What constitutes Cosmic Space?

[Ben Dhyan]

Our brother said the Sun owned the bow shock cooled gases between the ancient Sun attack and Earths gases.

Earths gases in the heavens far colder and denser by mass than a Sun body only survived by that historic status Immaculate.

Space cooled the attack. Earth continued to burn its gases as they were unnaturally ignited...to function like a Sun and yet be nothing like that Sun.

The light constant existed in the void vacuum only.

Even Einstein knew he was wrong. His life death moment his memory I once was caused to hear and see him in vision. He told me he was sorry and he had been wrong. I always wondered why I got to see his vision, now I understand what he realised like a lot of NDE humans state is the moment of intense self realisation just before you die.

My goodness me, look at that rational experiences!

Sun-Like Stars Devour Their Own Planets, New Study Claims

Apocalypse Nigh? Sun-Like Stars Devour Their Own Planets, New Study Claims

 

[rational experiences]

My goodness me, look at that rational experiences!

Sun-Like Stars Devour Their Own Planets, New Study Claims

Apocalypse Nigh? Sun-Like Stars Devour Their Own Planets, New Study Claims

The sun to earth attack cooled. Naturally by spatial cause.

Earth burns the sun's gases in heavens as the void removed the burning.

Our gases are cold. Earths heavens holy.

Occult theist knew that the sun supplies the daylight. They interfered with its nature as the machine metal UFO effect.

That became his radiation accumulator. To try to bring it forward into earths heavens to copy the natural earths past.

Thesis is for radiation mass which earth never owned as it's seal.

What his spiritual brother realised he falsely added a formula that mass space zero O earth as a body never owned. Conversion.

Adding onto God O the earth. By a maths formula.

Maths was forbidden.

O earth he says is the one mass that he by two of one removed. Minus the mass by taking it out twice. To build a machine then by multiples...the side cross symbol fallen X to remove gods body.

By formula One by one mass leaving the other one body. Falsely claiming I am not changing anything as the earth was saved by converting naturally.

Where and how lying by using natural laws began.

The two in science. I take from God one body mass. God remains intact. From its beginnings. Yet earth never began as stone.

One of his lies.

The reaction was just a conversion. He holds controls his irradiating mass inside the machine. In nature the same event releases the radiation as natural never held it. Space pressure had.

Another fact he was aware of his machine control is only artificial.

Spirit gas is what the radiation mass was added into. Where life was living owning its human beginnings. Which removes it.

Stone was the zero space seal.

So his brother told us how his thesis came from a theme where the earth flooded was in vision with UFO machine radiation presence in atmosphere as fake life beginning thesis ended.

All in the one moment. As no life had begun yet and no life existed so no life ended.

Contriving in thoughts. If no life exists then I cannot harm it.

Water by mass is the first life body. As anything within it is secondary.

What his satanic secret theorising never told you. Yet it is there recorded in his man sciences life record. His psyche wisdom.

The meaning of his man in science intention.

He preaches life came from out of space. That thesis was never light it was water. That came on the frozen body of the moon asteroid.

So when he theories life beginnings it means he wants it ended rationally as he is a liar. As it had not yet begun.

Sun only made the first space sin holes. His theorising says I never changed any natural laws as the sun owned the first space holes in the earth body.

What coercive theorisng persuasion is in science as a liar.

He said the UFO mass moved through the earth sin hole departicularising yet leaving the particles intact.

Holes were real.

As separation by radiation mass had separated earths body once above ground into dusts. First.

His thesis is a proven evil intention as he infers to natural history first of earth without life. When water was not even on the ground.

As the theist.

The thesis the sun separated the mass into dusts is first as radiation by mass.

What he never told his theory.

The dust thesis hence already owned two events. Sin K holes and mass separation as first reaction. In one moment.

 

[RestlessSoul]

In a deep way, I think that all whole terms are really all trying to express what is perceived to be just one thing: the set of all things. Consciousness, God, Universe are really synonyms with what might be considered with deeply different connotations. Consciousness and God reflect the duality of I and Thou or Us and Them or Self and Other or Subject and Object. Although Consciousness and God seem to be two very different things, they are really not. This is attested to through countless visions and experiences of a spiritual or mystical nature. Since these are abstract ideas not pointing to demonstrable physical properties that can be bottled or boxed up, spiritual/mystical perspectives have as much or even more validity when speaking of such things than science can at the present time.

Similarly Consciousness and God as Knowers is in a complimentary opposite relationship to the Universe or Creation as known. But taking a basic systemic view we immediately know that, of course, we human beings who "have consciousness" and "know God" are also just "dust" or the stuff of the unknowing Universe.

Every such duality of complimentary opposites reveals two things:

• The relationship of opposites presents a mystery even as it saturates the character of what we know as knowers
• Trying to resolve complimentary opposites into a simpler rational formulation always yields further complexity of knowledge in the face of the irrationality of the duality

The dualities we observe in the universe have the recognizable imprint of the work of the brain. The nervous system is in so many ways a system for responding to sensory input by virtue of complimentary opposition. In neurons we have polarization and depolarization as well as excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters. In neural connections we see positive and negative feedback mechanisms. The control of muscles through nerves is always performed by a graded coordination of opposing stimulation of the muscle to contract and extend simultaneously. Color perception shows its complimentary oppositional character as we contemplate the relationships of the primary colors with each other.

Certainly given this context we indeed share in that which we know in ways which we have discovered and will continue to discover. It is the experience of so-called self-similarity in systems which shows that we have a lot in common with various aspects of the universe at various scales.

We are already at one with the universe. We are embedded in it inextricably. There is no heaven to escape to, but, perhaps, there is if we understand that the Universe is NOT a box as much as it is a flower growing in a dark field and as a small insect on that flower we may just reach out in some way and make contact with that field even from where we stand in our utter smallness.

We are embedded in the universe, sure. But our experience of it is subjective, and our experience of ourselves within it is an experience of separation - though this may be illusory.

Even in your analogy of the flower and the insect, the universe is divided into separate objects. Yet scientists and philosophers know that the barriers between phenomena are porous, arbitrary even, a function of perspective; that the universe is composed not of things, but of impermanent events, whereby particles, objects, people, planets even stars, maintain their particularities and hold themselves in equilibrium only fleetingly.

Yet here we all are, each experiencing the universe subjectively. We view the universe from within, for we are as you say, intrinsically embedded within it. Yet the world we perceive, the one our senses construct out of the information around us, manifests within our own mind. We are in the universe and the universe is in us. Yet our consciousness, miraculous as it is, is fleeting and incomplete, limited in space and time, as we are limited.

So my question is, is there a greater consciousness, of which we are just fragments, catching only glimpses? The Buddha, Jesus and Einstein all appeared to believe so. And that our separateness is illusory.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We are embedded in the universe, sure. But our experience of it is subjective, and our experience of ourselves within it is an experience of separation - though this may be illusory.

Even in your analogy of the flower and the insect, the universe is divided into separate objects. Yet scientists and philosophers know that the barriers between phenomena are porous, arbitrary even, a function of perspective; that the universe is composed not of things, but of impermanent events, whereby particles, objects, people, planets even stars, maintain their particularities and hold themselves in equilibrium only fleetingly.

Yet here we all are, each experiencing the universe subjectively. We view the universe from within, for we are as you say, intrinsically embedded within it. Yet the world we perceive, the one our senses construct out of the information around us, manifests within our own mind. We are in the universe and the universe is in us. Yet our consciousness, miraculous as it is, is fleeting and incomplete, limited in space and time, as we are limited.

So my question is, is there a greater consciousness, of which we are just fragments, catching only glimpses? The Buddha, Jesus and Einstein all appeared to believe so. And that our separateness is illusory.

Definitely yes to your last question, and yes, our separateness is illusionary. In the normal state of consciousness, we are coming from our ego mind, that of self identification with our body. Note that the bible says that the body is merely a temple of God, this is the key to expanding our consciousness, but also the start of having to be careful with out words. The expansions of awareness comes at the expense of self identification with the body. Say a meditator manages to still their mind to a degree for the first time such there is an experience of a state of expanded consciousness, the experiencer is actually out of body, ie., there is no thinker present. If when they come back to self identification with their body and claim to have some samadhi experience, they are seriously mistaken. This error must be corrected if ever they can move beyond the beginner's stage.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I thought that the OP was a little weird.
However the posts in reply have included the fantastical and downright Loony.

Science is staring to get a handle on the fist moments that the Universe came into existence.
It is very far from the Stone age ideas developed from the oral tradition of Genesis.

We will probably never know what caused the universe to come into existence.
And some sort of God story is as good as anything for now.
Particularly if you equate God with unknown Causation.
We can define neither at this time.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

^ A quick illustration of the principle associated with cosmic consciousness.
Imagine a large spherical array of tuning forks of the same frequency arranged such they are all equally apart. hit one and they all begin to vibrate as one. Now imagine that a paper clip is positioned on various tuning forks throughout the array such that they are detuned and resonate at a different frequency to the array as a whole, but the same as all forks with the paper clip. Imagine vibrations as awareness, the ones with the paper clip will be aware of each other but only be aware of empty space between each other. Now one fork with the paper clip meditates by removing the paper clip, suddenly they have an out of body expanded sense of awareness.

When we can still out thinking mind (removing the paper clip), we become aware of an expanded 3D spatial awareness that is awesome when experienced for the first time. When we return to our ego thinking mind, (paper clip back on), they remember the impressions of the expanded state and mistakenly think they experienced it. The true master learns to function continuously free of the paper clip, like Buddha, Jesus, As Jesus said, be in the world, but not of it!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

^ A quick illustration of the principle associated with cosmic consciousness.
Imagine a large spherical array of tuning forks of the same frequency arranged such they are all equally apart. hit one and they all begin to vibrate as one. Now imagine that a paper clip is positioned on various tuning forks throughout the array such that they are detuned and resonate at a different frequency to the array as a whole, but the same as all forks with the paper clip. Imagine vibrations as awareness, the ones with the paper clip will be aware of each other but only be aware of empty space between each other. Now one fork with the paper clip meditates by removing the paper clip, suddenly they have an out of body expanded sense of awareness.

When we can still out thinking mind (removing the paper clip), we become aware of an expanded 3D spatial awareness that is awesome when experienced for the first time. When we return to our ego thinking mind, (paper clip back on), they remember the impressions of the expanded state and mistakenly think they experienced it. The true master learns to function continuously free of the paper clip, like Buddha, Jesus, As Jesus said, be in the world, but not of it!

The best way to explain fiction is with fiction.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I thought that the OP was a little weird.
However the posts in reply have included the fantastical and downright Loony.

Science is staring to get a handle on the fist moments that the Universe came into existence.
It is very far from the Stone age ideas developed from the oral tradition of Genesis.

We will probably never know what caused the universe to come into existence.
And some sort of God story is as good as anything for now.
Particularly if you equate God with unknown Causation.
We can define neither at this time.

Ok, certainly the OP was meant to challenge. I see you identify with Anglican. Do you accept the Christian concept of spirit?

As your secular self, do you accept there is dark energy.?

So if you accept both, they must occupy the same space, yes?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The best way to explain fiction is with fiction.

Hey, I'm an Anglican too, we should be both on the same wavelength.

 

[sealchan]

We are embedded in the universe, sure. But our experience of it is subjective, and our experience of ourselves within it is an experience of separation - though this may be illusory.

Even in your analogy of the flower and the insect, the universe is divided into separate objects. Yet scientists and philosophers know that the barriers between phenomena are porous, arbitrary even, a function of perspective; that the universe is composed not of things, but of impermanent events, whereby particles, objects, people, planets even stars, maintain their particularities and hold themselves in equilibrium only fleetingly.

Yet here we all are, each experiencing the universe subjectively. We view the universe from within, for we are as you say, intrinsically embedded within it. Yet the world we perceive, the one our senses construct out of the information around us, manifests within our own mind. We are in the universe and the universe is in us. Yet our consciousness, miraculous as it is, is fleeting and incomplete, limited in space and time, as we are limited.

So my question is, is there a greater consciousness, of which we are just fragments, catching only glimpses? The Buddha, Jesus and Einstein all appeared to believe so. And that our separateness is illusory.

I have given a lot of thought to what is the nature of subjective vs objective. It is often taken for granted that we are some separate thing or being which observes everything else. And along with this assumption is this presumption of an almost absolute separation.

But I think that an examination of common speech and ways of thinking reveals that this is not, in fact, the case. This separation of mind from matter, perhaps started in the West by the ideas of Rene Descartes, has become way over-emphasized and is, in fact, not very accurate to our everyday experience.

In fact, just think about the Hindu idea of attachment. Our egos are always wanting to identify with certain other things. We want to label ourselves this or that, good or bad, etc. In this way we are treating of ourselves as if they were "at one" with that other. This may be understood to be an unconscious union with the other rather than a conscious one and as it serves to bolster the strength and confidence of the ego, it may also put it into an even bigger skirmish with other experienceable truths that would readily deconstruct that confidence.

The desire to dissolve our separation, as I take you mean it, however, is probably based in the notion of wanting to appreciate things as they are...maybe more than appreciate but to experience awe, joy, ecstasy or a deep feeling of peace in response to that dissolution of separation. If we examine what this means, and this examination is, of necessity, done via language, then it is clear that this can only be achieved in the co-presence of a sense of having been separate from other things. So, at best, what we want to achieve is an experience of unity along with a more common experience of separateness...and not to dissolve completely that sense of separateness less we dissolve completely the sense of consciousness of this or the work done in order to achieve it.

For me the greatest moments of my experience of unity with creation have been extremely private, and therefore, subjective experiences. I have even captured one such experience in a paper I wrote in my Bachelor's degree studies and went on to improve for my Master's degree work. The moment you experience this unity is always, of necessity, a very subjective moment. This very subjective moment is imbedded in a particular story which has come to what could be called its momentary climax where the experiencer has achieved a mystical insight that they will never forget and will bring them a lasting sense of peace. At best, if you can capture the story fully and tell it just so, you might just give the reader or listener a taste of that sense of unity as well. For me, the greatest stories or philosophical essays do just this.

Ironically, this sort of knowledge has for us a very lasting quality which withstands the ravages of further experience. As such we might also want to say it is "objective" knowledge. To say so, however, would be to ignore the fact that objective knowledge is also primarily understood within a community of knowers. Such rare, mystical, objective knowledge is very difficult to come by although certainly there are communities, such as Zen Buddhism, which have those who would claim such knowledge and many whose faith it is that they too can acquire such knowledge through a particular discipline.

So in this context I would say that there is a greater consciousness. I might say I have experienced this, but I could not, in any confident way, demonstrate the objectivity of this statement to you unless you too also happen to have had the subjective experience or the faith to accept that this is true. And for that reason I am just as comfortable saying there is not a greater consciousness.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I have given a lot of thought to what is the nature of subjective vs objective. It is often taken for granted that we are some separate thing or being which observes everything else. And along with this assumption is this presumption of an almost absolute separation.

But I think that an examination of common speech and ways of thinking reveals that this is not, in fact, the case. This separation of mind from matter, perhaps started in the West by the ideas of Rene Descartes, has become way over-emphasized and is, in fact, not very accurate to our everyday experience.

In fact, just think about the Hindu idea of attachment. Our egos are always wanting to identify with certain other things. We want to label ourselves this or that, good or bad, etc. In this way we are treating of ourselves as if they were "at one" with that other. This may be understood to be an unconscious union with the other rather than a conscious one and as it serves to bolster the strength and confidence of the ego, it may also put it into an even bigger skirmish with other experienceable truths that would readily deconstruct that confidence.

The desire to dissolve our separation, as I take you mean it, however, is probably based in the notion of wanting to appreciate things as they are...maybe more than appreciate but to experience awe, joy, ecstasy or a deep feeling of peace in response to that dissolution of separation. If we examine what this means, and this examination is, of necessity, done via language, then it is clear that this can only be achieved in the co-presence of a sense of having been separate from other things. So, at best, what we want to achieve is an experience of unity along with a more common experience of separateness...and not to dissolve completely that sense of separateness less we dissolve completely the sense of consciousness of this or the work done in order to achieve it.

For me the greatest moments of my experience of unity with creation have been extremely private, and therefore, subjective experiences. I have even captured one such experience in a paper I wrote in my Bachelor's degree studies and went on to improve for my Master's degree work. The moment you experience this unity is always, of necessity, a very subjective moment. This very subjective moment is imbedded in a particular story which has come to what could be called its momentary climax where the experiencer has achieved a mystical insight that they will never forget and will bring them a lasting sense of peace. At best, if you can capture the story fully and tell it just so, you might just give the reader or listener a taste of that sense of unity as well. For me, the greatest stories or philosophical essays do just this.

Ironically, this sort of knowledge has for us a very lasting quality which withstands the ravages of further experience. As such we might also want to say it is "objective" knowledge. To say so, however, would be to ignore the fact that objective knowledge is also primarily understood within a community of knowers. Such rare, mystical, objective knowledge is very difficult to come by although certainly there are communities, such as Zen Buddhism, which have those who would claim such knowledge and many whose faith it is that they too can acquire such knowledge through a particular discipline.

So in this context I would say that there is a greater consciousness. I might say I have experienced this, but I could not, in any confident way, demonstrate the objectivity of this statement to you unless you too also happen to have had the subjective experience or the faith to accept that this is true. And for that reason I am just as comfortable saying there is not a greater consciousness.

The mind state that presumes there is separation between I the observer and that which is observed, perceived, etc., is considered the norm. However when it comes to apprehending the underlying unity of all that is, this normal dualistic state of mind* can not ever in all eternity realize oneness. Transcending duality means the mind to be at one with its awareness. Iow, not to be aware of something (duality), but to be awareness itself. The most common religious practice for transcending the dualistic mind is Dhyan/Chan/Zen meditation, which involves the stilling of the mind, ie., a mind without thought, hence without a thinker. It is not easy as when thinking stops, there is a sort of psychological death of the ego, There lies the problem, the ego of the seeker wants to realize oneness/God/Samadhi, but does not want to cease to be to realize it. That is why there are few masters about, the transcendent state is free from the ego, and in fact in time, self identification transitions from the body to the transcendent mind state, Masters become like Jesus, 'the father and I are one' state.

* Btw, I am inclined to interpret the Genesis tree of knowledge of good and evil metaphorical story as the error of dualism.

 

[rational experiences]

Every mass occupies the same space as mass owns no space.

You cannot convert unless a space is given.

And it is naturally. Mass in space hence can convert itself.

Science a human practice living within a heavens is a coercive liar. We always said it was.

Science does not exist.

As to think you have to create the subject of intent.

Human practice science intent was to invent the space so that conversion could be enacted.

On earth science did invent that space. Sin holes...the sink hole.

Invention.

The coercion.

Notice ion in the description.

Natural already had holes as God. So they said God owned the space sink hole yet God owned natural womb space.

They said inside my machine reaction the space forms. Claiming don't blame me for sin. It was gods fault. As science always blamed natural for changing by itself.

The one body science says minus one belongs to.

Science maths.

O one mass removed by one small o conversion.

Theme two bodies. Concept by two.

+ Fake. The cross is addit ion.
X fallen cross on its side...life attacked reason by side status. Multiples.

By changing real law mother womb owner as space.

It was known. Realised. Lived. Life destroyed. All previously reasoned and the reasons today are still the same reasons.

Science says it is researching the substance of the beginning claiming it still exists within all things.

Yet all things are not any same thing stating categorically it is lying.

 

[rational experiences]

If you said to science the eternal form only existed. First place.

Then changed eternal form the cause...creation presence....what substance would anything own?

Changed eternal.

Science as it's human thesis says bursting burning changed a mass of the eternal. As science says first form was highest form.

Satanism says burning spirit. You or we must all have the burning spirit within us first. And believe in it and want it put into our bodies.

As the theme I am the creator history myself. A human making the claim is just human.

Yet we are not burning. Science says evolution cooling was implemented so God is all pre burnt products. God now is evolution changed forms.

A Multi effect as space kept being introduced as mass consumed. How one only form owned diverse energy bodies. Yet science says it is all still just energy.

That science story owns no human idealism whatsoever.

So we said the cosmic God in science was earth.

As without stone existing first no human as a human would as a human exist.

Ignored as scientific relativity the statement of the human God..one planet earth only. Said against fake human theisms for machine reactions only.

Hence to argue against satanic liars in science it became a conscious teaching about where human consciousness existed first on earth...first with CHrist CH gases that came out of the stone body.

Relative advice.

Today man of science says I never used God in any energy gain. As a whole mass form just all energy. God still has some source on earth to use.

Not ever was God actually as a source used. Which is an inference to no planet as natural mass existing afterwards.

Science in theory maths says no I am just talking about skimming off the whole face of earth as one mass. Earth as God will still exist afterwards.

As he is in fact thinking about earths natural planet history already known sun attack. Happened actually in our planets God past.

His answer a black hole compared to substance existing. As the theory is first established in his head.

Then he compares earth sitting in space to a black hole sitting in space.

No comparison whatsoever. The radiation mass attack however pertinent to his new thesis.

Then pretends he is the creator by a human thesis. Just egotism. Yet egotism would have us all destroyed.

So then he says the black hole radiation amount that created the position on earth as God is where a particle exists.

Congratulating self on a new God thesis.

Yet that moment presence pArticle historic on earth was when the sun burnt out crystalline fusion holding mass as mass. The God earth created pArticle moment separation itself he says is the huge black hole.

Natural earths planet history re thought upon.

Yet he does not own its history earth does.

So now he is researching to own the black hole first in science before the particle on earth had. He says it's a channel thesis. Holes.

As every thought is one step eviler secreted in his psyche than what he allows you to understand in thesis.

When he says he will connect to all moments to manipulate the particle himself even beyond a black radiation mass cause.

Which is total destruction of life on earth theoried.

But you all support his thesis as man's ego says new. Greed. Money. Greatest wealth ever.

It is a new theory of why in causes. As thesis first uses natural history to claim why I know. As a human thinking about planet earth in all theories. But it is not any new God earth advice for resourcing.

What theists forget to advise their own equal human form.... the planets natural body exists first. Not your thoughts.