[N0B0DY]

Originally Posted by melanie

Perhaps Osha interprets eternity as timeless as well, but it still implies to me an infinite extension of time.

In other words, eternity is time never ending, whereas absolute timelessness has absolutely no time.

Alot of the ancient texts have been interpreted as matter of fact, but when digested we can see that the gateway spoken of cannot be about eternity or bliss. It can only be the means of getting to point B - fully-evolved - in no time. Otherwise it takes eternity to never get "there."

[N0B0DY]

Hello, Graham.

After rereading your perspectives it seems that we agree for the most part on time dependency. Yet, the link of time-dependent reality and consciousness aren't separated in my interpretation. There is no dawn of time, or trees, or houses, or people, etc. outside of the time required to process potential information.

The potential information then is based upon a certain number of strict factors (laws) that govern the amount of information that can be processed in a certain timeframe. Since we can know that we only observe a finite "quantum" of information based upon differentiation, and all of reality from what is thought to be its evolutionary procession is a finite quantum extended from what has been categorized through learning and experience, we can then extend these facts to infer that the entirety of the Energy (informational) Spectrum would result in an undifferentiated state. And from this we can conclude that "reality," in the only way reality can be known, ceases at the absolute point.

The Earth analogy is a simple one, but clear enough to realize that, say, the center of the Earth cannot exist eventhough we are thought to exist upon it - the operative word being to think. There can be no such conception as outward from the absolute center of the Earth without the absolute center lacking dimensions, and without dimensions it does not exist.

The above latter point is the result of pitting Newton and Einstein together, whereby the reality of the Earth and all its inhabitants are relative abstractions based on two abstract perspectives that result from Newton's absolute space and time: one being fully expanded; and the other fully contracted.

[melanie]

Originally Posted by Drifter

A Powerful Idea about teaching ideas.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/228

Thanks Drifter,

Enjoyed this very much, keeping it simple certainly so.. like childs play isn't it?

Amazing how when the light foam ball, and the heavy ball, are dropped from a height simultaneously, then touch land simultaneously.

i have my own intuit interpretation about that, know what i mean vern? ... but anyway that's another long story, would take too long to explain,
what i would like to say is .. it has to start out very basic and simple,
and the open secret is, it is still very basic and simple .. i mean it could never have been difficult could it, otherwise how would it have ever got off the ground

melanie.

[melanie]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

Perhaps Osha interprets eternity as timeless as well, but it still implies to me an infinite extension of time.

In other words, eternity is time never ending, whereas absolute timelessness has absolutely no time.

Alot of the ancient texts have been interpreted as matter of fact, but when digested we can see that the gateway spoken of cannot be about eternity or bliss. It can only be the means of getting to point B - fully-evolved - in no time. Otherwise it takes eternity to never get "there."

Yes nobody i agree there is no where to go and nothing to get and certainly no bliss
unless you are awake to this realization of perfect stillness nothingness,
we are already here and nowhere absolutely.
It is only our senses that trick our mind into an apparent space time zone,
creating movement and sensation, and this is rising and falling in the instantaneous now, no permanent existence to be found anywhere, so nothing real.
You've maybe heard the expression ''at that moment time stood still'' and where is time in deep dreamless sleep.

- Nobody:
In other words, eternity is time never ending, whereas absolute timelessness has absolutely no time.

When you talk of these two analogies nobody, you say eternity is time never ending, whereas absolute timelessness has absolutely no time.
Surely there are no distinctions here, are you not saying the same thing?
I mean when we consider the absolute as the attribute-less no concept in mind, the appearance of time would be totally illusional wouldn't it.
So why is it even necessary to mention it in this discussion about timeless presence. Just curious and thanks nobody, for you're lovely thread.

melanie.

[melanie]

- GB:
maybe we came from trees? ... maybe the way of a plant is more benefit then a less stationary life form and all we do is for naught but to die for the tree to have the gathering effect of the human condition to fertilize it better?

~Peace! Graham

PS maybe we would be better off hugging a tree once in a while and saying hi great great ... grand parent, miss you!

I think we are the tree, the consciousness of the human body mind organism,
perceives the tree and is not separate from, although the tree is conscious,
it is not able to perceive itself, 'we' apparently are the instrument that sees.
the tree sees itself through 'us' and is not separate from 'us'
'we' are looking at ourself when 'we' look at a tree, it is a projection of ourself.
WE and every-thing else are the SEEN

The essential real invisible self projects all images through 'us' AS 'us' APPEARING as real, 'we' the perceivers observers are the reflection of that.
Perceiver and perceived being one and the same.


All images are ONE whole picture appearing as many.
The recycling idea is our best clue to eternal life, as nothing ever dies,
it only appears that way.

melanie.

[N0B0DY]

This thread is about penetrating perceptions of reality, Melanie. Only someone as sweet as yourself can make it lovely.

Regarding the time business. It is essentially what my theory is based on, only time, in order to differentiate time and no time. I have given a few analogies, as have you, and the bridge for our ideas might lie in realizing each others interpretations.

I can understand what you mean when you say that time stands still in the moment. Sort of like eack instant is a still snapshot of reality. Yet, my interpretation of time is based more on the time it takes to process the snapshots. Just like an invisible point might be commonly thought to be zero-dimensional, in order for it to exist it must be extended dimensionally and time is a similar extension without which there can be no existent present point in time or space.

This is how we can correlate everything - time - with consciousness, due to time being necessary in order to be conscious or aware of something or someone, including yourself. Infinite space and eternal time go hand-in-hand as extensions from timelessness, but timelessness I correlate with unconsciousness. As in, when consciousness (the ego) is fully negated, the unconscious gateway is used to transcend the evolutionary process - "The Eternal Return."

[melanie]

The Self is the eternal, timeless Truth. It's nature is non-dual, one without a second. Advaita Vedanta (the teaching of non-duality) reveals this Truth, and Self-realization is of the nature of direct experience transcending all perceptions and notions. There is complete absence of the delusion of duality, which manifests as the notions of an ego, a mind, a body and an objective world. Sankalpas (notions assumed to be valid due to lack of inquiry into them) alone constitute all those illusions. On freeing oneself from illusion, what remains is Being-Consciousness-Bliss, the Self. Being abides in itself: Consciousness knows itself; Bliss reposes in itself. The Self alone is and knows itself by itself.

The seeker of Truth must approach the Truth in a way that yields the intended fruit. Self-realization is deep, lasting happiness and attaining it is the purpose of life. The aspirant must be endowed with an intense desire for liberation. Having discerned what is eternal and the source of happiness, he should be non-attached to all that is transitory, all that is mutable, all that is mere, fleeting phenomenal appearance, all that depends upon the senses, all that depends on the mind, and all that depends on the jiva (individual) in order to be experienced. The aspirant should be endowed with the power of discrimination. He should embrace the inquiry into the real nature of the Self. He should discriminate between the real and the unreal so that he realizes the real ever is and the unreal never came to be. He should regard all that is transitory, changeful, objective, composed as parts, sporadic, or dependent as unreal. He should realize that that which is eternal, unchanging, non-objective, indivisible and partless, continuous and non-dependent is the ever-existent Reality. Abandoning the notions of the external, which give rise to the appearance of the world, and the notions of the internal, which give rise to the delusions of a mind and an individual, the aspirant should have full faith in the sacred knowledge of Advaita Vedanta.

[melanie]

-nobody:

I can understand what you mean when you say that time stands still in the moment. Sort of like eack instant is a still snapshot of reality. Yet, my interpretation of time is based more on the time it takes to process the snapshots. Just like an invisible point might be commonly thought to be zero-dimensional, in order for it to exist it must be extended dimensionally and time is a similar extension without which there can be no existent present point in time or space.

Yes i'm sorry nobody you are quite right,
and your thread is an excellent
representation of what you are interpreting and i thank-you for that.

Sorry nobody i forget this is not a non-dual forum, i apologize.
The post above is my only reality interpretation now.
Your work and writing is extremely interesting however and you continue to inspire people and myself with your analogies.

melanie.

[Drifter]

Lovely post Mel and Nobody,

I liked The Analogy of The Painter and the painting.

"The Picture is not the Painter, but the Painter is in the Picture."

and;

"The Creature is not the Creator, but the Creator is in the Creature."

Simply a matter of perspectives(seeing/sight/envisioning) wouldn't you agree?

Originally Posted by N0B0DY

This thread is about penetrating perceptions of reality, Melanie. Only someone as sweet as yourself can make it lovely.

Regarding the time business. It is essentially what my theory is based on, only time, in order to differentiate time and no time. I have given a few analogies, as have you, and the bridge for our ideas might lie in realizing each others interpretations.

I can understand what you mean when you say that time stands still in the moment. Sort of like eack instant is a still snapshot of reality. Yet, my interpretation of time is based more on the time it takes to process the snapshots. Just like an invisible point might be commonly thought to be zero-dimensional, in order for it to exist it must be extended dimensionally and time is a similar extension without which there can be no existent present point in time or space.

This is how we can correlate everything - time - with consciousness, due to time being necessary in order to be conscious or aware of something or someone, including yourself. Infinite space and eternal time go hand-in-hand as extensions from timelessness, but timelessness I correlate with unconsciousness. As in, when consciousness (the ego) is fully negated, the unconscious gateway is used to transcend the evolutionary process - "The Eternal Return."

[Drifter]

WHAT RELIGION SHOULD WE TEACH OUR CHILDREN?

[Who or what perpetuates religious wars and strife in general among mankind?]

By Margaret Barr

[From THE ARYAN PATH, August 1947, pages 348-52.]
The question of religious instruction for children is always before the public mind, and it would seem that the majority who have any views on the subject incline to one of two camps.

On the one hand are the secularists who feel that the harm done by religion throughout history so far outweighs the good, that the best thing would be for us to wash our hands of it completely and by leaving children entirely without religious instruction, leave them free either to live out their lives untouched by religion or to evolve a faith for themselves when they reach the age to do so.

On the other hand are those who believe that their primary duty in life is to proselytize for the faith to which they happen to belong and who consequently make the most of every opportunity that comes their way for influencing the unformed and pliable minds of children and young people.

If a tree is to be judged by its fruits -- and how else can it be judged? -- then both of these attitudes are tragically wrong. Surely the absence of any religion is one of the root causes of the materialism, selfishness, and restlessness that prevail throughout the world at the present day, whereas communal conflict, intolerance, and bigotry are some of the fruits of the dogmatic, proselytizing attitude.

Let us look a little more closely at both of these. The secularist argument is plausible and cogent. It is difficult to deny that religion has been either the cause or the pretext of many black chapters in human history and will continue to be a very dangerous rallying-cry so long as the masses remain either ignorant and superstitious or bigoted and fanatical. Therefore, say the secularists, let us be rid of it once and for all; and if, as the religious people claim, religion has any intrinsic value or importance, it will rise again from the ashes of the old faiths in the hearts and minds of people who have been left free and unprejudiced in childhood.

Such a theory rests on the assumption that religion is in a class by itself and differs radically from all other activities of the human mind. And it is in conflict with educational theory in all other branches of knowledge. We do not say that, if Mathematics and Science have any intrinsic value, people will discover them for themselves in adult life without any teaching when young. Doubtless, in the future as in the past, if these subjects were
left untaught, an occasional rare mind, a Euclid, a Galileo, or a Newton, would arise to make the discoveries all over again.

Because the average human being is not a gifted creature like these, does that mean that Mathematics and Science have no value for him? How much of the knowledge which is put to daily use in the healing of the sick by the average practitioner would ever have been acquired by him without guidance and teaching and the knowledge of the findings of his predecessors? And even in the less specifically rational and more imaginative activities, such as Art and Music, surely it is only the very greatest who can achieve anything without instruction and in utter independence of all that has gone before, if indeed anybody ever can.

And in religion also, though it is true that saints and mystics cannot be made by teaching any more than musicians and artists can, it is also true that the lives of ordinary, average people can be enriched and ennobled by contact with religious genius just in the same way as by contact with the world's great works of art and music and literature. It would seem, therefore that the secularists are insisting upon an unwarranted impoverishment of the educational environment when they press for complete secularization.

The people in the other camp, on the contrary, believing that religion is the most important thing in life, leave no stone unturned in their endeavor to persuade or compel everyone to join their particular organization and profess their creed. By them also, though in a different way, the accepted canons of educational theory are discarded. In all other subjects, it is the aim of education to teach children to think for themselves
and to understand the things that they study, tracing the
development of a subject step by step. But in religion what matters is the acceptance of truths miraculously revealed in a book which under no circumstances is to be submitted to the ordinary processes of rational criticism but is to be venerated blindly as being entirely different from all other books, the ipsissima verba of God.

Surely it is possible to find a middle path between these two extremes, one that shall neither disregard nor contradict the findings of enlightened educational theory.

The secularists are right in demanding that children's minds be
left free and unprejudiced. But is it not possible to give them an introduction to the study of religion, as to Natural Science and Geography, without either fettering their minds or filling them with prejudices?

The other camp is right in asserting the tremendous importance of religion and the harm that is done by leaving it out of a child's education. But that does not mean that religion should be presented to the child mind as something wholly different from all the other things he learns, something which he must just accept blindly and on no account question or seek to understand.

It is true, of course, that no amount of teaching can give religious experience to either child or adult, any more than it can create a poet, an artist, or a musician. But it is also true that even the least gifted can derive great inspiration from the achievements and example of the great. It is also true that children are by nature hero-worshippers, and if encouraged in their early years can grow up to revere those who are great in spirit above those who are merely great in martial prowess -- the
warriors and conquerors of history's sorry tale. And people taught to know and love, not one only but all of the world's great spiritual leaders, will have a far better foundation on which to build their own religious life than those brought up in either the secularists' or the dogmatists' camp.

It would seem, therefore, that in approaching the question of religious instruction for children, certain basic principles should be kept in mind:

First, that the capacity for clear, honest thinking is one of man's greatest and rarest capacities, and that no matter what the subject of their study, children should be encouraged to develop this capacity to the utmost and to be as honest in their doubts and questionings as in their beliefs and acceptances. Such honesty will not lead them astray but will help them to sift the gold from the dross and to distinguish between superstition and faith.

Second, that, great though thought is -- "the light of the world and the chief glory of man" as Bertrand Russell has called it -- it is not man's only gift, and in the study of religion, as of other subjects, imagination, idealism, and reverence should also be allowed full play. Encourage children, by all means, to think and reason, and ask questions about the tenets and teachings that have come down from past ages, but let them be encouraged also to love and revere the great souls who have set examples of unselfishness and tolerance and devotion and courage, of love for God and their fellows. For it is only such love and reverence that can awaken in them the desire to explore for themselves the path which those great ones trod and to test for themselves the truth of their religious message.

What then is the answer to our question, "What religion shall we teach our children?" Far be it from the present writer to attempt any final or dogmatic answer. And before attempting even a tentative one, let me first reiterate and stress some negative points that must never be lost sight of.

First, that we should not confine our teaching to any of the religious and theological systems of the world. Second, that when teaching children, we should avoid everything controversial. And, third, that the teacher should remember always that, strictly speaking, he cannot teach religion at all; that what he is will always speak more loudly than what he says and that the utmost he can hope to do is, by his own example and by the inspiration which he can put into his teaching, to make his pupils want to embark upon the quest for themselves.