9th

The normal presentation of these gravitational time dilation effects can lead one to a mistaken conclusion. It is true that if an observer (X) is stationary near the event horizon of a black hole, and a second observer (Y) is stationary at great distance from the event horizon, then Y will see X's clock to be ticking slow, and X will see Y's clock to be ticking fast. But if X falls down toward the event horizon (eventually crossing it) while Y remains stationary, then what each sees is not as straightforward as the above situation suggests. As Y sees things: X falls toward the event horizon, photons from X take longer and longer to climb out of the "gravtiational well" leading to the apparent slowing down of X's clock as seen by Y, and when X is at the horizon, any photon emitted by X's clock takes (formally) an infinite time to get out to Y. Imagine that each person's clock emits one photon for each tick of the clock, to make it easy to think about. Thus, X appears to freeze, as seen by Y. However, X has crossed the event horizon! It is only an illusion (literally an "optical" illusion) that makes Y think X never crosses the horizon. As X sees things: X falls, and crosses the horizon (in perhaps a very short time). X sees Y's clock emitting photons, but X is rushing away from Y, and so never gets to collect more than a finite number of those photons before crossing the event horizon. (If you wish, you can think of this as due to a cancellation of the gravitational time dilation by a doppler effect --- due to the motion of X away from Y). After crossing the event horizon, the photons coming in from above are not easily sorted out by origin, so X cannot figure out how Y's clock continued to tick. A finite number of photons were emitted by X before X crossed the horizon, and a finite number of photons were emitted by Y (and collected by X) before X crossed the horizon. You might ask 'What if X were to be lowered ever so slowly toward the event horizon?' Yes, then the doppler effect would not come into play, UNTIL, at some practical limit, X got too close to the horizon and would not be able to keep from falling in. Then X would only see a finite total of photons from Y (but now a larger number --- covering more of Y's time). Of course, if X "hung on" long enough before actually falling in, then X might see the future course of the universe. The solar mass () is a standard unit of mass in astronomy that is used to indicate the masses of other stars, as well as clusters, nebulae and galaxies. It is equal to the mass of the Sun, about two nonillion kilograms:

There is no documentation of "philosophy" as such before pythagoras, since he supposedly invented the term itself. He was the first known philosopher to make this journey of collecting wisdom from the east, then returning to synthesize it with his own knowledge in his own culture. His practices were more akin to mysticism as we would call it today - while in the generations that followed, classical philosophy slowly took a hard turn into semantics, politics, ethics, sociology, etc. Plato attempted to expand on the pythagorean tradition and was moderately successful, but it was diluted with these other concerns mentioned above. Pythagorean tradition had more in common with the Orphics and other cults based on participation in the mysteries - but was conceptually focused on mathematics, geometry, harmony, ratio, proportion and so forth instead of mythic dramas and characters. They both believed in reincarnation, and that the soul needed to purify itself throughout many lives in order to ascend into the realm of cosmic perfection. They both had very specific practices for daily living. The pre-olympian greek mythos regards the so-called titans: uranus (heaven), gaia (earth), and their children kronos (time), hyperion (high one).. etc. So there were greek mystics and so forth going back quite far into the cloudy mycenaean era, and even much earlier than that (see photo below). The Orphics seem to be a group founded on participation in the mysteries, since Orpheus and Eurydice is another riff on the Persephone myth. The "resurrection" of going to the underworld and returning continually is an ongoing theme - especially for an agricultural society. It has been said that the Eleusinian mysteries were already old in 1500BC when they began to attach the character of Demeter and the myth of Persephone to the seasonal knowledge that is revealed during the initiation ritual. It is also well known that the home of the oracle of Delphi was originally a temple of Gaia before being converted to a temple of Apollo. Since the rite of initiation in the Eleusinian mysteries was dependent on the specialized kykeon (sacred drink) its possible the greek mysteries relate (either directly or indirectly) to the rites of Soma (rigveda) and Haoma (zoroastrian) in the nearby mid-east. You may have already seen in the other thread where it is indicated the avestan "Ahura" is the same as the vedic "Asura". Just as the vedic "Deva" is the same as the avestan "Daeva". Soma and Haoma are sacred drinks from this period of shared knowledge, before the persian and indian cultures separated along with the resulting political fallout which cast each of these mythic beings in opposing "good/bad" scenarios. It depends on how closely you want to look, but you can find clarity on certain things by investigating that general region around that general period:

It doesnt matter unless they try to communicate with you. At that point you will know anyways. in the meantime, lets speculate:

How is time changed in a black hole? Well, in a certain sense it is not changed at all. If you were to enter a black hole, you would find you watch ticking along at the same rate as it always had (assuming both you and the watch survived the passage into the black hole). Although your watch as seen by you would not change its ticking rate, just as in special relativity (if you know anything about that), someone else would see a different ticking rate on your watch than the usual, and you would see their watch to be ticking at a different than normal rate. For example, if you were to station yourself just outside a black hole, while you would find your own watch ticking at the normal rate, you would see the watch of a friend at great distance from the hole to be ticking at a much faster rate than yours. That friend would see his own watch ticking at a normal rate, but see your watch to be ticking at a much slower rate. Thus if you stayed just outside the black hole for a while, then went back to join your friend, you would find that the friend had aged more than you had during your separation. What is the best evidence for the existence of black holes? Is it all really just a theory? Astronomers have found a half-dozen or so binary star systems (two stars orbiting each other) where one of the stars is invisible, yet must be there since it pulls with enough gravitational force on the other visible star to make that star orbit around their common center of gravity AND the mass of the invisible star is considerably greater than 3 to 5 solar masses. Therefore these invisible stars are thought to be good candidate black holes. There is also evidence that supermassive black holes (about 1 billion solar masses) exist at the centers of many galaxies and quasars. In this latter case other explanations of the output of energy by quasars are not as good as the explanation using a supermassive black hole. (You see, when matter falls in a gravitational field, its speed and therefore energy, increases. If lots of matter is falling in at the same time, and swirling around the black hole in a disk resembling a traffic jam in a cul-de-sac, then friction between the various pieces of matter will turn much of that speed-energy picked up during the fall into heat, which than gets radiated away. In this way, the matter surrounding a supermassive black hole can radiate more energy per gram of fuel than can be released by any other mechanism we know, including nuclear fusion.)

As always it depends on what you mean by those particular words. Words dont have inherent meaning - the given idea is only invested by proxy, at a personal level, more or less in accordance with a consensus agreement on definitions. Is "desire" deeper than choice? Thats an odd question, but look at it this way - can you choose not to eat? Can you choose not to sleep? Im sure you desire to eat or sleep at some point or another, but I doubt you can choose to override that desire forever. Many people seem to discount the power of their instincts and the role biology plays in their life - not just simple things like eating and sleeping (and fucking), but (somehow) less obvious desires like ownership of territory, maximizing comfort and safety, expanding personal influence, etc. The human animal has progressively abstracted their own instincts through reliance on symbolic thought and dependence on civilization and society. The biological imperatives have not disappeared or vanished in the thin air of "advanced evolution", but rather have become overlaid with rationalization and conceptual abstraction and obscured by the diffused consciousness from countless generations of conditioned response. The modern human is not any more advanced than other animals, it just expresses "mindlessness" in a different way. The only difference is in the potential for development, which unlike other species, is a personal matter alone. Humans can develop themselves on their own without waiting for mother nature to do it for them. Some see paradox in this, as it is only accomplished by becoming equal to nature - not superior to it - and thereby releasing the overcompensations and imbalances which engender their own "unnatural" dynamics. Taking choice a bit further - can you choose to jump up into the sky and fly off like a bird? How about something much more simple - can you choose not to act on your own feelings? People who cannot even choose to resist their own biology dont really have choice to begin with - as they are only choosing between one imbalance or another. This where the idea of developing "will" comes in regarding cultivation. Why is it that wu-wei is not already how all people go about their lives anyway? This could be something for you to ponder.

You could look at thoughts like radio signals, and your mind like a radio receiver. Deriving your "identity" by imputing "ownership" of your thoughts is misleading. Its also a specific hindrance in certain endeavors. That isnt to say they are meaningless, because in fact, the particular internal resonance which aligns with them is perhaps the most relevant aspect of the moment in your particular life. Therefore much can be learned by implication alone. In terms of signal (being) to noise (thoughts) ratio, its an applicable metaphor but the real concern may not be the most obvious part. In other words, I dont think there is much point in trying to stop thoughts to access being - IMO the best advice in that direction is to regard them as you would the sounds of traffic outside your window in a city setting. When inner alignment reaches a certain height/depth, thoughts cease to appear in an almost alarming way. There is no effort involved in it. The energy they would require for maintenance is then applied to perception in a more direct way. While it may not be entirely accurate to consider the mediation of thoughts as necessarily "false", such mediation is unnecessary to begin with in regards to perception per se. Thoughts serves a different purpose altogether.

*shudder*

Skullduggery Lane no space for brahmin conceit time to cut a bitch

An old zen teacher once said there is a point at which "one throws away books as if they were on fire".

Yes, yes and yes, and China as well. He was one of the first to make such a round-trip journey part of the "great work" in the western tradition. The term "philosophy" was supposedly coined by him. It translates as "love of wisdom".

http://youtu.be/MYsBvZRXF7A

yarrow stalks, compass jams on amplified heart strings music to my ears

he has a body coveted by the inept toys of the adept

While I dont think finding the guardian relates to "satori", I saw something like these eyes during my last extended encounter with this aspect:

If the only non-physical beings you can find are akin to "lesser animals", then you shouldnt have much to worry about beyond yourself anyway... personal responsibility, that sort of thing On the other hand, "there are more things in heaven and earth"...

what are they hiding? hats hung on moving targets realm of jealous gods

If its truly life-threatening, then the very possibility of that should give you clues as to the direction it would go. In other words, there is a purpose for all things. "Bliss" can be a subjective aspect of siddhis in general. "Grounding" or "conducting" (as in a conduit) that energy is worth the effort. What Im saying is: investigate it on your own terms and try not to jump to conclusions, especially those provided by other people, and even more especially those based on fear of any sort, and most especially fear of death. In that sense, there is no point in saying too much here - but dont get caught up on this. Even many decades of experience with this sort of thing is really less than a drop in the ocean. If you can clearly recall multiple lifetimes, then you may have good reason to get excited about your development - otherwise I would advise caution and proactive humility.

I dont necessarily agree or disagree with the following, but I have always found it to be an interesting viewpoint on this sort of topic: 9th, on 21 Feb 2013 - 08:07, said: The ways are opposed to everyday life, based upon other principles and subject to other laws. In this consists their power and their significance. In everyday life, even in a life filled with scientific, philosophical, religious, or social interests, there is nothing, and there can be nothing, which could give the possibilities which are contained in the ways. The ways lead, or should lead, man to immortality. Everyday life, even at its best, leads man to death and can lead to nothing else. The idea of the ways cannot be understood if the possibility of man's evolution without their help is admitted. "How should evolution be understood?" "The evolution of man," G. replied, "can be taken as the development in him of those powers and possibilities which never develop by themselves, that is, mechanically. Only this kind of development, only this kind of growth, marks the real evolution of man. There is, and there can be, no other kind of evolution whatever. "In order to understand the law of man's evolution it is necessary to grasp that, beyond a certain point, this evolution is not at all necessary, that is to say, it is not necessary for nature at a given moment in its own development. To speak more precisely: the evolution of mankind corresponds to the evolution of the planets, but the evolution of the planets proceeds, for us, in infinitely prolonged cycles of time. Throughout the stretch of time that human thought can embrace, no essential changes can take place in the life of the planets, and, consequently, no essential changes can take place in the life of mankind. "Humanity neither progresses nor evolves. What seems to us to be progress or evolution is a partial modification which can be immediately counterbalanced by a corresponding modification in an opposite direction. "Humanity, like the rest of organic life, exists on earth for the needs and purposes of the earth. And it is exactly as it should be for the earth's requirements at the present time. "Only thought as theoretical and as far removed from fact as modem European thought could have conceived the evolution of man to be possible apart from surrounding nature, or have regarded the evolution of man as a gradual conquest of nature. This is quite impossible. In living, in dying, in evolving, in degenerating, man equally serves the purposes of nature — or, rather, nature makes equal use, though perhaps for different purposes, of the products of both evolution and degeneration. And, at the same time, humanity as a whole can never escape from nature, for, even in struggling against nature man acts in conformity with her purposes. The evolution of large masses of humanity is opposed to nature's purposes. The evolution of a certain small percentage may be in accord with nature's purposes. Man contains within him the possibility of evolution. But the evolution of humanity as a whole, that is, the development of these possibilities in all men, or in most of them, or even in a large number of them, is not necessary for the purposes of the earth or of the planetary world in general, and it might, in fact, be injurious or fatal. There exist, therefore, special forces (of a planetary character) which oppose the evolution of large masses of humanity and keep it at the level it ought to be. "But, at the same time, possibilities of evolution exist, and they may be developed in separate individuals with the help of appropriate knowledge and methods. Such development can take place only in the interests of the man himself against, so to speak, the interests and forces of the planetary world. The man must understand this: his evolution is necessary only to himself. No one else is interested in it. And no one is obliged or intends to help him. On the contrary, the forces which oppose the evolution of large masses of humanity also oppose the evolution of individual men. A man must outwit them. And one man can outwit them, humanity cannot. You will understand later on that all these obstacles are very useful to a man; if they did not exist they would have to be created intentionally, because it is by overcoming obstacles that man develops those qualities he needs. "The advantage of the separate individual is that he is very small and that, in the economy of nature, it makes no difference whether there is one mechanical man more or less. We can easily understand this correlation of magnitudes if we imagine the correlation between a microscopic cell and our own body. The presence or absence of one cell will change nothing in the life of the body. We cannot be conscious of it, and it can have no influence on the life and functions of the organism. In exactly the same way a separate individual is too small to influence the life of the cosmic organism to which he stands in the same relation (with regard to size) as a cell stands to our own organism. And this is precisely what makes his 'evolution' possible; on this are based his 'possibilities.' "In speaking of evolution it is necessary to understand from the outset that no mechanical evolution is possible. The evolution of man is the evolution of his consciousness. And 'consciousness' cannot evolve unconsciously. The evolution of man is the evolution of his will, and 'will' cannot evolve involuntarily. The evolution of man is the evolution of his power of doing, and 'doing' cannot be the result of things which 'happen.'

6 Then shall they rejoice with joy and be glad, And into the holy place shall they enter; And its fragrance shall be in their bones, And they shall live a long life on earth, Such as thy fathers lived: And in their days shall no sorrow or plague Or torment or calamity touch them.'

And the vision was shown to me thus: Behold, in the vision clouds invited me and a mist summoned me, and the course of the stars and the lightnings sped and hastened me, and the winds in 9 the vision caused me to fly and lifted me upward, and bore me into heaven. And I went in till I drew nigh to a wall which is built of crystals and surrounded by tongues of fire: and it began to affright 10 me. And I went into the tongues of fire and drew nigh to a large house which was built of crystals: and the walls of the house were like a tesselated floor (made) of crystals, and its groundwork was 11 of crystal. Its ceiling was like the path of the stars and the lightnings, and between them were 12 fiery cherubim, and their heaven was (clear as) water. A flaming fire surrounded the walls, and its 13 portals blazed with fire. And I entered into that house, and it was hot as fire and cold as ice: there 14 were no delights of life therein: fear covered me, and trembling got hold upon me. And as I quaked 15 and trembled, I fell upon my face. And I beheld a vision, And lo! there was a second house, greater 16 than the former, and the entire portal stood open before me, and it was built of flames of fire. And in every respect it so excelled in splendour and magnificence and extent that I cannot describe to 17 you its splendour and its extent. And its floor was of fire, and above it were lightnings and the path 18 of the stars, and its ceiling also was flaming fire. And I looked and saw therein a lofty throne: its appearance was as crystal, and the wheels thereof as the shining sun, and there was the vision of 19 cherubim. And from underneath the throne came streams of flaming fire so that I could not look 20 thereon. And the Great Glory sat thereon, and His raiment shone more brightly than the sun and 21 was whiter than any snow. None of the angels could enter and could behold His face by reason 22 of the magnificence and glory and no flesh could behold Him. The flaming fire was round about Him, and a great fire stood before Him, and none around could draw nigh Him: ten thousand times 23 ten thousand (stood) before Him, yet He needed no counselor. And the most holy ones who were 24 nigh to Him did not leave by night nor depart from Him.