the atom together? A magnetic field right. Well this is where we disagree I say that the Magnetic field is prove that nothing exist and serves a purpose, it has a fuction. My teacher Mr. Brosnan says that the magnetic field proves nothing dosn't exist because it's not empty space between the neaclus and the electron the space is filled with the magnetic field. GOT TO GO TO CLASS WILL FINISH LATER.

[N0B0DY]

Pif,

What you said here, "Surely, the moment something 'attained perfection', it would be doomed to change back into the non-perfect?" is exactly the point in question, and is the default reason for observable imperfection - though understandably thought to be perfect by some folks. The god you referred to is representative of the perfect circle, that representative zero, divided naturally by default into an infinite number of "gods" - 0/0 - and from the created illusory chaos is found both imperfection and the means of using the gateway of non existence (timelessness) to time travel and attain the requisite knowledge to fully understand the consequences of the evolutionary process.

It is ultimately not about playing god or teacher, but about realizing for ourselves the only possible means that the "universe" can overcome in no time, the imperfect outcomes that occur as a procession. The gateway is the void (absolute unconsciousness) reached in the breathless state, iow death. So we draw from or reject this as we wish, based upon our own understanding of stuff uncovered through our experiences.