Living universe

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your interesting post. Your philosophical position appears to me at least, indistinguishable from Advaita Vedanta. This is from Wikipedia:

Three levels of truth[LIST=1]

The transcendental or the Pāramārthika level in which Brahman is the only reality and nothing else;

The pragmatic or the Vyāvahārika level in which both Jiva (living creatures or individual souls) and Ishvara are true; here, the material world is completely true, and,

The apparent or the Prāthibhāsika level in which even material world reality is actually false, like illusion of a snake over a rope or a dream.

Interestingly, this belief structure, to my mind at least, is indistinguishable from Judy's*. Furthermore, this construction (for that is what I believe it is) is indistinguishable from one of the streams of Indian (and Tibetan) Buddhism. Naturally this is not the position that I am representing here in this string. However in the Buddhist version of this presentation it would perform a function that would guide the practitioner; it would not, in the final count, be understood as ontologically significant. I am willing to admit that this is a very subtle difference.

This is an extraordinarily powerful vehicle for working with mind; I am very much aware of that. That is why it is so important to understand it in the context of healing (see Judy's examples). However it has traps like all presentations of ontological truth (These are often identifying the difference between level two and level three: what is "real" and what is "unreal" in experience). I also admit that the more philosophical approach, which is generally considered to be the core of Buddhist thinking, which I'm attempting to represent (The Middle Way) can cause problems because it can appear nihilistic or be over-intellectual. It is however, the approach that the Dalai Lama advocates.

Norbu

*There is one proviso here, which to my mind is really just about terminology. Judy's position, as I understand it, would accept the definition of the third level as being the material world but would not describe the second level as material. As I understand it, Judy would describe the second level as spiritual and consistent with the first level, which is occupied by God.

I can't really comment on what other people have taught or believe on this subject, I found out a long time ago that trying to assimilate what has gone before does not alway work in the now.

My conceptual understandings have come from within, they could always be wrong and they might not work for everyone, but the model I have works for us and the people we help with it, when we apply it in our day to day work in the real world 😉

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.

This is rather a late answer Paul! This is one of Mary Baker Eddy's descriptions of metaphysics:
[COLOR="Blue"]
Metaphysics is above physics, and matter does not enter into metaphysical premises or conclusions. The categories of metaphysics rest on one basis, the divine Mind. Metaphysics resolves things into thoughts, and exchanges the objects of sense for the ideas of Soul.
These ideas are perfectly real and tangible to spiritual consciousness, and they have this advantage over the objects and thoughts of material sense,--they are good and eternal. (Science and Health 269)

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.

You are so right! 😀

Judy

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your interesting post. Your philosophical position appears to me at least, indistinguishable from Advaita Vedanta....

Interestingly, this belief structure, to my mind at least, is indistinguishable from Judy's*....

*There is one proviso here, which to my mind is really just about terminology. Judy's position, as I understand it, would accept the definition of the third level as being the material world but would not describe the second level as material. As I understand it, Judy would describe the second level as spiritual and consistent with the first level, which is occupied by God.

Hi Norbu,

Looking at the 3 stages above, it’s difficult to get my head round how I would relate – certainly to the 1st as being the real and true and the 3rd which explains the beliefs of matter, time, space etc. But to my understanding, immortal Mind (or God) is one with its ideas (man and the universe, which are spiritual, not material)

In Christian Science, everything is mental but we see a clear distinction between the divine and what appears to us at the moment as the material – it’s really a counterfeit of the real and true spiritual substance. If anyone’s interested, here’s a link, which explains it – you need to read both page 115 and 116.

[url]SCIENTIFIC TRANSLATION OF IMMORTAL & MORTAL MIND[/url]

Interestingly, the bit above that is this, which sort of sums up the problems we all have in communicating and explaining:

[COLOR="Blue"]Apart from the usual opposition to everything new, the one great obstacle to the reception of that spirituality, through which the understanding of Mind-science comes, is the inadequacy of material terms for metaphysical statements, and the consequent difficulty of so expressing metaphysical ideas as to make them comprehensible...

Judy

Hi Judy

It is nice to hear what Mary Baker Eddy has to say on this subject, but outside of her understanding, what is you own personal thoughts and understanding on this??

Hi Paul,

Why reinvent the wheel when it's been done? 😉

Judy

Hi Judy

Why reinvent the wheel when it's been done? 😉

Thankfully the wheel has been reinvented a few times by free thinking individuals in different forms.

Otherwise we would have cars with wheels made out of planks of timber which are pegged together and fall apart every few miles, we would also not have other modes of transport like hovercraft's, tracked vehicles and aeroplanes, which I am sure would not have been conceived as possibilities by the person who originally invented the wheel 😉

The wheel is probably the most important mechanical invention of all time. Nearly every machine built since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution involves a single, basic principle embodied in one of mankind’s truly significant inventions. It’s hard to imagine any mechanized system that would be possible without the wheel or the idea of a symmetrical component moving in a circular motion on an axis. From tiny watch gears to automobiles, jet engines and computer disk drives, the principle is the same.

There is an interesting corollary here with my understanding of metaphysics. While there may be billions of physical applications of the wheel, the PRINCIPLE (the spiritual idea) behind the wheel has always been the same and furthermore, it has always existed, even before the material world was formed.

You could destroy every known wheel on the planet, but you would never be able to destroy the idea, the principle, behind the wheel. It was always there to be discovered and always will be.

The laws of aeronautics existed when our cavemen ancestors roamed the earth - they were simply not aware of them. One quote I am very fond of is, "Nothing changed when you discovered the earth was round, nothing changed, you just went higher."

Likewise, I understand that there is one universal Truth, which encompasses the universe, including man – something that all religions, philosophies and also natural scientists are trying to reach and understand and of course, different individuals throughout time have had glimpses of it.

To me, Jesus was the one individual who fully understood Truth and was able to embody and demonstrate it. He was the most scientific man who ever trod the globe. Many others have had glimpses, including Mary Baker Eddy. For almost 45 years, she practiced what she was learning and taught others too. She healed hundreds of people of every possible type of disease and disability, including those termed incurable and terminal, plus, on at least 4 occasions, raised the dead. She wrote down her discovery in Science and Health, a book that explains and unlocks the healing power of the Bible. Millions have found healing through the study of her book (including me, many times) Why on earth would I not want to learn from something that has been proved and which works?

Eddy discovered the spiritual laws that she explains in the book, but just like Newton discovered laws of gravity and mathematics, neither has the monopoly on them, they have simply helped us along the way. They are the pioneers, hewing out the path for others to find and follow and make the understanding their own.

Studying works of wisdom, inspiration and enlightenment has a very long history. We wouldn't have schools, colleges and universities if learning from others who have gone before was not useful for the advancement of mankind.

Judy

Hi Judy,

First of all I think that the "SCIENTIFIC TRANSLATION OF IMMORTAL MIND AND MORTAL MIND" you have linked in your post is a very useful analysis.

Looking at the 3 stages above, it’s difficult to get my head round how I would relate – certainly to the 1st as being the real and true and the 3rd which explains the beliefs of matter, time, space etc.

Te quote below is about Brahman. It appears to me, at least, that there are similarities with the idea of "God."

In the 'Taittariya Upanishad' II.1, Brahman is described in the following manner: "satyam jnanam anantam brahma", "Brahman is of the nature of truth, knowledge and infinity." Infinite positive qualities and states have their existence secured solely by virtue of Brahman's very reality. Brahman is a necessary reality, eternal (i.e., beyond the purview of temporality), fully independent, non-contingent, and the source and ground of all things.

And in the case of the idea of the illusion of mater:

In Christian Science, everything is mental but we see a clear distinction between the divine and what appears to us at the moment as the material – it’s really a counterfeit of the real and true spiritual substance.

Surely the illusion of a rope being a snake is an example of a counterfeit in perception.

Norbu

Te quote below is about Brahman. It appears to me, at least, that there are similarities with the idea of "God."

And in the case of the idea of the illusion of matter:

Surely the illusion of a rope being a snake is an example of a counterfeit in perception.

Yup, as I said, I can relate to no 1 & 3, it's 2 that I didn't feel comfortable with, but it's only words, after all.

Judy

Hi Judy,

Yup, as I said, I can relate to no 1 & 3, it's 2 that I didn't feel comfortable with, but it's only words, after all.

Sorry I misunderstood your post.

Then, once you have identified the categories of real and unreal you have to work out the difference!

Norbu

Hi Judy

You are quoting one person's concepts on reality and Norbu is quoting several people's concepts on reality. Other people could come along and quote lots of other people's concepts on reality.

They are all right from the understanding that there are incalculable levels of reality. They are all part of the oneness or universal consciousness, yet they are all different. There is no right or wrong, if something is, then it just is.

From the understanding that whatever someone conceives or creates within their consciousness, is also conceived by the universal consciousness or oneness which resides outside of time, then yes, everything that is conceived is also known within it.

There is a but here, and that is, until something is conceived by a part of the consciousness (you, me or someone else) it cannot be realised and brought forth, it simply does not exist until the moment it is created.

So yes, we can learn by those who have been before us, but if we limit our unlimited creative potential based on someone else's perceptions and stop there, then we are in danger of self denial. We are simply in danger of not allowing ourselves to grow beyond their conceptual understanding to reach our own unique understanding.

To my understanding we are all unique. There will never be another you on this planet, with the same conceptual understanding and personal creative potential which you possess. We are all brought forth with an unlimited creative potentiality, it is up to each unique individual to choose for themselves if they wish to acknowledge and make use of this or not.

There is no right or wrong, if something is, then it just is.

We will have to agree to disagree there Paul. But it's a whole different topic, more suited for the Philosophy pages.

So yes, we can learn by those who have been before us, but if we limit our unlimited creative potential based on someone else's perceptions and stop there, then we are in danger of self denial. We are simply in danger of not allowing ourselves to grow beyond their conceptual understanding to reach our own unique understanding.
.

I will remember your words Paul if I ever reach the point of being able to raise the dead! 😉

I don't know why you think that learning to connect to God, the one universal divine Mind which instructs us, would somehow stop us growing and learning. Each experience I have of healing teaches me something - even the inspiration yesterday about the eternal idea of a wheel isn't something I learnt in a book. You can't see inside my head, so how can you possibly tell me (or others) how i'm thinking and growing and learning?

To me, all inventions are actually revelations, revelations of an idea in Mind that has always existed to be discovered and used. To me, this explains why, if you look back at history, similar discoveries and inventions often come at almost the same time, with people in different countries who have not communicated with each other, but with the one universal Mind.

Many musicians, like Mozart, Handel and even John Lennon have spoken about how the music comes to them - it's just there.

I love the poetical way Mary Baker Eddy puts this idea:

[COLOR="Blue"] There can be but one creator, who has created all. Whatever seems to be a new creation, is but the discovery of some distant idea of Truth; else it is a new multiplication or self-division of mortal thought, as when some finite sense peers from its cloister with amazement and attempts to pattern the infinite. (Science and Health 263)

CREATOR. Spirit; Mind; intelligence; the animating divine Principle of all that is real and good; self-existent Life, Truth, and Love; that which is perfect and eternal; the opposite of matter and evil, which have no Principle; (Science and Health 583)

Judy

Hi Judy

I don't look inside your head, I read the words you set down which portray who you are, your concepts and where you are coming from, the same as everyone else does.

This is why I specifically asked you

It is nice to hear what Mary Baker Eddy has to say on this subject, but outside of her understanding, what is you own personal thoughts and understanding on this??

the answer you appear to give me was that you considered that someone else's thoughts and concepts are in some way more important to give me than your own unique creative ones!

One of the worst things I find when reading books, is when people feel they have to back up their own thoughts by constantly referring to other peoples work, if I wanted to read the other books I would have bought them, I was interest in that persons conceptual ideas not a rehash of someone else's.

Anyway back to you, I see that one of your goals is to learn to raise the dead! how are you progressing, have you had any creative thoughts as to how you are going to manifest this into your reality and achieve your goal?

One of the worst things I find when reading books, is when people feel they have to back up their own thoughts by constantly referring to other peoples work, if I wanted to read the other books I would have bought them, I was interest in that persons conceptual ideas not a rehash of someone else's.

Well that's your perspective Paul and you don't have to read what I write. The fact is, that Mary Baker Eddy rediscovered the Science of Christian healing based on spiritual laws she found in the Bible. One day, this happened:
[COLOR="Blue"]
About the year 1869, I was wired to attend the patient of a distinguished M.D., the late Dr. Davis of Manchester, N. H. The patient was pronounced dying of pneumonia, and was breathing at intervals in agony. Her physician, who stood by her bedside, declared that she could not live. On seeing her immediately restored by me without material aid, he asked earnestly if I had a work describing my system of healing. When answered in the negative, he urged me immediately to write a book which should explain to the world my curative system of metaphysics." (Miscellany p 105)

There are two main reasons that I quote directly from the Bible and the writings of MBE, rather than paraphrasing what I am learning. One is that it is always so much deeper, so much more sublime than I could manage, but mainly it's because hundreds of New Thought gurus etc have plagiarised her writings and presented them as their own (albeit in a watered-down version).

Science and Health is not just another self-help book - it's unique. I have had many experiences where just reading it has lifted me up to a higher place, up to the Christ consciousness, where I have felt and glimpsed the divine - sometimes that has been accompanied by a shining light, sometimes as a physical warmth all around me and it has always brought healing of whatever physical problem needed correcting. The book has, (along with the Bible) been my inspiration, my rock, my comforter, my guide, my friend, my teacher, my financial and occupation mentor and my physician, to name a few!

This is from memory, but I have the man's account somewhere upstairs. He was captured in Rwanda during the bloodbath there and was being taken in a truck with others from his tribe. The men were separated from the women and children and were lined up to be shot. The Christian Scientist started praying the way he had learnt in S&H, understanding the unreality of matter. Three times the men pointed their guns and pressed the triggers, but each time they jammed. They would fire them into the air and they worked, but they were unable to kill the men. Finally, the soldiers were terrified, saying this was the work of God and let them go. That group of men were just a few of the many thousands who literally owe their lives to the spiritual laws you learn in that book.

I think that account (plus many more) is in Pierre Pradervan's The Gentle Art of Blessing. He wrote about S&H in the Cygnus Review recently. He started off saying how the book is possibly unique because it is the only complete non-dual presentation of Christianity and based on the spiritual laws governing reality which we can each learn to understand. Then he explains:

“Although the book is written in traditional Christian language, the concepts behind the language are universal, non denominational and even non-religious…..”

He goes on to say (and this is what intrigued me) that you can learn to “filter out traditional theological language” and “end up with a golden nugget of basic principles for the healing of the world.”

“ … The last 100 pages are accounts of people healed of all imaginable diseases simply by reading the book… Is there any other book in the spiritual literature of humanity that can make such a claim?”

Anyway back to you, I see that one of your goals is to learn to raise the dead! how are you progressing, have you had any creative thoughts as to how you are going to manifest this into your reality and achieve your goal?

Hee hee - that was a joke Paul! :p I have raised a dead pyracantha, but that's rather different! You wrote:

Originally Posted by Paul Crick
So yes, we can learn by those who have been before us, but if we limit our unlimited creative potential based on someone else's perceptions and stop there, then we are in danger of self denial. We are simply in danger of not allowing ourselves to grow beyond their conceptual understanding to reach our own unique understanding.

And I replied:

I will remember your words Paul if I ever reach the point of being able to raise the dead!

According to your logic, I will get stuck when I reach the limits of Jesus' and MBE's demonstrations - well, both of whom raised the dead (Jesus even raising himself) It tickled me that you felt that that would be limiting my potential to grow. 😀

Judy

Hi Judy

No, according to my logic, if you are looking at Jesus and other healers as an example of what you are capable of doing or achieving whilst experiencing your physical existence, then through the understanding that will unfold through your studying and application, you will at some point be able to apply your own unique creative potential in a way that will allow you to move beyond the understanding of others, so you can create something new and achieve so much more.

You will then be able to pass on your understanding to help others, who will in turn learn from your experiences in this realm and again go further still etc.

So what I am trying to say to you, which I do not seem to be putting very well is, if you base your own potentiality solely on what other people had already achieved in their existences, then yes you are going to restrict your creative potentiality to the levels they managed to achieve.

How much more are you capable of achieving if you are open to the possibilities of unlimited creativity?

So what I am trying to say to you, which I do not seem to be putting very well is, if you base your own potentiality solely on what other people had already achieved in their existences, then yes you are going to restrict your creative potentiality to the levels they managed to achieve.

This is referring to Jesus, right? Not a bad goal to aim for I'd say. 🙂

Barafundle, you got it spot on – as usual! 😀

Hey Paul,

It isn’t you who is not putting it across well, it’s me, or perhaps both of us. I have obviously not explained clearly and you seem to be putting me in a box with a label, which you have already pre-decided, without actually understanding where I’m coming from.

Let’s take mathematics. Mathematics is the one metaphysical science, based on a fixed premise, which never changes, unlike the other sciences. New discoveries in mathematics never invalidate what was known before, unlike with the other sciences.

A person could decide they wanted to make all their own mathematical discoveries and never even take a simple arithmetic class. Yes, it’s possible, but unless you were a genius or could tune in to all the information that I understand is in the divine Mind, it would take several lifetimes surely to be able to reach from scratch where mathematics is today after many thousands of years of discoveries? However, if you start with the previous wealth of knowledge behind you, what a head start, but of course, none of it is any use unless you understand it and can prove it and that can take years of study.

The Science of of the Christ is not about people doing or achieving things, or about human creativity, but about letting go of our mortal thinking and uniting with the divine Mind, which brings us into the realm of spiritual reality, here and now. It's Spirit that does the work, not us, at that level. Reality is perfect and harmonious. Jesus understood this and fully demonstrated this Science, overcoming all material limitations and suffering. But even Mary Baker Eddy, who healed as no-one had for 2,000 years, used to study Science and Health with the Bible every day. She acknowledged that this understanding had come to her through revelation – she never felt that she knew it all.

At the end of Science and Health she writes, speaking of the new heaven and new earth of Revelation, “The writer's present feeble sense of Christian Science closes with St. John's Revelation as recorded by the great apostle, for his vision is the acme of this Science as the Bible reveals it.” If she, who wrote the textbook of Christian Science, could say she only had a feeble sense of it and felt she needed to study it every day, how on earth could I imagine that I don’t need to, or feel that my present understanding has even scratched the surface of what exists? There is a life-time’s learning and demonstrating ahead of me!

... according to my logic, if you are looking at Jesus and other healers as an example of what you are capable of doing or achieving whilst experiencing your physical existence, then through the understanding that will unfold through your studying and application, you will at some point be able to apply your own unique creative potential in a way that will allow you to move beyond the understanding of others, so you can create something new and achieve so much more.

You will then be able to pass on your understanding to help others, who will in turn learn from your experiences in this realm and again go further still etc.

To me, this is just what I am trying to do on HP and in my life. I pass on my understanding and my experiences (and other’s experiences) to encourage, help and inspire others and to show them the limitless possibilities! Several people have had significant healings right here on HP through reading Science and Health and it has transformed some people's lives forever.

From Mary Baker Eddy: [COLOR="Blue"]To live so as to keep human consciousness in constant relation with the divine, the spiritual, and the eternal, is to individualize infinite power; and this is Christian Science. (Miscellany 160)

From Jesus: [COLOR="Purple"]The very words I say to you are not my own. It is the Father who lives in me who carries out his work through me. Do you believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? But if you cannot, then believe me because of what you see me do. I assure you that the man who believes in me will do the same things that I have done, yes, and he will do even greater things than these, for I am going away to the Father.(John 14 Phillips NT)

Not a lot of limitations there Paul! What makes you think that I'm not open to the possibility of unlimited progress and proof through demonstration? :p

Judy

Hi Judy

When I asked you how far you had progressed with your thoughts on raising the dead, which you have quoted more than once as an example of a high level of healing ability, you replied with.

Hee hee - that was a joke Paul! :p I have raised a dead pyracantha, but that's rather different! You wrote:

Actually that was not a joke, that was a realistic question, posted from my understanding which has grown through my connection with the universal consciousness or oneness that anything is possible.

It is a subject which would require a lot of contemplation and understanding as well as assessing what the responsibilities required for such an action would be.

Personally I had to unlearn vast amounts of knowledge to get to where I am today. What I have been shown and teach is to question everything and then to validate it within myself as well as the universal consciousness.

If something dose not validate, I need to disassemble it or move around it and assess it from a different perspective until a conceptual understanding will form, which will give me the necessary insight that I require to move forward on my journey.

We are after all an integral part of the oneness. We have made a conscious choice to come here to experience separateness. The oneness expects us to stand on that choice and to think for ourselves within our separateness, as well as taking full responsibility for the things we choose to create with our thoughts in this physical reality.

At the end of the day it all comes down to consciousness. Our thoughts are energy, the same energy which manifests the physical reality, or the living universe as the thread was originally titled. It is up to us in our separateness to choose what we want to experience for ourselves.

Although the oneness is happy to help us to achieve our goals, whatever they might happen to be, it is not our servant and should not be conceived as such. At some point it expects us to take on board the concept of responsibilities, where we can choose to not only start to manifest things for ourselves, but we are also happy to take responsibility for the things that we manifest.

We are, or should be after all responsible for our own thoughts and the actions or manifestations which they create!

Oh dear Paul,

You've misunderstood again! I never thought your question was a joke - it was my answer that was. 😮

Reading your words above, your understanding of the ways things work is very different from mine, but I respect yours and I hope you will learn to respect mine. I do find on HP that there are some members who seem to feel they have to tell me that what I think is wrong and then proceed to inform me of how I should be thinking and writing. We all come from different backgrounds here and it is interesting and illuminating to catch a glimpse of other beliefs, faiths and philosophies, but we need to give everyone the space to think for themselves and make their own decisions - in my case, they are based on proof.

There are a few CS practitioners who have raised the dead, but out of wisdom, those experiences are never published. However, below is the experience of one very new student of Christian Science who raised a still born puppy. As I also quipped, I had a pyracantha shrub that was brown and lifeless for two winters - 18 months. The branches just snapped off. After shouting at it one day that it expressed divine infinite Life, not death, the next time I looked at it, it was covered with tiny green shoots and today is fat and flourishing.

This young woman below starts off by describing how she turned her back on religion but then started to study Christian Science, so long as she didn't have to use that hated word, God! The first healing she experienced was of a tumour on her dog's nose, then:

On this particular day, my other little dog started birthing her babies in my husband’s closet, a place she had selected before. So I kept checking in on things. As each one was born, she would lick it and care for it. But one of the three she left completely alone. I saw that it was not breathing. I picked up the little guy. He just fitted into one hand. And I remembered how God is Life. Life by definition must include no beginning or end. Otherwise the word would not mean Life, it would mean animated, or incremental death.

I started stroking this little puppy, and I just kept telling him over and over that God is Life. Life. Life. That Life, God, is everywhere present, including right here. Well, it was a long time, and then came the point when these thoughts came to me, “It has been way too long not to breathe. Put him down.”

But I couldn’t. There was a kind of resolve that rose up within me. No! God is Life! He’s everywhere present! That has to mean right HERE, present this very second. And the next second right now, and the next. Where is the second where death is? If God is everywhere present, there is no place for death in God, Life—by definition.

And then the puppy started to breathe. He became the fattest one of the litter. So healthy, cute, and active.

I read later how Mrs. Eddy analyzed Jesus’ works: “Knowing that Soul [she uses Soul to mean God] and its attributes were forever manifested through man, the Master healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, feet to the lame, thus bringing to light the scientific action of the divine Mind on human minds and bodies and giving a better understanding of Soul and salvation. Jesus healed sickness and sin by one and the same metaphysical process.” I felt she had astutely expressed what had happened to me!

Because clearly I must have seen that what is true about the ongoing life of man is also true of all life. It was one of those glimpses of what I perceive as the concurrent, one and only Life, of which most of the time I seem to be so unaware. But incidents like these provide glimpses of the perspective that Jesus Christ lived in and Mrs. Eddy understood and wrote about.

[url]Now my heart sings[/url]

I think we've rather reached the end of this conversation now Paul - apart from the fact that it has gone rather :offtopic: and yet in others ways not! 🙂

Judy

Hi Judy

It has been nice chatting with you 🙂

Yes, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and understanding upon their personal journeys of self discovery, I hope yours is a long and happy one 🙂

And the same to you Paul! :wave:

Judy

I found both your posts enriching. Many thanks.:)

Anthropic principle

Just thought it could be fruitful to steer this string back into "midstream."

This if from Wikipedia on "Anthropic principle."

In physics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is the collective name for several ways of asserting that the observations of our physical universe must be compatible with the life observed in it. The principle was formulated as a response to a series of observations that the laws of nature and its fundamental physical constants remarkably take on values that are consistent with conditions for life as we know it rather than a set of values that would not be consistent with life as observed on Earth. The anthropic principle states that this apparent coincidence is actually a necessity because living observers wouldn't be able to exist, and hence, observe the universe, were these laws and constants not constituted in this way.

It's just amazing to think that this could be true. That what we see is there because we see it. But still it couldn't be any other way.

This is an awesome theory that seems to be supported by quantum physics but does it really mean we have total freedom to create or manifest whatever we desire... and or does whatever manifests that isn't our desire just an expression of our lack of awareness? What is the principle behind the anthropic principle, I wonder?

Norbu

Why is "God" a He?

O O. Starting another heated debate here. It just isnt very credible to me that a superhuman force who is the universe has animal attributes (gender) and, surprise, surprise, it's a boy! couldnt it be a triple female entities or a plant?

Why is "God" a He?

O O. Starting another heated debate here. It just isnt very credible to me that a superhuman force who is the universe has animal attributes (gender) and, surprise, surprise, it's a boy! couldnt it be a triple female entities or a plant?

Blimey, that was a bit left-field! Lets call it the "gynecogenic" principle 😮

Norbu

what does "left-field" mean??

sorry Im a bit ignorant.

Im sure it's a female plant. one of those who actually move and dance when you sing at them (another science tv doc I watched. plants could have a conscience. at least they feel things). If God/dess is intelligent, she couldnt be a humanoid. just couldnt.