The Absolute Present

[GrandmasterP]

It's a question I have often puzzled over of an idle moment.

We get plenty of those where I 'work'.

Asked the science bods, no joy. Main answer from that direction tending towards....

Find the funding and we'll investigate.

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[GrandmasterP]

If you find out do tell buddy.

No funding in my area at all, only cut backs.

[thelerner]

Were one to be travelling at the speed of light whilst holding a mirror before one's face, would one see a reflection therein?

If so.

Whose?

I think you'd see your own..just before the increased mass of the mirror created a black hole that sucked you in.

 

it happened to my Uncle Rapidowski, but he was very fast runner.

Edited December 10, 2012 by thelerner

[GrandmasterP]

I wonder.

If one's face was travelling at the speed of light then how might the light travel from face to mirror in order to be reflected back?

It's a puzzle for sure.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

"The speed of light" is a fallacy. I used to have better info, but i lost that article, and memory doesnt serve right but i understand light is more of an event horizon? Wishi i could find that artcle again,...

[GrandmasterP]

http://astronomy-links.net/cosmofallacies.htm

Enjoy.

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[GrandmasterP]

Not at the moment .

Past my bedtime.

:-)

[Birch]

http://astronomy-links.net/cosmofallacies.htm

Enjoy.

 

That was interesting. Why don't they title it 'Things we used to think were the case but we were wrong about' rather than 'fallacies'.

[JustARandomPanda]

To have an inkling of understanding Vmarco's "Undivided Light" it is necessary to know how Walter Russell explained it in A New Concept of the Universe.

 

Unless you've read the works of Russell you won't much understand where VMarco is coming from. Basically it's Buddhism via Russell's description of the nature of light. Russell basically overthrows almost all (and I do mean damn near ALL) of modern day physics. And I'm not so quick to dismiss Russell as you'll soon see why.

 

 

After having read up a bit of Walter Russell's science (combined with Sheldrake's [albeit he's not the only one] recent books and lectures exposing how modern day physics is the Emperor With No Clothes) I've come to think Russell was indeed on to something groundbreaking.

 

 

Check out the following YouTube vids.

 

 

First to see how damn shaky the foundations of modern day physics really are check out the following by Sheldrake. It's long...but if you can watch it all...it's damn good. A LOT of food for thought. And it will prepare you for follow up on Russell's science of Light

 

 

 

For a second and very different but still withering blast critique of modern day "scientistic" mind check out this vid on Fora TV

 

Science's First Mistake: Delusions in Pursuit of a Theory

 

You can download the ebook for free (or buy the printed book)

 

 

Now...you are ready to begin learning Walter Russell's explanation of Undivided Light

 

 

The only difference in the above vid is that Walter Russell speaks that there was a Creator while Buddhists might speak of the Dharmakaya. Russell came from a Christian background and knew the majority of people studying his books would be only familiar with Christianity or at most Judaism. Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and Sufism were exceedingly fringe in the 40s and 50s.

 

Hope this begins to help those who find VMarco posts baffling.

 

Oh...and when the Buddha told that thief who was trying to rob him he'd have to stop first to catch him... Well if one goes by Walter Russell's Physics of Undivided Light (the fulcrum - the stillness which is Master of all - the Vajra mind that yet remains Unmoved (to quote a line from the Shurangama mantra ) ) then Buddha was indeed STILL (literally) and anything that changes (like a theif running to catch him) will never ever be able to "catch" up, "see", or know (or as Vmarco puts it "gnow") that which neither comes nor goes.

 

Again..you need to have studied Walter Russell's Science of Light to understand VMarco's point (along with understanding Buddhism specifically of course).

[Birch]

I watched that Sheldrake vid earlier, it was very good. Thanks for posting!

My ears perked up a couple of times when I figured I'd 'caught' Sheldrake in the act of what sounded like appeals to authority and there was one study he mentioned that I was sure had been 'disproved' since (will have to go through the whole thing again to specify which) but then I figured, really, he's only talking like scientists so often do, perhaps I ought to cut slack because I thought the rest of his talk was great. I laughed at the measuring dept story. I laughed less at the restrictions placed on scientists by their institutions and which they apparently accept in exchange for career. But perhaps getting less so?

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/is_earth_f_ked_at_2012_agu_meeting_scientists_consider_advocacy_activism.html

[JustARandomPanda]

I watched that Sheldrake vid earlier, it was very good. Thanks for posting!

My ears perked up a couple of times when I figured I'd 'caught' Sheldrake in the act of what sounded like appeals to authority and there was one study he mentioned that I was sure had been 'disproved' since (will have to go through the whole thing again to specify which) but then I figured, really, he's only talking like scientists so often do, perhaps I ought to cut slack because I thought the rest of his talk was great. I laughed at the measuring dept story. I laughed less at the restrictions placed on scientists by their institutions and which they apparently accept in exchange for career. But perhaps getting less so?

 

http://www.slate.com...y_activism.html

 

Interesting article -K-. Thanks for the link.

 

 

Yeah it's interesting seeing just how difficult it is to break through vested interests.

 

 

 

******************

 

 

Also check out Itzhak Bentov's A Brief Tour of Higher Consciousness

 

The Amazon preview is pretty good.

 

 

 

Here's another one for you as well:

 

As the saying goes: "As Above, So Below"

 

 

Introducing: Viktor Schauberger (the Walter Russell of natural systems):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

p.s. On a completely separate note: Wait till you see the post I'm going to make about the subject of Soul Mates and Relationships in the Hermetics forum...

[Birch]

Cool:-)!

 

I really enjoyed the second video.

[deci belle]

 

mr V sez:

Although rarely discussed, there are two Present's; a relative and an absolute.

 

And the even more rarely conceived, the Presence which is neither.

 

This would be complete Reality; Suchness, as is.

 

[Vmarco]

One of the reasons I am here was to explore with those here what it takes to dissolve the quite evident dualistic belief systems here... The real Tao be beyond and within the creation... Of course there is a center without a boundary in the infinite... zero bounds and infinite bounds talk about the vastness of existence in bounded ways and I rather we talked in the vastness of existence... Comes or goes talks within the domains of time and as I said I rather we talked in the vastness of existence... can you do that here and now? The one and the many can realize the tao as has been realized by one and many...

 

Enlightenment is, Enlightenment... be it within the delusion of One and Many be it without the delusion of One and Many...

--- dissolve the delusion to become enlightened ... its more allow the enlightenment to realize the true understanding that one may se the delusion as the delusion and the enlightenment as the enlightenment ... short path long path distinctions of the same path... and if its a path from where to where? I am always where I am be it there be it here... heart-mind-body-spirit and a bit more...

 

got to go for now...

 

The "infinite" is a mathematical concept. Most people fail to recognize that the foundation of a mathematical statement is only true in relation to the assumptions of "set theory," the assumption that any collection of objects actually exists. All objects, without exception, are indeed mathematical. The reason for that lies in the multiplying/dividing nature of the optically organized universe. However, the modern cosmological understanding of the universe suggests that no objects exist, indicating that mathematics pivots on a misguided belief in materialism. The sciences usually expound on relative reality through the assumption that object-ive reality actually exists. However, objectivism is based on objects, and those objects are no more real than last night’s dream.

　

 

Infinity is another voguish belief topic among the object-ive minded. Theories of infinite space, time, and quantity are just more object-ive math. Definitions of infinity are related or relative to the concept of immeasurability in space, time, or quantity. However, if there is no space, time, or quantity, as implied by quantum cosmology, then there is no infinity.

 

The Tao is not within creation, any more that One and Many are within zero. For example, No-Boundary Theory postulated by Quantum Cosmologists Steven Hawking and Jim Hartle, which says that since time loses characteristics that separate it from space, the concept of a beginning in time becomes meaningless. There is no BigBang, no singularity, no creation, no Creator, because there is no time. The terms creation/creator implies a before and after, or time.

 

The Tao does not "come and go" within your delusion of time.

Lao-zu said, "Recognize that eveything you see and think is a falsehood, an illusion, a veil over the truth."

 

Lao-zu said, "there is nothing more futile and frustrating than relying on the mind. To arrive at the unshakable, you must befriend the Tao. To do this, quiet your thinking."

 

Lao-zu said "the Tao doesn't come and go."

 

Please cease describing enlightenment as if you understand what it is,...nothing in your posts suggests even a close resembleness to enlightenment.

 

"As long as your shallow worldly ambitions exist (ie, hopes, beliefs, attachments to traditions) the door will not open." Lao-zu

 

The Short Path and Long Path are no where near the same paths:

http://wisdomsgoldenrod.org/notebooks/23/5

[Vmarco]

Were one to be travelling at the speed of light whilst holding a mirror before one's face, would one see a reflection therein?

If so.

Whose?

 

One cannot realize the so-called speed of light and hold a mirror.

 

Duality is a reality in the past. There is no "now" within the illusory electrodynamic dance of creation. There is no now, nor any instant, in space or time. There are no mirrors in the present, because neither emptiness nor form can exist in the present. All energy is in the past, as expressed by E=mc². At the so-called speed of light, the conditions of energy, mass, time, and space cease to exist.

 

Einstein theorized that as we approach the so-called speed of light, time slows to zero, and space shrinks to nothing. As we cross the threshold, our physical mass no longer exists.

 

When the conceptual speed of light is reached, space, time, matter, and energy cease. The nature of duality’s reality is divided, projected light that moves 186,281 miles per second slower than the stillness of undivided light (Tao). No matter what speed we perceive ourselves to be moving, the stillness of light appears to move by us 186,282 miles per second faster. From light’s point of view, space, time, and energy are in the past, and the condition of that past can never enter the unconditionality of undivided light’s present.

 

As you approach the so-called speed of light, time slows to zero, space no longer exists, and mass cancels itself out. You do not enter a new dimension, but a dimensionlessness within the still bliss of undivided light (Tao).

 

Undivided light (Tao) travels no distance in no time, and thus it has no need for speed.

 

Lao Tzu correctly said, "The Tao gives birth to One. One gives birth to yin and yang. Yin and yang give birth to all things." Neither the One, nor the Many (Yin/Yang), are the Tao.

[Vmarco]

the speed of thought is much faster...

 

Regardless of how fast you believe the speed of thought to be,...it is always in the past.

[Vmarco]

 

 

Again..you need to have studied Walter Russell's Science of Light to understand VMarco's point (along with understanding Buddhism specifically of course).

 

Yes,...Russell's New Concept of the Universe, although filtered through a theistic belief system, can be quite helpful in breaking down the delusions of duality.

 

The terms Undivided Light, the Tao, and Tathagata, are all synonyms pointing to the samething, which is beyond all things.

[rookie]

Were one to be travelling at the speed of light whilst holding a mirror before one's face, would one see a reflection therein?

If so.

Whose?

 

I see that you are trying use this analogy to get at something deeper, but the formulation is incorrect. "One" cannot travel at the speed of light. Only light can.

So whatever speed one was traveling at would be less than the speed of light and one would see one's reflection.

 

To be an effective koan I think leave the incorrect physics out of it.

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[thelerner]

Regardless of how fast you believe the speed of thought to be,...it is always in the past.

Maybe a bit,

but at their best,

my thoughts surf a wave

I call The Now.

 

Sometimes they over shoot

and I tumble off the board.

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts