What do you think? And does it matter in the great scheme of things?
Norbu
What do you think? And does it matter in the great scheme of things?
Norbu
Awesome, The mind boggles as to what's out there. If I understood any of it it would appear to support Christian Science theory that we are not material. That's only if I understand both sciences.
HI Scomm,
Norbu's link is a bit over my head, but just taking the time and space aspect – you know, time and space are mortal measurements, limitations, while infinity and eternality are the elimination of time and space. When we also reach the understanding that matter is thought objectified, you then start to understand Christian Science. Everything exists in consciousness.
I have two friends who have experienced time disappearing. One had a talk to give at the opposite end of Manhattan and there was an electricity blackout, so he had to walk down 24 flights of stairs, then when he got into a taxi, found that all the traffic lights were down and there was gridlock. He went the length of Manhattan in 16 minutes - physically impossible under normal circumstances, let alone those that day.
Another friend of mine knew she had to meet a certain individual but someone tried to stop her from going to Heathrow from London that day. Again, through specific metaphysical understanding, she got there in an impossibly short time and met the person just as he was about to go airside.
This lady's husband had tried to kill her (he was ordered to do so by his family when she wouldn't convert to Islam) but by understanding the principles of Christian Science, her husband's hand became paralysed and the gun fell out of it. She later managed to escape from Iraq with her son in a remarkable way. Again under extraordinary circumstances, she had bumped into her husband's cousin in London and he said he wanted to help and to meet her at Heathrow. A well-meaning friend did everything she could to stop her (even physically hanging onto her ankles!) but the result was that the family paid for the son to have private schooling.
I was with this same lady when my dog was attacked, years later and there was a large hole under his ear with lots of matted blood. Again, CS treatment was given and the next morning, there was nothing there - the flesh had filled in, the hair was all grown back - it was as if nothing had happened and from a metaphysical perspective that was the truth. If I hadn't witnessed it with my own eyes (and had a blood stained cloths to prove it) I wouldn't have believed it. It proves the statement from the article below that I have highlighted.
As you say Scomm, what actually exists that most of us are unaware of, is awesome!
This is the beginning of an interview with two physicists who are also Christian Scientists.
[url]Time masters[/url]
Jeffrey Hildner: Laurance, David, what is time?
David Carico: If you had to pick a quick scientific definition of time, according to physicists, that is, the one I generally offer my students is, it’s another dimension to the universe. We have forward and backward, right, left, and up and down—those are the three dimensions of space. Of course, there’s a fourth dimension that is forward and backward: time—future and past. When you make that connection, time becomes just one more dimension. So space and time are really inseparable, and that’s why physicists generally talk about space-time as one word, one concept. Whatever it is, it’s the same thing.
Laurance Doyle: Mary Baker Eddy recognized that time is a falsity. It’s a delusion. You don’t want more of it—you want to get rid of it. Getting rid of time is one of the things that relates directly to Christian Science healing. Time is considered a healer in medical practice, but not in Christian Science practice.
Hildner: Time has no power.
Doyle: Right. And I would say that physicists are converging on that concept, on the concept of time as Mrs. Eddy defined it. And they’re converging as well on the concept of matter—and therefore on the concept of space-time, as you say, David—that Mrs. Eddy talked about over a hundred years ago, namely that matter also is false, a delusion. Einstein was unusual, being 30 or 40 years ahead of his time, and most physicists and scientists are considered geniuses if they’re a couple of decades ahead of their time. But Mrs. Eddy was over a century ahead of her time in her concepts of what matter is and what time is. Physicists have for the last century been discussing that time is an illusion.
Worth reading all of it!
Judy
Loved your accounts of peoples experiences with time Judy!
Awesome, The mind boggles as to what's out there. If I understood any of it it would appear to support Christian Science theory that we are not material. That's only if I understand both sciences.
Hi Scommstech,
Here are my thoughts:
Everything exists in consciousness.
Nothing exists without it! At least; awareness individualised in the subject is indivisible from object.
To some, consciousness is merely based on the identity based on the distinctions of language that describe differences between subject, object and relationship functions. But "awareness" itself is not dependent on language and concept. However language and concept are very powerful shapers of awareness and therefore also powerfully shape consciousness of self as subject and object as not-self.
Therefore, to shape reality as we would have it be, we must guard our minds and form our thoughts with a more insightful view of self as subject which is inseparable from object held in a mutually sustaining relationship. Seeing interrelationship as structurally indivisible from self and other tells us that self is inseparable from the object, which is held in the mirror of mind. In this dynamic function we have the potential for mastery via our thoughts. This is because our thoughts shape our awareness and our awareness is inseparable from the object of our perception be it "self" or "other:" whether this object is our own mind, our own body, those with whom we interact or our environment.
But does "everything exist in consciousness?" I think this is a step too far towards philosophical idealism, but the distinction may not be so easily grasped.
Norbu
Sorry Norbu, I'm lost.......One day, I may understand.....:confused:
Don't worry Scomm, I always struggle to understand Norbu too! 🙂
I’ve remembered another time and space related experience which I thought might provide more food for thought . A friend of mine in Singapore where I grew up, had an abscess on her tooth. She relied completely on spiritual laws for healing as I do, knowing herself as a perfect spiritual idea of the one infinite Mind, rather than as a suffering matter-based body; but this time, the situation had not yet been healed through her prayers. She sent a telegram to London to a Christian Science practitioner (this was in the days before international telephone calls or e-mails), asking for help through prayer.
A few hours later, some words from Mary Baker Eddy's book on spiritual healing came into her thought: [COLOR="Blue"]"A spiritual idea has not a single element of error, and this truth removes properly whatever is offensive." (Science and Health 463.) Instantly, all pain and swelling just disappeared and she was completely free.
I think it was the next day that she received a telegram back from the practitioner in reply and they contained the reference to the very same words that had come to her thought and when she checked the time the telegram was sent, it was the exact same time that she had her healing.
Does this not point to one-ness with the one infinite, divine Mind, the source of all intelligence? It’s a bit like those monkey experiments, where, when one group solves a problem, other groups around the world also start solving it. As we understand it in Christian Science, intelligence etc isn’t in a fleshly brain (has anyone dissecting a brain ever found a thought in there?) but we are IN divine Mind, as idea.
In John 4:46-54 there is a similar account of absent healing involving Jesus. He was up in the hills in Cana, and a nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum (on the coast, about half an hour's car journey today) journeyed up to beg him to come down to heal his son who was at the point of death.
John's account tells us: [COLOR="Purple"]"You can go home," returned Jesus, "your son is alive and well." And the man believed what Jesus had said to him and went on his way.
On the journey back his servants met him with the report, "Your son is alive and well." So he asked them at what time he had begun to recover, and they replied: "The fever left him yesterday at one o'clock in the afternoon". Then the father knew that this must have happened at the very moment when Jesus had said to him, "Your son is alive and well."
With similar healing taking place every day through Christian Science treatment, these Bible stories can no longer be dismissed as fairy tales and superstition. It is time that scientists and researchers opened their minds to the possibilities that are already understood and demonstrated and which have always been present for everyone! Science and religion will be found to be the same thing, once they each reach the true core of being.
Judy
Sorry Norbu, I'm lost.......One day, I may understand.....:confused:
mmm... perhaps I am too!
All I'm attempting to explain is that while nothing can be perceived unless there is a function of perception (and that perception is said to be a function of consciousness) this only means that "everything exists in consciousness" in that all that can be perceived is a perception which is dependent on a function we call consciousness. This doesn't actually tell you anything at all. It is a circular argument.
This statement "everything exists in consciousness" is otherwise used, in my opinion without valid reason, as an argument that mind is ultimate cause. Just because awareness, experience and the object of awareness are intrinsic to reality doesn't mean that reality is merely a function of what we name as "mind" as opposed to what we name "matter." To my mind these are false distinctions and reality can only be known directly even if patterns of causes and conditions can be identified idirectly in consciousness.
Would you, for example suggest that consciousness and awareness were equivalent terms? I don't think they are equivalent. From my point of view "consciousness" is something that is dependent on the perception of subject and object as separate. Whereas what is described by the word awareness doesn't depend on a the consciousness of a separate subject and object. For me the word awareness is inseparable from experience whereas consciousness is separable from experience. The word consciousness tends to suggest a permanent observer, separate from the the object of perception. And to my mind this is just a creation of the mind even if creations of the mind are part of reality - they are not all of reality.
Has that helped? 😮
Norbu
It reminds me of a book I've been reading...
[url]Self Aware Universe - How Consciousness Creates The Material World[/url]
A bit heavy to read, but good stuff. 🙂
All Love and Reiki Hugs
I agree Norbu, that mortal mind creates its own phenomena, but I'm talking about the one infinite divine Mind. I see the consciousness of divine Mind as infinite, therefore, there can be no separation.
You will have to argue with me on that, because you deny the existence of divine Mind, of unconditional Love, of eternal indestructible Life, of universal Truth, because of course, they are all synonyms for God. 😉
Judy
I agree Norbu, that mortal mind creates its own phenomena, but I'm talking about the one infinite divine Mind. I see the consciousness of divine Mind as infinite, therefore, there can be no separation.
You will have to argue with me on that, because you deny the existence of divine Mind, of unconditional Love, of eternal indestructible Life, of universal Truth, because of course, they are all synonyms for God. 😉
Judy
Hi Judy,
From my point of view nothing exists independently. Everything is interdependent. Interdependence means that nothing has primal cause, all is play of relationship. Interdependence between God and creation is even part of monotheistic traditions. God is know through his creation. So if there is no creation to know God can God exist unknown?
Just because I do not believe that one can say that unconditional love exists, in the sense that it exists independently from lover and beloved. This does not mean that I believe that unconditional love is not the fundamental function of reality.
In unconditional love, subject and object do not exist independently but remain boundless in mutual embrace. Knowing this is a state of awareness. There may be a permanence in the truth that is this state of awareness but awareness itself has no fixed state. Can you really say that awareness which is free of state exists? This is a bit like asking if space exists...
Norbu
God is know through his creation. So if there is no creation to know God can God exist unknown?
Umm - who says this? Is this a Buddhist concept?
Just because I do not believe that one can say that unconditional love exists, in the sense that it exists independently from lover and beloved. This does not mean that I believe that unconditional love is not the fundamental function of reality.
A double negative, making a positive - or another negative? I'm lost! :confused:
I thought of this thread when I came across a new interview with Daniel Scott who featured so controvesially (well, to one member) on my thread on evolution and couldn't decide whether to put it here or there. Anyway, it's there but what he says has relevance to this thread too.
Judy
Hi Judy,
We are speaking different languages I fear. But if you wish let us look further into this difference.
Can we look at this first? You quoted my post:
God is know[n] through his creation. So if there is no creation to know God can God exist unknown?
And commented:
Umm - who says this? Is this a Buddhist concept?
The first part of my quote is "God is known through his creation." Isn't this a fairly standard theological view?
And the second part of my quote is "So if there is no creation to know God can God exist unknown?
This seems a reasonable question to me.
And then:
Just because I do not believe that one can say that unconditional love exists, in the sense that it exists independently from lover and beloved. This does not mean that I believe that unconditional love is not the fundamental function of reality.
A double negative, making a positive - or another negative? I'm lost! :confused:
My paragraph is ungrammatical. I'll rewrite it:
]Just because I do not believe that one can say that unconditional love exists (in the sense that it exists independently from lover and beloved) does not mean that I believe that unconditional love is not the fundamental function of reality.
I hope that is clearer.
There is one further example of a related point that I will try to draw out from the quote from Daniel Scott from the post you have linked:
I thought of this thread when I came across a new interview with Daniel Scott who featured so controvesially (well, to one member) on my thread on evolution and couldn't decide whether to put it here or there. Anyway, it's there but what he says has relevance to this thread too.
... physics reasons from effect back to cause which is what keeps it locked in the realm of matter or physical sense testimony. Metaphysics on the other hand reason from the basis of cause--the one and only Cause--divine, infinite Mind.
Daniel Scott is presenting an analysis based on the notion that there is an ultimate cause (that is self existing). On the one hand this cause is physical and can be measured objectively. On the other it is a statement of faith that the ultimate cause is "infinite Mind." These are clearly two opposing positions. There is a third option: (and this is a Buddhist view) that the notion that there is an ultimate cause (which exists of itself) of any kind is a flawed.
This is because all causes are relative (unless you believe there is a causeless cause, which is God). They come from other causes, which come from other causes etc. And any cause only acts in certain conditions that are the circumstances in which a cause acts (even a causeless cause can only act in certain conditions, which begs the question, what are the causes of the conditions in which the causeless cause acts?)
Then all of the words we use to describe causes and conditions are just words. Reality is much more than can be described by words.
Norbu
The first part of my quote is "God is known through his creation." Isn't this a fairly standard theological view?
Yep
And the second part of my quote is "So if there is no creation to know God can God exist unknown?
This seems a reasonable question to me.
That's where I'm confused. Who says that there is no creation? Is that a Buddhist doctrine?
Then all of the words we use to describe causes and conditions are just words. Reality is much more than can be described by words.
It is indeed. I have experienced divine Love as a tangible warmth surrounding me, as an encompassing state of bliss and safety - quite apart from other mortals or places or things and each time this has preceeded either a physical healing or an instance of protection that has been described as "miraculous". As far as who created the first Cause, well, how old is Love? Surely you can see that divine Love is self-existent, eternal and infinite? I know that if I were to go to Mars or beyond, Love would be there and Its laws just as practical as they are here.
Judy
Hi Judy,
Thanks for your reply.
That's where I'm confused. Who says that there is no creation? Is that a Buddhist doctrine?
My question is "So if there is no creation to know God can God exist unknown?" My question is not saying that there is no "creation," it is a thought experiment... "So suppose if there were no creation, could God exist unknown?"
Surely you can see that divine Love is self-existent, eternal and infinite?
It seems to me that love requires as subject and object. Love is a quality of relationship. As such it is dependent on subject an object and is not therefore "self existent."
I can see that most fundamental framework for existence is one that is based on subject and object that relate lovingly but subject object and the verb are all dependent on each other. Some say (not just in the Bible) that "I am" is the first cause and some say that "God is Love." Some say both these are consistent and some say one comes first. Most would agree that the third part "the object" (creation) is dependent on the first two parts but some point out that without creation there is no creator.
To my mind this is all nonsense. You have to have all three parts to the relationship for anything to exist at all and therefore it is impossible to say which is the first cause. Furthermore, this desire to identify first cause is merely a human desire to fit what is beyond language and concept into concepts defined by language and this is a habit that results in all sorts of problems.
Norbu
I am just wondering why we are discussing religion in the scientific matters forum??
Hi Paul,
I am just wondering why we are discussing religion in the scientific matters forum??
I guess, from my point of view, religion and science (and philosophy for that matter) are not so easy to disentangle. At least in this case the article which this post is discussing, The Biocentric Universe Theory: Life Creates Time, Space, and the Cosmos Itself, is at least partly about the role mind plays in the creation of the universe.
I believe that existence is no more nor less than processes of interrelationships of subject and object - awareness is intrinsic to the fabric of the universe. Judy has a slightly different view in that she believes that the primal cause is spiritual (mind based) as opposed to material (please correct me if I'm wrong here Judy).
In the discussion I'm having with Judy, I'm trying to point out what seem to me to be inconsistencies in her philosophical position. The interesting thing is that, while I believe that the way she explains things is problematic, I think that the examples she give should be carefully considered. After all they are either gross lies or they are evidence that the physical universe is not quite so concrete as we tend to expect it to be. Judy's examples are also evidence of a universe that is influenced by thought in quite dramatic ways.
I think the "religious" bits are just details really which I'm quite happy to forgive in this context.
Norbu
Hi Paul,
I can understand where you’re coming from! I entered into this discussion as a result of Scommtech’s post no 2.
These pages are described as:
Scientific Matters
Time, space and all science related ideas
I have been posting above about both time and space, albeit from the perspective of metaphysics, rather than physics.
What it all boils down to, is what IS science? Centuries ago when the word first appeared, it meant “certain knowledge” but that has been watered down somewhat over the years! To me, science is not only the search for, but the understanding and demonstration of absolute Truth. Despite enormous progress, our natural scientists have not reached that stage yet - in fact, I only know of one scientist in history who has - Christ Jesus.
I found this interesting:
Journal of Theoretics Vol.1-3
Aug/Sept 1999 EditorialWhat is Science?
In terms of the definition of what is or is not a Science, we need to find a definition that is timeless and few could argue against. One of the best way to understand the current definition of something is to look at its history (ignorance of the past will lead to mistakes of the future5) but I will leave that for a book on the subject because even though it is engrossing reading, it can get lengthy. I would like to propose that we define Science as the "the field of study which attempts to describe and understand the nature of the universe in whole or part."* Though simple, it is an encompassing and elegant definition, as we will see.
JP Siepmann, Editor archive@journaloftheoretics.comJournal of Theoretics
* Definitions
(Every article, book, paper, etc. should always include definitions as well as a bibliography or reference section.)
describe: to understand the nature of something in the universe and define it in a manner that allows it to be studied and communicated.
fact: a theory that has been validated close to certainty.
hypothesis: a tentative or working assumption which scientific study has yet to validate.
For instance, I can make the hypothesis that fire is hot. I put my hand into a fire and find it is hot. Now it is a theory. If it is validated by many to the point of certainty then it is a fact. Technically, there is nothing that is 100% certain. For instance, I could be existing in a dream world where fire is hot while in my real world fire is cold. Though this is highly unlikely, it still could be so. But when something seems to be confirmed by every reasonable method, then we can call it a fact.
law: a characteristic of the universes that seems fundamental to the workings of he universe.
part: any component of the universe.
Science: the field of study which tries to describe and understand the nature of the universe in whole or part. The field of study or discipline that we call Science is spelled with a capital "S" as it is a proper noun in this use while science with a small "s" is the application of this discipline.
theory: a hypothesis or group of hypotheses which have been validated but not to the point of near certainty.
universe: that which exists and in its entirety. This includes all that exists whether it can be perceived or not.
whole: something that permeates the universe at large. e.g. gravity.
Note: The definitions used here and in the article above are those of the author's unless otherwise referenced.
**In addition to the above definitions of hypothesis, theory, fact, and law, below is an example of their appropriate use.
Let's say that I form the hypothesis that fire is hot. I then put my hand into a fire and find it is hot. Now it is a theory as it has been verified. If it is verified by many to the point of certainty then it becomes a fact.
Technically, there is nothing that is 100% certain. For instance, I could be existing in a dream world where fire is hot while in my real world fire is cold. Though this is highly unlikely, it still could be so. But when something seems to be confirmed by every reasonable method, then we can call it a fact.
A Law on the other hand is not a fact, but rather it is something that seems fundamental to the workings of the universe. As we have seen, Laws are subject to revision (as Einstein did to Newton, and Siepmann has done to Einstein6).
Reading the above, Christian Science fits comfortably within its definitions, though surely the real definition of law is unchanging and repeatable, rather than variable?
I totally agree with Norbu, that it isn’t possible to disentangle what are termed science, religion and philosophy from one another.
On the Evolution thread, I included this quote from Daniel Scott's lecture:
“It is ironical that physics, which has led the way for all the other sciences, is now moving towards a more accommodating view of mind, while the life sciences, following the path of last century’s physics, are trying to abolish the mind altogether.”
Paul Davies
That's not what you're trying to do are you Paul? 😉
I also recently added a link to a quantum physicist’s book – well, I’ve just been to his website:
There is a revolution going on in science. A genuine paradigm shift. While mainstream science remains materialist, a substantial number of scientists are supporting and developing a paradigm based on the primacy of consciousness.
Dr. Amit Goswami, Ph.D, a pioneer of this revolutionary new perspective within science shares with us his vision of the unlimited potential of consciousness as the ground of all being, and how this revelation can actually help us to live better.
On that same thread, I posted a link to a video of Daniel Scott PhD discussing whether Christianity can be scientific.These are some of Daniel's comments:
the language of science is mathematics
it's right as a scientist to be sceptical
science is no use unless it actually works
physics has become more metaphysical through its advances
some of the quantum physicists have said that it makes the universe look like a great thought
consciousness is the grounds of reality
There's a difference between physics and mathematics With physics, every couple of years they will say, "forget what we told you - it's all changed." That never happens in mathematics. There's a principle there. Breakthroughs in mathematics never invalidates previous mathematical facts. Mathematics is a metaphysical science.
Whether we're physicists, or other scientists or Christian Scientists, we are all searching for the truth.
In answer to that question, in the post below are some more ways I and others have proved that what appear to be fixed "laws" of nature, especially of destruction, can be overturned. Surely, as Norbu says, this is something that should be taken seriously?
Practical, repeatable metaphysics
This is just to show that my words above are not simply abstract theory. If everyone on earth learnt how to tune in to harmony and dispel drought, floods, fire, storms, tornadoes, hurricanes and eventually perhaps, earthquakes, (not to mention disease) wouldn't that be scientific progress worth taking notice of?
One afternoon, a few years ago, I had been writing on HP (for a change), when I suddenly noticed it had gone dark. Well, I looked out of the window and the sky was blue-black with thunder clouds. There was a terrific crack of lightning which made me jump out of my skin.
My first thought was "We’re in for a big storm." My second was "I don’t have to accept that." Now, I know there is a widespread belief that we need thunderstorms to clear the air or to put something – is it nitrogen? - into the soil, but I live near Heathrow Airport and I can tell you, thunderstorms near airports are not good things.
I recalled what Mary Baker Eddy says about lightning and other violent weather. She taught her students not to be fearful and impressed with violent weather, but to stand up to it and to always know that God (Good, Harmony) is in control of the weather. We don’t ask for specifics, after all good weather for a farmer may not be good weather for a sailor, but just know that infinite Mind, intelligence, is in control.
Adelaide Still, a worker in Mrs. Eddy's household, describes this:
"On several occasions I saw Mrs. Eddy dispel a storm; the first time was on August 3, 1907, in the late afternoon. The sky was overcast and it was very dark. Mrs. Eddy sat in her chair in the tower corner of her study, watching the clouds with a smile and a rapt expression on her face. She seemed to be seeing beyond the storm, and her present surroundings, and I do not think that she was conscious of my presence. In a few moments the clouds broke and flecked, and the storm was dissolved into its native nothingness. About half an hour later I took her supper tray to her, and she said to me, 'Ada, did you see the sky?' I replied, 'Yes, Mrs. Eddy.' Then she said, 'It (meaning the cloud) never was; God's face was never clouded.' This agrees with what another student has recorded as having been said by Mrs. Eddy, namely, 'When I wanted to dispel a storm, I did not say, "there is no thunder, and no lightning," but I said, "God's face is there, and I do see it."
(From Mary Baker Eddy: Christian Healer by Yvonne Caché von Fettweis and Robert Townsend Warneck, p. 284–285)
Here’s another:
"One day Mrs Eddy called her students into her study and pointed to a very black cloud, shaped like a cornucopia, coming towards the house in direct line with her front study window. She asked each one to go to a window and face it, and to realize that there are no destructive elements in God’s creation. Although appearing to whirl straight toward Pleasant View, a mile or so away the cyclone changed its course and went around Concord into the mountains, doing very little damage.
(From the reminiscences of Clara Know McKee in We Knew Mary Baker Eddy)
Well, back to me standing at my window looking at the purple-black storm clouds: I decided to do what Eddy taught her students to do. I stood at the window and looked straight at those black clouds, knowing that God (supreme harmony) is in control of the weather. I looked to see harmony right where all that black angry stuff was. I must have stood there praying, perhaps for ten minutes. The black clouds turned dark grey, then light grey, then they broke up and finally the sun came out.
I wouldn’t even be writing about this (I did consider phoning the Bracknell Weather Centre and asking them what happened to the thunderstorm but felt a bit stupid) but the next day I was at a Mind Body Spirit show and started talking to a young woman from Woking (about 8 miles south-east from here). She said that she believed in God and that she had proof of His power the previous day. She said there was a huge storm brewing and there was a loud crack of lightning and her dog jumped into the road and was hit by a car and thrown several feet. As this happened she cried out to God and the dog was totally unhurt. Then (and this is the point) a strange look came over her face, "Funny about that storm. It seemed to just break up and disappear. It didn’t go anywhere. There was only that one crack of lightning"
Then a friend rang that evening and I was telling her this story and she said she was driving home to Wokingham (about 10 miles south west from here) and she told me that as soon as she saw those clouds she too had been praying and confirmed that they had just got lighter and lighter until they disappeared.
I have had experiences like this with weather several times (at least 3 times, the Captains of aircraft I was working in used the word “miracle” – but I wouldn’t use that word, it’s not scientific!) Some of my experiences are on this thread:
Here’s another account of how practical metaphysics as taught in Christian Science is, and how the global understanding and demonstration of this Science could so help the world:
There had been no rain in the Concord area throughout November. The farmer who delivered Pleasant View’s milk told the cook that his well was empty and his cows were beginning to go dry. When Mrs Eddy was told about this, she smiled and said, "Oh! If he only knew, Love fills that well." The next day when the farmer came, he was overjoyed to tell the cook that that morning he had found his well full of water. And what was amazing to him was that there had been no rain to fill it.
(From Mary Baker Eddy: Christian Healer p 157)
Here’s a modern day example of a tornado dissipating en-route and a huge fire stopping short of engulfing homes - just two examples of countless experiences that are happening today but which are largely ignored because they can't be explained by the usual scientific parameters.:
[url]That ‘still small voice’ of God: Too small to speak to extreme weather?[/url]
[url] Fire on the mountain[/url]
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" Albert Einstein Science, Philosophy and Religion
Judy
Norbu,
I can just about hang in with your philosophy's. But am nowhere near qualified to comment. I have found some of the references absolutely enthralling, and am grateful to both you and Judy for sharing your thoughts.
Emtiness
Hi Scommstech,
Here's a link to a very good, and concise, introduction to Buddhist philosophical thinking.
I think Judy would find the section on the emptiness of matter particularly interesting. Here is a short quote from it:
A manifest particle, such as an electron, cannot be described in terms of classical mechanics. It exists as a multitude of superposed "scenarios", of which one or another manifests only when it is observed, i.e. upon measurement. Therefore, matter does not inherently exist. It exists only as interrelations of "empty" phenomena whose properties are determined by observation.
At the bottom of this page is a quote from the Dalai Lama:
In The Art of Living (2001) the 14th Dalai Lama says, "As your insight into the ultimate nature of reality is deepened and enhanced, you will develop a perception of reality from which you will perceive phenomena and events as sort of illusory, illusion-like, and this mode of perceiving reality will permeate all your interactions with reality. [...] Even emptiness itself, which is seen as the ultimate nature of reality, is not absolute, nor does it exist independently. We cannot conceive of emptiness as independent of a basis of phenomena, because when we examine the nature of reality, we find that it is empty of inherent existence. Then if we are to take that emptiness itself is an object and look for its essence, again we will find that it is empty of inherent existence. Therefore the Buddha taught the emptiness of emptiness."
Try this as a thought experiment.
1. All material objects appear through a process of observation.
2. All mental objects (including self) appear through conceptualisation (which is dependent on language).
What remains? Some would say that, if self and object are projections of mind then mind and space must remain. However, can you have mind without an object and can you have space without form?
What we are left with is a universe full of wonders! And a very plastic universe it must be too. But nothing can appear that does not have internal consistency. It must follow consistent self building processes out of space and mind, object and form. I think what Judy is saying is that if you understand this to be the only possible basis for phenomena you then have the potential to influence patterns (in nature or the body or otherwise) that you observe, firstly because everything is illusionlike but that which is not harmoniously consistent is delusional because it would be an illusionlike phenomenon that is divided against itself.
Norbu
Hi Judy
Are you talking about metaphysics which is in reality philosophy or thought into action, now I understand that there has been scientific studies done to validate what some people can do with their thoughts, remote scanning, esp etc. but science can only validate the effect, not validate the mechanics of what goes on to cause the effect.
It is the same with energy healing, what you are describing above is done all the time by energy workers, we do after all connect with the universal consciousness which holds the physical reality together, but the concept of a universal consciousness goes straight over the head of most scientists apart from the ones who try and explain it through quantum physics.
Hi Norbu
Nothing is set in stone, we only perceive it that way because we mostly function within the physical reality, I think that if you replace the word spiritual with consciousness, then you might move forward a pace.
With our consciousness we can perceive things outside of time and distance within the oneness, where all is one, everything that exists within the oneness is thought which is consciousness, it is with our consciousness that we create our reality, it is with our consciousness that we can change, bend or adapt our reality to suit our purpose, once we understand this, if we don't like something within our reality, then we can change it if we choose to.
I think it all comes down to responsibilities at the end of the day, if we conceive that something outside of ourselves had created our reality for us, then it is their responsibility to change it on our behalf, but if we conceive that we are an intrinsic part of the creation of our reality, then we have to take responsibility for what we have created in it, now since we own what we have created then we have the right to change it.
Hi Paul,
...,I think that if you replace the word spiritual with consciousness, then you might move forward a pace.
Yes I'm not overly fond of the word "spiritual" because the word designates a realm of being that is somehow supernatural or non-material.
... it is with our consciousness that we can change, bend or adapt our reality to suit our purpose, once we understand this, if we don't like something within our reality, then we can change it if we choose to.
I think this is true only if you have a very refined notion of personal purpose. This is where spiritual development comes in as a notion. Is the personal desire of a pyschopath just as valid as a that of a saint? Would it be possible for the powers of a sorcerer (who has not moral compass) to overcome "good?"
I think it all comes down to responsibilities at the end of the day, if we conceive that something outside of ourselves had created our reality for us, then it is their responsibility to change it on our behalf, but if we conceive that we are an intrinsic part of the creation of our reality, then we have to take responsibility for what we have created in it, now since we own what we have created then we have the right to change it.
What if you fail to do this? There could be a tendency to judge the self for failure if an individual fails to change their reality. What is the self that can change the illusions that it is subject to, if the experience it has created for itself is an illusions? There is a tendency for this theory to encourage and application of will rather than an applilcation of surrender and acceptance which are vital if the self created delusion is to be washed away.
Norbu
Hi Norbu
I think this is true only if you have a very refined notion of personal purpose. This is where spiritual development comes in as a notion. Is the personal desire of a pyschopath just as valid as a that of a saint? Would it be possible for the powers of a sorcerer (who has not moral compass) to overcome "good?"
Sorry but good and evil, right and wrong, success or failure have nothing what so ever to do with consciousness, consciousness is just a state of being.
What if you fail to do this? There could be a tendency to judge the self for failure if an individual fails to change their reality.
Failure is a perception, if someone has no sense of purpose then they can't fail, simply because they will not be attempting to alter anything!
Hi Judy
It is the same with energy healing, what you are describing above is done all the time by energy workers, we do after all connect with the universal consciousness which holds the physical reality together, but the concept of a universal consciousness goes straight over the head of most scientists apart from the ones who try and explain it through quantum physics.
quote]
Paul,
Can you expand on "energy healing" , "energy workers", and The "universal consciousness which holds reality together". I'm interested to see how theses concepts blend with others.
Hi Paul,
Sorry but good and evil, right and wrong, success or failure have nothing what so ever to do with consciousness, consciousness is just a state of being.
mmm... Isn't consciousness dependent on a subject that is self aware and an object of perception?
Would you agree that how we experience things depends on how we understand them to be? This includes our own self, objects of perception and the nature of experience itself. Is our understanding of things purely arbitrary? Or are there deeper levels of reality that can be understood. Is "truth" merely a arbitrary and relative value judgment?
Failure is a perception, if someone has no sense of purpose then they can't fail, simply because they will not be attempting to alter anything!
If someone has no sense of purpose, what would their experience be like do you think?
Norbu
Hi Scommstech
Can you expand on "energy healing" , "energy workers", and The "universal consciousness which holds reality together". I'm interested to see how theses concepts blend with others.
It is a vast subject on its own, but put in as simple a way as possible, everything is thought or consciousness, energy workers/healers work with the creative power of consciousness to manipulate things around us.
What we perceive as a physical reality, is just dense energy, everything is always moving or vibrating, consciousness is another level of vibration which we are all a part of.
Hope that helps.
Hi Norbu
mmm... Isn't consciousness dependent on a subject that is self aware and an object of perception?
No that is back to front, you can create awareness but you can't create consciousness, consciousness is not physical, our consciousness is separate to our physicality, that is why we come here to create and experience another level of awareness, you can't experience giving someone a hug if you are a being of pure consciousness and have not got a body to hug them with 😉
If someone has no sense of purpose, what would their experience be like do you think?
Lots of people just exist here but that is their choice, they can be and experience so much more if they would only stop and think outside of what they have been told they should do and be, that is what being creative is all about 😉
Hi Paul,
No that is back to front, you can create awareness but you can't create consciousness, consciousness is not physical, our consciousness is separate to our physicality, that is why we come here to create and experience another level of awareness, you can't experience giving someone a hug if you are a being of pure consciousness and have not got a body to hug them with 😉
This is from the Mirriam Webster online dictionary.
Main Entry: con·scious·ness
Pronunciation: -nəs
Function: noun
Date: 1629
1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact
I'm not saying that consciousness is physical, I'm just saying that I think it is very hard to think of consciousness without some kind of notion of an observer, process of observing and object of observation.
Lots of people just exist here but that is their choice, they can be and experience so much more if they would only stop and think outside of what they have been told they should do and be, that is what being creative is all about 😉
Surely you are just being a bit prescriptive with your definition of "purpose." People's sense of purpose may be more or less enlightened that's all.
Norbu
Hi Norbu
I'm not saying that consciousness is physical, I'm just saying that I think it is very hard to think of consciousness without some kind of notion of an observer, process of observing and object of observation.
That is a physical definition of consciousness, in the realms of pure consciousness all is one, so what is there to observe?
Hi Paul,
That is a physical definition of consciousness,...
Well, it's dictionary definition of it! I'm lost as to where the "physical" bit comes into it?
... in the realms of pure consciousness all is one, so what is there to observe?
Well, surely, if all is one, there is not subject nor object, no action, no perception, no process, no change, no relationship, no point of reference, no space between, no experience, there can't be no "nothing at all," not even consciousness!
Norbu
Hi Norbu
Most of your last post is true, but consciousness still remains when we take everything else out of the equation, it is just a different level of consciousness to the one we perceive time, distance and matter with, so if we remove time, distance and matter, then we are left with what we started with, pure consciousness.
All is one, in order for the one to become aware of itself, it needs to fractionate and manifest into various forms and ways, each part of the whole is then unique but must remain an integral part of the whole on one level of our consciousness.
The model of consciousness which we use is a three level one, there might be a lot more but three levels of consciousness works well for our healing and personal development work.