From proto37@yahoo.com Fri Jun 01 07:18:02 2007 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 92595 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2007 14:18:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.34) by m51.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Jun 2007 14:18:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n25c.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com) (209.131.38.239) by mta8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Jun 2007 14:18:02 -0000 Received: from [216.252.122.219] by n25.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 01 Jun 2007 14:16:43 -0000 Received: from [66.218.69.3] by t4.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 01 Jun 2007 14:16:43 -0000 Received: from [66.218.66.80] by t3.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 01 Jun 2007 14:16:43 -0000 X-Sender: proto37@yahoo.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 51702 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2007 13:05:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.72) by m49.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Jun 2007 13:05:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web32505.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (68.142.207.215) by mta14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Jun 2007 13:05:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 25610 invoked by uid 60001); 1 Jun 2007 13:03:48 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: i5NuBgUVM1m4PttVHtqHFvDa_jNpifcnaJTiy2HrKLh.QG3t7iS8Mu2s97PyOERYJxViMAngAkO6uf9auH4As78zX9I83ghuo.1fIXzFtmdej2Ken98kh3m7f1uHfw-- Received: from [4.131.48.175] by web32505.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 01 Jun 2007 06:03:48 PDT Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 06:03:48 -0700 (PDT) To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <236989.25377.qm@web32505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Originating-IP: 68.142.207.215 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 From: Mark Jaqua Subject: Important new book "en Espanol" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=130276474; y=WF33-tX12EJkDlTHyySWME8wr40hcoOaQtVOsblaZWvYNA X-Yahoo-Profile: proto37 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-system X-eGroups-Approved-By: eldon_tucker via web; 01 Jun 2007 14:16:42 -0000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 40638 Important new book "en espanol" The book is "H.P. Blavatsky: Alumnos, Amigos-Enemies," Blavatsky Editorial A.C. (Ma. Enriqueta Camarillo de Pereyra, No. 45, Santa Maria la Ribera, Mexico, D.F. 06400, MEXICO ), 8-1/2 x 11, 900 pp., paperback, 2006, Translations by Jose Ramon Sordo, profusely illustrated. The title in English would be "H.P. Blavatsky: Students, Friends-Enemies." A Spainish dictionary is one I don't have or lost, but this is a monumental new publication in Spanish. On the cover appears "Palabras de HPB a William Q. Judge, The Judge Case: A conspiracy Which Ruined the Theosophical CAUSE, Edmonton Theosophical Society, Canada, por Ernest Pelletier....) - So I assume Pelletier's "Judge Case" is a major source. The book is largely composed of contemporary commentary and biographies of 42 of early Theosophical figures (160 pp. to Judge.) I don't think there is any thing along biographical lines similar to this in English, or as comprehensive. Any one who has read Jose Ramon Sordo's writings in English will know that with his understanding of Theosophy, he is an ideal person as a translator. How much of the material is "new" or translation I can't say. There are also hundred of illustrations, old photos, etc. It is an attractive publication, and even with the 900pp, not too big to be difficult for reading. Blavatsky Editorial is in association with Fundacio Blavatsky in Mexico, I believe, perhaps its publishing arm. Fundacion Blavatsky has an impressive website at: Perhaps someone who is Spainish-English bilingual can give a better description of this book than I can. Among Spanish-speaking people would seem to be a good place to work now theosophically. With the growing Spanish population in the US and Mexico, it seems obvious that they are on an upward cycle as a sub-racial group, and we're informed in the literature that it is best to work With Nature's cycles and take advantage of them. - jake jaqua ---------------- --------------------------------- Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From plcoles1@yahoo.com.au Fri Jun 01 07:18:08 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: plcoles1@yahoo.com.au X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 36492 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2007 14:16:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.72) by m43.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Jun 2007 14:16:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n6c.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com) (69.147.64.164) by mta14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Jun 2007 14:16:45 -0000 Received: from [216.252.122.218] by n6.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 01 Jun 2007 14:14:31 -0000 Received: from [66.218.69.3] by t3.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 01 Jun 2007 14:14:31 -0000 Received: from [66.218.66.86] by t3.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 01 Jun 2007 14:14:31 -0000 Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:14:30 -0000 To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-compose X-Originating-IP: 69.147.64.164 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:6:0:0 X-Yahoo-Post-IP: 203.59.216.26 From: "plcoles1" Subject: Who are you Madame Blavatsky - a documentary X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=237271074; y=GnubAX3MCuLAS0IMIbFg7VggMcfa5cHohit8bksfvoE_P0E X-Yahoo-Profile: plcoles1 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 40639 Just found this ! Perry http://www.hpblavatsky.com/blavatskyfilm.html From MarieMAJ41@aol.com Fri Jun 01 10:31:50 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: MarieMAJ41@aol.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 87046 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2007 17:31:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m46.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Jun 2007 17:31:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d23.mx.aol.com) (205.188.139.137) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Jun 2007 17:31:07 -0000 Received: from MarieMAJ41@aol.com by imo-d23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.2.) id r.c89.12a6b23d (52841) for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:30:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from WEBMAIL-DF16 (webmail-df16.webmail.aol.com [205.188.104.80]) by cia-m03.mx.aol.com (v115.11) with ESMTP id MAILCIAM031-ce69466057b33cf; Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:30:27 -0400 To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:30:27 -0400 X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-MB-Message-Type: User MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL WebMail 27551 Received: from 64.12.122.197 by WEBMAIL-DF16.sysops.aol.com (205.188.104.80) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:30:27 -0400 Message-Id: <8C97289ADE982C0-16B8-4317@WEBMAIL-DF16.sysops.aol.com> X-AOL-IP: 205.188.104.80 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Originating-IP: 205.188.139.137 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:6:0:0 From: MarieMAJ41@aol.com Subject: Hey, where is everyone? X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=90655958; y=raamur3Te29t0hSxx3DbPkJBWr-SLVbJqD9qUEOPG61Q7yHN7f8 X-Yahoo-Profile: olgamarie41 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 40640 Hey where is everybody? No word from TheosWorld for a couple of days. Is everything ok? Marie ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com Fri Jun 01 12:15:52 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 24199 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2007 19:15:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.68) by m44.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Jun 2007 19:15:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n20b.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com) (69.147.64.134) by mta11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Jun 2007 19:15:45 -0000 Received: from [216.252.122.216] by n20.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 01 Jun 2007 19:13:14 -0000 Received: from [66.218.69.2] by t1.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 01 Jun 2007 19:13:14 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.199] by t2.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 01 Jun 2007 19:13:14 -0000 Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:13:13 -0000 To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-compose X-Originating-IP: 69.147.64.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:6:0:0 X-Yahoo-Post-IP: 69.9.27.251 From: "danielhcaldwell" Subject: See Theos-Talk Messages on the WWW X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=39205895; y=1frdJdDKujI3KOj9hBC1nTw2t7UMklWRFMiuiLTalXs0oWs-3MUqGvmd X-Yahoo-Profile: danielhcaldwell X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 40641 Although you may receive each separate Theos-Talk message/posting as an=20 email to your INBOX of your email address, you can also access current=20 postings and previous years messages at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/messages You will need to sign in with your Yahoo! id and password to see all=20 postings available. Some people find this a good option for quickly glancing at what is=20 currently posted, etc. Also you can choose NOT to receive all postings=20 separately via email. This option helps to keep the number of messages=20 in your email to a minimum when Theos-Talk posters are sending lots of=20 postings. Maybe Eldon Tucker can give more details on the above features and=20 option. Daniel From leonmaurer@aol.com Fri Jun 01 14:08:10 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: LeonMaurer@aol.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 63377 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2007 21:08:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m49.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Jun 2007 21:08:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d03.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.35) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Jun 2007 21:08:01 -0000 Received: from LeonMaurer@aol.com by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.2.) id r.cf0.10ebd59e (30740); Fri, 1 Jun 2007 17:03:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 17:03:14 EDT MIME-Version: 1.0 To: undisclosed-recipients:; X-Mailer: Thunderbird - Mac OS X sub 310 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Originating-IP: 205.188.157.35 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 From: leonmaurer@aol.com Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of other bubble universes X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=4099972; y=K8ITfJyaACxk_NUpt1IddjEBB1Y5HdZ4B6KPUEmG6hb9UaMtPRo X-Yahoo-Profile: leonmaurer1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 40642 In a message dated 5/20/07 2:02:07 PM, chrislofting@ozemail.com.au writes: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MindBrain@yahoogroups.com] On > > Behalf Of yanniru@netscape.net > > Sent: Monday, 21 May 2007 12:47 AM > > To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of > > other bubble universes > > > > The concept of a multiverse comes from the physics of M theory (string > > physics) and also various inflationary models of the Big Bang. It is not a > > matter of opinion but a consequence of physics. > > > > No. It is speculation and is to physics what intelligent design is to > evolution. No evidence, all belief. The point with mathematics is that it > can represent the imagined as it can the real. As such, anything sourced in > mathematics is not necessarily real. > Does this mean that all your I-Ching type fractal mathematics which underlies all your theories of psychology and evolution, etc., has no basis in reality? ;-) Or, that evolution theory is 100% true in all its aspects and assumptions based on chance or random mutation? So, what is "real"? Is a thought in my mind real? Is the image I see of the outer world real? Is a pain I feel in my toe real? Unfortunately, since mathematics can only deal with and represent countable or measurable things, I doubt that it can deal with anything supposedly unreal one can imagine, like fairies or ghosts for instance (even though those imaginary things might be real images in our minds). In the same way, it can't deal with consciousness (awareness, will, qualia, etc.) or anything else subjectively or experientially real -- such as a near death out of body experience or other transcendental epiphanies and intuitions I've had (and many others have reported) in and out of deep meditation or perfect concentration. Therefore, while string theory mathematics does predict the "multiverse" -- I don't think it can tell us anything about what that multiverse actually is or where those parallel universes actually come from. Just as such theories also predict primal matter as "strings" and "membranes" -- I don't think it can tell us what those strings or membranes are or where they came from. But, nevertheless, I do think such predictions are real in the same sense that my thoughts and consciousness are real. How, can they not be, if I can use them to manipulate real objects as I will it? (Or, is that a figment of my imagination? ;-) However, since all mathematical measures must start and end somewhere -- that empty (but potentially full zero-point) singularity out of which this whole universe appears, must be as real as the exact zero-point that the racing car tire rests on in the space between the particles of the starting line before it begins its measured run down the track -- which can be measured mathematically from one zero-point in Planck space to another. So, whatever mathematics can correctly measure or determine through its proven logic must be as real as are the mathematical equations themselves, the metaphysical and physical universe they describe, or the conscious beings that thought them up or discovered them in the universal mind's infinite information bank. Therefore, the zero-points of infinite energy in absolute space, from which all mathematical measurements start from and end on, and where all cosmic intelligence lies, are also real. And, since those points all have infinite axes of potential spinergy or G-force, they serve as the basis of the multiverse, and all other mathematical predictions -- no matter how counter intuitive they are. In such a case, true "intelligent design" (not "creationism") is as real as could be the universal consciousness that imagined this universe before it woke up its spinergy to form this material universe and all the beings in it -- which we can mathematically (but not sensorially) know everything about, both metaphysically and physically. The problem -- so that non mathematicians could understand it -- is to interpret that mathematical knowledge into graphical metaphors, word pictures, or symbolic images the mind can visualize and truly comprehend the nature of... Something, that most current scientific theories (except, perhaps, Einstein's special theory of relativity) have yet to accomplish satisfactorily. Therefore to deny the real existence of the zero-point of pure consciousness surrounded by its infinitely intelligent potential force existing as abstract non linear spin motion, containing infinite holographic information or knowledge (pertaining to its experiences and structures during its previous cyclic existence) as interference patterns of potentially radiant energy fields that fractally *involve* (before physical forms *evolve* after symmetry is broken) -- is to deny the existence of the universe itself. But, if we admit the existence of that singularity, with this universe spinning on only three of its potential infinite axes, is to admit the possible existence of the multiverse and its infinite parallel universes, as well as acknowledge the simultaneous existence of the universal consciousness that is potentially, if not actively or continuously aware of everything that is, was or ever will be. The only things unreal, then, are; (A) The imaginary ideas we have that what we sensorially experience of the universe is actually what it really is -- which only mathematics (in all its aspects from algebra to geometry) or our own intuitive visualizations and understandings, can reveal... And; (B) Whatever fantasies we conjure up about supernatural beings and miraculous occurrences based on misinterpretation or literal belief in written words that are mistranslated, intentionally fictional, or metaphorical. Best wishes, Leon Maurer ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mkr777@gmail.com Fri Jun 01 15:34:26 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: mkr777@gmail.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 32135 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2007 22:34:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.36) by m47.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Jun 2007 22:34:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wx-out-0506.google.com) (66.249.82.239) by mta10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Jun 2007 22:34:24 -0000 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i31so1043971wxd for ; Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:31:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=nZjLMB3OcMzPABCuFeaFccsMlQIEMkHnFFS9iDwD1kWn9lkMBfDG7PfTc7/Cu9McDEGHH7sfDmseDNdLuYFYVLnkFJqzNWQ+c704t+74fm1b2XsAQl1vTTuVrC7RKzc8cucPBA90yP1MAgL9q62C8Lt5yz+vrd9Sn+WWkFu+jxg= Received: by 10.90.69.8 with SMTP id r8mr2318354aga.1180737109745; Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.103.7 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Jun 2007 15:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 17:31:49 -0500 To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: <8C97289ADE982C0-16B8-4317@WEBMAIL-DF16.sysops.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8C97289ADE982C0-16B8-4317@WEBMAIL-DF16.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: 66.249.82.239 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 From: "M K Ramadoss" Subject: Re: Theos-World Hey, where is everyone? X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=243096636; y=lsf54l740LTfaAR1aZ-n0nmSzwrjLYVl-F_3jYScwncWk0jA0z4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 40643 We are all lurking for postings from you!!! That should explain. BTW, have you seen the info on a documentary on HPB produced in Russia with English sub-titles. Many may not have heard it from official channels since it is not coming with the blessings of traditional organizational leadership. mkr On 6/1/07, MarieMAJ41@aol.com wrote: > > Hey where is everybody? No word from TheosWorld for a couple of days. Is > everything ok? > > Marie > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From silva_cass@yahoo.com Fri Jun 01 19:27:32 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: silva_cass@yahoo.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 73589 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2007 02:27:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.33) by m51.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Jun 2007 02:27:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web52110.mail.re2.yahoo.com) (206.190.48.113) by mta7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Jun 2007 02:27:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 19697 invoked by uid 60001); 2 Jun 2007 02:27:27 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: N_8S9EIVM1mvEPHA7V2NAnMFERkkT8zRZsAOzdZ_grokCAXXar3z8yb.lki9BDOI4h70zxxxhaWiqC3Z5RMh5FQS5MkvzXybUKjV1DkE1cQ6nN4KjynabiQ3ZZvv_Yik8_diP0TNqilkAFoauUMEaUQiQ9QXcUjyFmslwqJ7OEqZIy2r9lwt1Oibi8YV3CibrrxvQg3vumJyUebV_VLZAc2Bu0oMyf6AJjIKcJcxhrz1JEMKu9qDBsYtgrgh Received: from [210.49.184.221] by web52110.mail.re2.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:27:27 PDT Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 19:27:27 -0700 (PDT) To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <282550.19472.qm@web52110.mail.re2.yahoo.com> X-Originating-IP: 206.190.48.113 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 2:4:8:0 From: Cass Silva Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of other bubble universes X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=203519531; y=_XxrzOYrnFeSuMA8XYSVypYYH-uCeXyv5YtMR6WQM_3YXE71PQ X-Yahoo-Profile: silva_cass Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 40644 Leon I hope you don't mind me saying it, but if you don't simplify your theory so that the "little people" can grasp it your theory will continue to be dismembered by the scientific community. Cass leonmaurer@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 5/20/07 11:33:56 AM, yanniru@netscape.net writes: > The concept of a multiverse comes from the physics of M theory (string > physics) and also various inflationary models of the Big Bang. It is not a matter > of opinion but a consequence of physics. > Yes, and while the rational and symbolic mathematics of string physics confirms it -- the actual basis of the multiverse could very well be as follows: As this universe might reasonably be the result of the radiation on only three perpendicularly crossed axes of the primal "G-force" or "spinergy"* (infinite angular momentum) circling the zero-point of absolute ground SPACE... That triple axis "singularity" would necessarily be repeated infinite times as parts of the potentially infinite axes of that essentially spherical zero-point. Thus, following the same radiative force field rooted laws as this universe, there could be infinite potential universes that can spring out of that primal SPACE -- as similar fractally involved, electrodynamically coenergetic fields within fields within fields, ad infinitum... Each at different triple axis spin angles. The apparent reason they are invisible to us is that, as two axis of this universe could be the root of invisible dark matter, each parallel universe of the multiverse spins on similarly different angles of primal SPACE than the single axis of spin of the "light" matter in this spacetime universe -- which is the subject of quantum physics. If this is the true nature of fundamental reality, that would explain why conventional reductive physics might never reach a physical explanation of that reality -- nor could it ever explain subjective consciousness (awareness, will, qualia, etc.) -- which, in this view, would be the inherent subjective aspect of the immovable and empty zero-point of absolute space. Nor could it explain how the "information" that triggers qualia is transformed and transmitted between the points of conscious perception and mind, memory, brain and sensory inputs. In this new paradigm, it is explained as holographic wave interference patterns frequency modulated on the surfaces of the fractally involved electrodynamic fields in metaphysical Planck vacuum or hyperspace and on the radiant physical matter fields of brain and body. This information is transformed from one field to the next by electridynamic inductive resonance processes. If that is the basic paradigm of a true universal science, then the superstring physics that predicts the multiverse, may be mistaken in presuming that the fundamental "membranes" it also predicts, may not be simply the surfaces of the triune fractally involved fields of light matter that initially radiated out of the primal spinergy at the first moment of the big bang. Such spherical surfaces could also be the source of the curvature of space that is also "flat" (since its total radii would approach infinity) as predicted by General relativity. Also, this multiplicity nature of infinitely divisible primal SPACE and its fractally involved fields, would also explain entanglement at the sub quantum level, as well as the holographic nature of all matter and information of consciousness carried as wave interference patterns by all metaphysical and physical fields of matter. Best wishes, Leon Maurer * http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafield-spherical-color_G.jpg http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/ http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html ------- Original Message------- From: yanniru@netscape.net To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com Cc: MOONBALLOON@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, 19 May 2007 4:17 PM Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of other bubble universes The concept of a multiverse comes from the physics of M theory (string physics) and also various inflationary models of the Big Bang. It is not a matter of opinion but a consequence of physics. -----Original Message----- From: jamikes@prodigy.net To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com Cc: MOONBALLOON@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, 19 May 2007 4:17 PM Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of other bubble universes PtP: and if the Pope of Rome (personally) subscribes to it? A 'notion' is assumed. The "if" is either yes, or no, that is the reason why it is an 'if'. Scientific decisions are not subject to democratic majority votes, not even to the opinion of select 'big names' - I may disagree with Newton (ha ha) or E. Kant, and be right or wrong. I wrote the occurrence of a Multiverse in my narrative myself, on different basis/logic and understanding from the physico-cosmological fables and their mistakes they include, partly for mathematical matches to equations containing numbers of other poorly substantiated assumptions and consequences of such. If you start to get out from the college brainwash of the contemporary classical natural science reductionism, , there is no way to stop - doubt rolls all over. People live with paradoxes and misnomers abound. Think about it for YOURSELF once. . John > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Pay_the_Piper > To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com Cc: Moon Balloon Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 11:55 PM Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of other bubble universes I forget where I read it ... maybe New Scientist. Most cosmologists, including Hawking subscribe to the notion of a multiverse. PtP ----- Original Message ----- From: John M To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com ; astro@postbiota.org ; Eugen Leitl Cc: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com ; Moon Balloon Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 1:50 PM Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of other bubble universes PtP: you ask a 'scientific' question upon an "if"? And if "if not"? I made up my na rrative for my common sense, so I left the Tooth Fairy for the other "theories". According to my view there are 'infinite' universes and it is hard to select ONE that is 'cleverer' than "all infinite others". E. Leitl wrote smart 'scientific' things, mostly based on sciemntists' assumptions that could be continued (just as your above question accepting a hypothetical "yes" to your "if"). The phenomenon assumed to be the remnant (background) radiation of the allegedly "real" Big Bang is such an "if". And so on, the rest of Cosmology etc. And so is the "inflation" no matter how 'necessary' for keeping the face of the equations-related theorists. In valuation of today's physical calculations as applied to an incredibly different (physical??? And so is the "inflatio You feel free to make science upon the unknowable. All 'universes' (alleged by MY narrative, never mind that I am not the first one thinking about Multiverse - I just asccept the idea because I could not 'justify' a negation) (may be) different, which is not a Hi-Lo distinction. DIFFERENT. We have no way to "understand" anything outside our circle of knowledge base even if we fantasize about such. Do other universes have space-time concepts? (They - including ours - are timeless fulgurations and only WE (maybe not exclusively) coordinate our image FROM THE INSIDE VIEW as a space-time system). Do other universes abide by a logic of the HUMAN mind? Do other universes have comparable conditions to our 'physical observations' Do other un One may build science upon 'if's to all questions. Best to you and Eugen John Mikes ----- Original Message ----- From: Pay_the_Piper To: astro@postbiota.ast ; Eugen Leitl Cc: MindBrain@yahoogrouMindBr ; Moon Balloon Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:42 AM Subject: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of other bubble universes truncated ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --------------------------------- Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From proto37@yahoo.com Sat Jun 02 16:28:31 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: proto37@yahoo.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 69417 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2007 23:28:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.35) by m51.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Jun 2007 23:28:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web32509.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (68.142.207.219) by mta9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Jun 2007 23:28:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 48369 invoked by uid 60001); 2 Jun 2007 23:28:28 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: 7J.Xop8VM1m3usCRjHjdu0F42VaYV07kuKCFH2wKUJroTSPefb4eSRBIf0hMkzTZdlVYHg8btYei9Nkc79PmtdmJ.McF9.0A_BqftLZJq.Cni75D517U6hBcJW6ggw-- Received: from [4.224.204.206] by web32509.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 02 Jun 2007 16:28:28 PDT Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 16:28:28 -0700 (PDT) To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <857685.35652.qm@web32509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Originating-IP: 68.142.207.219 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 From: Mark Jaqua Subject: Quote for Sun., June 3 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=130276474; y=U2i6Fk1VFHCeHdkFYv2L1aU_qZh2FsqO6DSvrOZVMXgW0A X-Yahoo-Profile: proto37 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 40645 Quote for Sun., June 3 I broke open a grain of sand and inside I found a Sun. - Sufi saying ------------- --------------------------------- Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From leonmaurer@aol.com Sat Jun 02 17:44:17 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: LeonMaurer@aol.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 55402 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2007 00:44:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m50.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Jun 2007 00:44:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d23.mx.aol.com) (205.188.139.137) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Jun 2007 00:44:14 -0000 Received: from LeonMaurer@aol.com by imo-d23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.2.) id r.c07.1530389e (14467); Sat, 2 Jun 2007 20:43:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 20:43:53 EDT MIME-Version: 1.0 To: undisclosed-recipients:; X-Mailer: Thunderbird - Mac OS X sub 310 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Originating-IP: 205.188.139.137 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:6:0:0 From: leonmaurer@aol.com Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of other bubble universes X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=4099972; y=WSp7oFvUE5MzAKfHAqM7XccJ6s7vJSg_ACjOHuLAkBvQ1sPaisc X-Yahoo-Profile: leonmaurer1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 40646 In a message dated 6/1/07 10:29:44 PM, silva_cass@yahoo.com writes: Leon =A0 I hope you don't mind me saying it, but if you don't simplify your theo= ry=20 so that the "little people" can grasp it your theory will continue to be=20 dismembered by the scientific community. =A0=A0 =A0 Cass Cass, Actually, when I try that simplification is when some scientists claim that= I=20 am not capable of speaking their language and they then begin to tear apart= =20 the theory with non valid arguments based on ad hominem comments -- since t= hey=20 have no logical scientific basis on which to refute my theory -- which, lik= e=20 the SD, they can't really understand, or have a built in materialistic=20 prejudice against.=20=20=20 Generally, however, I have many readers, a few who are trained scientists=20 (especially those who thoroughly understand relativity as more fundamental = than=20 quantum physics) who immediately grasp the entire theory without finding an= y=20 scientifically unexplained question it doesn't answer fully... Especially i= n=20 explaining the non local nature of subjective consciousness (as perceptive= =20 awareness, will, etc.) and its informational mechanisms connecting it,=20 holographically, with the image information carried by mind, memory, brain,= body and=20 sensory hyperspace fields -- that conventional objective-reductive science = can never=20 explain. But, then, there are very few "little people" who could understa= nd=20 the hyperspace metaphysics of fields within fields within fields, no matter= =20 how simply I explain it... Especially, if they can't visualize it, or=20 comprehend intuitively how an apparent nothing can be something, how an app= arent=20 emptiness can be fullness, how one can be many, etc.... Or not comprehend t= he=20 sameness and difference between noumena and phenomena, zero and infinity,=20 supersensuous and sensuous, hyperspace and physical space, etc., etc. -- le= t alone not=20 comprehend an absolute ground SPACE underlying everything that is totally=20 immeasurable and undetectable, yet never changes or diminishes, no matter h= ow many=20 potentially infinite universes it produces and energizes. As it is, the commentary below (in conjunction with previous ones explainin= g=20 the ABC theory in slightly different terms) was simply a confirmation to a= =20 leading edge physicist of how my theory is in agreement with some of the la= test=20 mathematical findings in string physics such as the "multiverse" -- that ma= ny=20 other conventional scientists don't yet entirely accept -- since, like my A= BC=20 theory, it can't be falsified or proved experimentally. Incidentally, HPB= =20 also mentioned the "coming and going of infinite universes" similar the cur= rent=20 multiverse theory. :-) But string physics still can't tell us where those= =20 parallel universes come from and what they are made up of -- as both ABC an= d=20 HPB's teachings can.=20=20=20 However, there are theorists today who use retrodiction to speculate that,= =20 since the universe is so perfectly balanced as to lead to the evolution of = man,=20 that it was specifically designed to do this. They call such theories the= =20 "Anthropic Principle." Although, without an ABC theory that predicts it a= ll=20 logically from fundamental principles and laws of apparently empty but=20 infinitely energetic primal SPACE that existed before the Big Bang -- they = can't=20 comprehend how the materialistic assumptions of conventional physics could = lead to=20 such a condition, or cause consciousness (awareness, will) or mind to arise= in=20 sentient beings. They can only guess that consciousness might be an=20 epiphenomena of matter that emerges as brains become more complex -- withou= t offering=20 any scientifically logical rationale to explain it. And, without consider= ing=20 that consciousness is causative, but matter is not. So, they are left wit= h=20 the conundrum; Which came first, the chicken or the egg?=20=20=20 So, in order to understand my ABC theory you have to study it carefully (ju= st=20 like the Secret Doctrine) and using your intuition read in and around the=20 words and between the lines -- while referring to the new color illustratio= n=20 (starred* below my signature in my original letter) that gives a 3-D visual= ization=20 of how the initial spherical cosmic fields fractally involve from spiritual= =20 to physical substance-matter before the supersymmetry is broken and the fir= st=20 physical particles appear to ultimately evolve through galaxies, stars,=20 planets, etc., into us little people. ;-) Thus, spirit involves into matt= er as=20 matter evolves back into spirit during the course of Brahma's (i.e., the Co= smos')=20 lifetime. However, it cannot be grasped in its entirety by referring to only one e-ma= il=20 letter covering a narrow area of the theory, or to my response to a=20 particular question. In order to explain this theory in its fullest detai= l would take=20 a tome at least as big as the first volume of the SD. Even though, it is= =20 entirely explained in the seven stanzas of the original Book of Dzyan in a = more=20 descriptive language that English cannot even come close to. Look at how= =20 many pages it took HPB to explain those seven short stanzas. My ABC=20 explanation, so as to be consistent with be and predictive of modern physic= s and=20 cognitive psychology, while also understandable to ordinary people, could b= e even more=20 difficult to describe in so many words. But, here's a starter... If you can visualize the original G-force=20 "singularity" at the primal beginning (zero-point center of all 14 initial = fractally=20 involved fields) as a *dimensionless* spherical point of "absolute SPACE in= =20 abstract motion" -- like a ball composed of infinite lines of force spinnin= g in=20 opposite directions at infinite vibrational frequencies on an infinite numb= er of=20 axes -- of which only three perpendicular axes refer to this universe... An= d=20 see that when the spinergy around one of these three axes emanates outward = in=20 opposite polar directions and then weaves an expanding three cycle yarn-lik= e=20 ball (like twin bubbles within an outer bubble) -- with each inner bubble=20 continuing to involve in two more fractal iterations to form the first 14 i= nner=20 fields on the highest cosmic metaphysical planes, representing the first = 7=20 conscious Dhyan Chohan monads (which I can't mention when talking to scient= ists=20 ;-)... You might begin to understand how these fields by their continued fr= actal=20 involvement, ad infinitum, that eventually evolves into the physical univer= se=20 and all the particles and forms in it -- carried as holographic wave=20 interference patterns on the surfaces of the lowest (frequency energy) orde= r physical=20 fields (ref: cosmogenesis diagram at:=20=20 http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafield-spherical-color_G.jpg )... And = reflected back coenergetically through all=20 the fractally involved fields to the original G-force spinergy (akashic=20 record) at the primal zero-point (which is everywhere). Thus, no informat= ion, no=20 matter how much further the forms evolve or the greater experience they gai= n,=20 is ever lost.=20 So, the only way to really understand this ABC theory, is to either grasp i= t=20 intuitively right from the start, or after studying the many letters and=20 online notes I've written about it (along with the Secret Doctrine, if nece= ssary)=20 -- or ask the right questions that might give you clues. No matter how=20 stated, however, the path to esoteric knowledge is always a difficult one t= hat takes=20 much self devised and self determined effort to comprehend fully -- with ma= ny=20 stumbling blocks along the way. Because ABC is a scientific interpretatio= n=20 of the metaphysics of the SD is what makes it so much more difficult to=20 explain to laymen, or to scientists who are conditioned by the materialist= =20 assumptions of science in general. One problem is that conscious beings o= n any level=20 can only sense a limited range of the vibrational force of that level. An= d,=20 therefore, the only reality is what their senses deliver to their awareness= .=20=20=20 Thus, it's difficult for them to imagine the existence of anything real=20 beyond the reach of their senses or their instruments (no matter how sensit= ive)=20 composed of the same substance that they are trying to observe. The main problem, however, is, as HPB also noted, that the English language= =20 is very ill suited to explaining metaphysical subjects and fractally involv= ed=20 vortically and spirally twisted coadunate but not consubstantial" spherical= =20 fields of consciousness woven of spirally interlaced lines of force that ha= ve no=20 beginning or end, and whose evolved forms are holographically entangled wit= h=20 each other as both wave vibrations and particular forms of relative stabili= ty=20 on the surfaces of those fields -- all of which are composed of energies th= at=20 are absolute SPACE in motion. (Whew, that could be a bit too dense for most= .;-)=20 In addition, like the DNA molecule is replicated in every cell in each=20 organic body, the initial zero-point singularity that is spread everywhere = in the=20 Planck vacuum between the particles of physical matter, contains the analog= ous=20 (holographic) code of every form in the universe -- which is essentially, a= n=20 infinitely extended hologram < http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-hologram.h= tm> . That's about as simply as either of us could explain it. ;-) The only= =20 difference is that today's science, while closer and closer to the metaphys= ics=20 outlined in the SD, as HPB predicted, is even more complex than was the sci= ence=20 of her time. So, much so, that even the scientists who write the=20 mathematical formulas and theorize about them -- still don't really underst= and the=20 metaphysical geometric nature of fundamental reality that underlies cosmoge= nesis,=20 and haven't the faintest idea about the origin or nature of consciousness a= nd=20 how it links with mind, memory, brain or body.=20 So, I guess, I'll just have to keep plugging along with whatever language I= =20 have at hand, until they finally get it. My guess, however, is that it wo= n't=20 be too long -- since science is already almost there, and soon the old=20 scientists who were steeped in the materialist views of quantum physics wil= l die off=20 and the young ones currently up to their ears in metaphysical=20 superstring/M-brane theories will accept this new paradigm -- which will ad= d the ABC facts of=20 consciousness and mind to their mix... And, the first one to come up with a= =20 provable theory will win the Nobel Prize.=20=20=20 "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and=20 making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die,= and a=20 new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck: Leon Here are a list of some sites and illustrations that may help in further=20 study, meditations and visualizations: http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/ http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/invlutionflddiagnotate.gif http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Invlutionfldmirror2.gif http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/TaiChiFldDiag-figure-2.gif http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafielddiag-fig.col.jpg http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/BuddhaBabyGordianKnot.jpg http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Origin-Arabic-Numerals.gif http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/CyclesofLifetext.gif http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/evolution2.html http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html http://www.zeropoint.ca/microcosm_4-7bleonmaurer.htm http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/UNIOMNIFORMexploded.gif http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Fract-Expansion-Cosmos.gif http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/yinyang.html http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/THOTH_IN_DIAMOND_SAMADHI.jpg In a message dated 6/1/07 10:29:44 PM, silva_cass@yahoo.com writes: > Leon > =A0 I hope you don't mind me saying it, but if you don't simplify your th= eory=20 > so that the "little people" can grasp it your theory will continue to be= =20 > dismembered by the scientific community. > =A0=A0 > =A0 Cass >=20 > leonmaurer@aol.com wrote: >=20 > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 In a message dated 5/20/07 11:33:56 AM, yanniru@netsc= ape.net=20 > writes: >=20 > > The concept of a multiverse comes from the physics of M theory (string > > physics) and also various inflationary models of the Big Bang. It is no= t a=20 > matter > > of opinion but a consequence of physics. > > >=20 > Yes, and while the rational and symbolic mathematics of string physics > confirms it -- the actual basis of the multiverse could very well be as=20 > follows: >=20 > As this universe might reasonably be the result of the radiation on only > three perpendicularly crossed axes of the primal "G-force" or "spinergy"* > (infinite angular momentum) circling the zero-point of absolute ground=20 > SPACE... That > triple axis "singularity" would necessarily be repeated infinite times as= =20 > parts > of the potentially infinite axes of that essentially spherical zero-point= . > Thus, following the same radiative force field rooted laws as this univer= se, > there could be infinite potential universes that can spring out of that=20 > primal > SPACE -- as similar fractally involved, electrodynamically coenergetic=20 > fields > within fields within fields, ad infinitum... Each at different triple axi= s > spin angles. >=20 > The apparent reason they are invisible to us is that, as two axis of this > universe could be the root of invisible dark matter, each parallel univer= se=20 > of > the multiverse spins on similarly different angles of primal SPACE than t= he > single axis of spin of the "light" matter in this spacetime universe --=20 > which is > the subject of quantum physics. >=20 > If this is the true nature of fundamental reality, that would explain why > conventional reductive physics might never reach a physical explanation o= f=20 > that > reality -- nor could it ever explain subjective consciousness (awareness,= =20 > will, > qualia, etc.) -- which, in this view, would be the inherent subjective=20 > aspect > of the immovable and empty zero-point of absolute space. Nor could it > explain how the "information" that triggers qualia is transformed and=20 > transmitted > between the points of conscious perception and mind, memory, brain and=20 > sensory > inputs. In this new paradigm, it is explained as holographic wave > interference patterns frequency modulated on the surfaces of the fractall= y=20 > involved > electrodynamic fields in metaphysical Planck vacuum or hyperspace and on = the > radiant physical matter fields of brain and body. This information is=20 > transformed > from one field to the next by electridynamic inductive resonance processe= s. >=20 > If that is the basic paradigm of a true universal science, then the > superstring physics that predicts the multiverse, may be mistaken in=20 > presuming that the fundamental "membranes" it also predicts, may not be s= imply the=20 > surfaces of > the triune fractally involved fields of light matter that initially radia= ted > out of the primal spinergy at the first moment of the big bang. Such=20 > spherical > surfaces could also be the source of the curvature of space that is also > "flat" (since its total radii would approach infinity) as predicted by=20 > General > relativity. Also, this multiplicity nature of infinitely divisible primal= =20 > SPACE > and its fractally involved fields, would also explain entanglement at the= =20 > sub > quantum level, as well as the holographic nature of all matter and > information of consciousness carried as wave interference patterns by all= =20 > metaphysical > and physical fields of matter. >=20 > Best wishes, >=20 > Leon Maurer > * http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafield-spherical-color_G.jpg > http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/ > http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html >=20 > ------- Original Message------- >=20 > From: yanniru@netscape.net > To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com > Cc: MOONBALLOON@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sat, 19 May 2007 4:17 PM > Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures o= f > other bubble universes >=20 > The concept of a multiverse comes from the physics of M theory (string > physics) and also various inflationary models of the Big Bang. It is not = a=20 > matter of > opinion but a consequence of physics. >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: jamikes@prodigy.net > To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com > Cc: MOONBALLOON@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sat, 19 May 2007 4:17 PM > Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures o= f > other bubble universes >=20 > PtP: > and if the Pope of Rome (personally) subscribes to it? > A 'notion' is assumed. The "if" is either yes, or no, that is the reason = why > it is an 'if'. Scientific decisions are not subject to democratic majorit= y > votes, not even to the opinion of select 'big names' - I may disagree wit= h > Newton (ha ha) or E. Kant, and be right or wrong. > I wrote the occurrence of a Multiverse in my narrative myself, on differe= nt > basis/logic and understanding from the physico-cosmological fables and th= eir > mistakes they include, partly for mathematical matches to equations=20 > containing > numbers of other poorly substantiated assumptions and consequences of suc= h. > If you start to get out from the college brainwash of the contemporary > classical natural science reductionism, , there is no way to stop - doubt= =20 > rolls all > over. > People live with paradoxes and misnomers abound. > Think about it for YOURSELF once. . > John >=20 > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Pay_the_Piper > > >=20 > To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com > Cc: Moon Balloon > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 11:55 PM > Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures o= f > other bubble universes >=20 > I forget where I read it ... maybe New Scientist. Most cosmologists, > including Hawking subscribe to the notion of a multiverse. >=20 > PtP >=20 >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: John M > To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com ; astro@postbiota.org ; Eugen Leitl > Cc: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com ; Moon Balloon > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 1:50 PM > Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures o= f > other bubble universes >=20 > PtP: >=20 > you ask a 'scientific' question upon an "if"? And if "if not"? I made up = my=20 > na > rrative for my common sense, so I left the Tooth Fairy for the other > "theories". According to my view there are 'infinite' universes and it is= =20 > hard to > select ONE that is 'cleverer' than "all infinite others". > E. Leitl wrote smart 'scientific' things, mostly based on sciemntists' > assumptions that could be continued (just as your above question acceptin= g a > hypothetical "yes" to your "if"). The phenomenon assumed to be the remnan= t > (background) radiation of the allegedly "real" Big Bang is such an "if". = And=20 > so on, the > rest of Cosmology etc. > And so is the "inflation" no matter how 'necessary' for keeping the face = of > the equations-related theorists. In valuation of today's physical=20 > calculations > as applied to an incredibly different (physical??? And so is the "inflati= o >=20 > You feel free to make science upon the unknowable. All 'universes' (alleg= ed > by MY narrative, never mind that I am not the first one thinking about > Multiverse - I just asccept the idea because I could not 'justify' a=20 > negation) (may > be) different, which is not a Hi-Lo distinction. DIFFERENT. > We have no way to "understand" anything outside our circle of knowledge b= ase > even if we fantasize about such. Do other universes have space-time=20 > concepts? > (They - including ours - are timeless fulgurations and only WE (maybe not > exclusively) coordinate our image FROM THE INSIDE VIEW as a space-time=20 > system). > Do other universes abide by a logic of the HUMAN mind? Do other universes > have comparable conditions to our 'physical observations' Do other un > One may build science upon 'if's to all questions. >=20 > Best to you and Eugen >=20 > John Mikes >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Pay_the_Piper > To: astro@postbiota.ast ; Eugen Leitl > Cc: MindBrain@yahoogrouMindBr ; Moon Balloon > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:42 AM > Subject: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of ot= her > bubble universes >=20 > truncated >=20 ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From christinaleestemaker@yahoo.com Sun Jun 03 13:09:33 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: christinaleestemaker@yahoo.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 86952 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2007 20:08:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.33) by m38.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Jun 2007 20:08:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n14a.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com) (69.147.64.115) by mta7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Jun 2007 20:08:10 -0000 Received: from [216.252.122.218] by n14.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Jun 2007 20:07:37 -0000 Received: from [66.218.69.6] by t3.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Jun 2007 20:07:37 -0000 Received: from [66.218.66.82] by t6.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Jun 2007 20:07:37 -0000 Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 20:07:35 -0000 To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <857685.35652.qm@web32509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-compose X-Originating-IP: 69.147.64.115 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:6:0:0 X-Yahoo-Post-IP: 83.85.222.32 From: "christinaleestemaker" Subject: Re: Quote for Sun., June 3 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=162317756; y=RZsepPlGYybDEasoYMnvQJtdfLnRQR_h1Nl_eEAXQ4OWJeMohZCvB-y7-Ekj2Xo X-Yahoo-Profile: christinaleestemaker X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 40647 http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2007/eastfield/eastfield2007a.html---=20 In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Mark Jaqua wrote: > > Quote for Sun., June 3 >=20 >=20 > I broke open a grain of sand > and inside I found a Sun. >=20 > - Sufi saying >=20 > ------------- >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 > --------------------------------- > Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. > Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.=20 >=20 > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > From proto37@yahoo.com Sun Jun 03 14:46:35 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: proto37@yahoo.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 52238 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2007 21:46:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.34) by m50.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Jun 2007 21:46:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n11b.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com) (69.147.64.107) by mta8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Jun 2007 21:46:34 -0000 Received: from [216.252.122.217] by n11.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Jun 2007 21:45:36 -0000 Received: from [66.218.69.6] by t2.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Jun 2007 21:45:35 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.201] by t6.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Jun 2007 21:45:35 -0000 Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:45:34 -0000 To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-compose X-Originating-IP: 69.147.64.107 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:6:0:0 X-Yahoo-Post-IP: 4.131.52.27 From: "proto37" Subject: Re: Theos-World Is there an online index to the Theosophical Quarterlies? X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=130276474; y=K_6-c-Pl1w5ZmhJpyPSShevowM33Ev-zSPPWnm-pkpFXtQ X-Yahoo-Profile: proto37 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 40648 Jake, The "Union Index" people don't use everything, especially if it is not Adayar-politically correct, or considering the source, also. I sent them a couple of decently done indexes, which they did not use.=20 Do the index up, I would say - someone will add it to their stock, and sooner or later, it'll probably make it online. Edmonton considers themselves of the Hargrove tradition, I believe. - jake jaqua --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Jake Benson" wrote: > > Yes, as a mater of fact I have. There is a partial run of the TS > Quarterlies on Googlebooks; however, the run is limited, and many > pages are missing. Kessinger publishing company wants to sell their > repros, so what's been made public is very limited. >=20 > Here's the link; scroll down to see different issues. >=20 > >=20 > Jake Benson >=20 > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M K Ramadoss" wrote: > > > > Have you googled? May be you can find some leads. > >=20 > > mkr > >=20 > >=20 > > On 5/24/07, Jake Benson wrote: > > > > > > Greetings everyone, > > > > > > My name is Jake Benson, and I am a great grandson of Gardiner Miller > > > and Emma Miller who were members of the "Hargrove" TS. Would anyone > > > know if there is an online index to the TS Quarterlies? I didn't see > > > it listed in the Union Catalog, but perhaps I wasn't looking in the > > > right spot. My late grandfather typed up an index, which I may be > > > able to access and see if it can be published online. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Jake Benson > > > > > >=20 > > > > >=20 > >=20 > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > From plcoles1@yahoo.com.au Mon Jun 04 08:15:11 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: plcoles1@yahoo.com.au X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 39178 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2007 15:15:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.72) by m49.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Jun 2007 15:15:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n11d.bullet.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.67.60) by mta14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Jun 2007 15:15:06 -0000 Received: from [66.218.69.1] by n22.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Jun 2007 15:14:49 -0000 Received: from [66.218.66.75] by t1.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Jun 2007 15:14:49 -0000 Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:14:49 -0000 To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-compose X-Originating-IP: 66.218.67.60 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:6:0:0 X-Yahoo-Post-IP: 203.59.216.26 From: "plcoles1" Subject: A ghostly halo that could unlock the dark secret of the universe X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=237271074; y=DKGSuGkmdpYGAuptFBap8T9o9SMCP7uO9ag2tm9xLgDjJGM X-Yahoo-Profile: plcoles1 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 40649 "A halo detected around a distant cluster of galaxies is the strongest=20 evidence yet for dark matter, the cosmic scaffold around which the=20 planets and stars form, astronomers said today." http://tinyurl.com/24z3mb Perry From silva_cass@yahoo.com Mon Jun 04 17:46:06 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: silva_cass@yahoo.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 84358 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2007 00:46:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.72) by m41.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Jun 2007 00:46:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web52104.mail.re2.yahoo.com) (206.190.48.107) by mta14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Jun 2007 00:46:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 36552 invoked by uid 60001); 5 Jun 2007 00:45:01 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: GiGt4RgVM1khap2aNCVZEgjGvWrEHlpLF4dmFL7lsiT_ItDF4jllLiVVPS.DB4f7Y4T2p8W9Qt1EXhXC.NtSIBG1kc4aRos.AzM.pGV8Yz3GxIYoZi8XIPhsMdInaNZzjwg50p3WrvUTzZcC9dMP_n43xGifg12QVH8r4J26EhXFJkJ31L4bizUClsiBKzmgLCIvVzLfLsV_gEKbqkhKm79b1PanOmzkuuPM4TwRGiuKZqmpIrfH3qgZ2EXi Received: from [210.49.184.221] by web52104.mail.re2.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:45:00 PDT Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 17:45:00 -0700 (PDT) To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <984619.35768.qm@web52104.mail.re2.yahoo.com> X-Originating-IP: 206.190.48.107 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 2:4:8:0 From: Cass Silva Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of other bubble universes X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=203519531; y=MJTXDa_icHP741KS5KcwOBQa6f331-xROvqEhZFXij2Moc_EHQ X-Yahoo-Profile: silva_cass Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 40650 Hi Leon Thanks for getting back to me. I have a few questions but at the moment my time is being spent on helping someone I know who is having some legal problems, which means I am consistently in my conscious ego. Will try and free up some mind space soon. In the meantime, this came through to me which I thought you might enjoy. Cass http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRWwI61so5Q&mode=related&search leonmaurer@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 6/1/07 10:29:44 PM, silva_cass@yahoo.com writes: Leon I hope you don't mind me saying it, but if you don't simplify your theory so that the "little people" can grasp it your theory will continue to be dismembered by the scientific community. Cass Cass, Actually, when I try that simplification is when some scientists claim that I am not capable of speaking their language and they then begin to tear apart the theory with non valid arguments based on ad hominem comments -- since they have no logical scientific basis on which to refute my theory -- which, like the SD, they can't really understand, or have a built in materialistic prejudice against. Generally, however, I have many readers, a few who are trained scientists (especially those who thoroughly understand relativity as more fundamental than quantum physics) who immediately grasp the entire theory without finding any scientifically unexplained question it doesn't answer fully... Especially in explaining the non local nature of subjective consciousness (as perceptive awareness, will, etc.) and its informational mechanisms connecting it, holographically, with the image information carried by mind, memory, brain, body and sensory hyperspace fields -- that conventional objective-reductive science can never explain. But, then, there are very few "little people" who could understand the hyperspace metaphysics of fields within fields within fields, no matter how simply I explain it... Especially, if they can't visualize it, or comprehend intuitively how an apparent nothing can be something, how an apparent emptiness can be fullness, how one can be many, etc.... Or not comprehend the sameness and difference between noumena and phenomena, zero and infinity, supersensuous and sensuous, hyperspace and physical space, etc., etc. -- let alone not comprehend an absolute ground SPACE underlying everything that is totally immeasurable and undetectable, yet never changes or diminishes, no matter how many potentially infinite universes it produces and energizes. As it is, the commentary below (in conjunction with previous ones explaining the ABC theory in slightly different terms) was simply a confirmation to a leading edge physicist of how my theory is in agreement with some of the latest mathematical findings in string physics such as the "multiverse" -- that many other conventional scientists don't yet entirely accept -- since, like my ABC theory, it can't be falsified or proved experimentally. Incidentally, HPB also mentioned the "coming and going of infinite universes" similar the current multiverse theory. :-) But string physics still can't tell us where those parallel universes come from and what they are made up of -- as both ABC and HPB's teachings can. However, there are theorists today who use retrodiction to speculate that, since the universe is so perfectly balanced as to lead to the evolution of man, that it was specifically designed to do this. They call such theories the "Anthropic Principle." Although, without an ABC theory that predicts it all logically from fundamental principles and laws of apparently empty but infinitely energetic primal SPACE that existed before the Big Bang -- they can't comprehend how the materialistic assumptions of conventional physics could lead to such a condition, or cause consciousness (awareness, will) or mind to arise in sentient beings. They can only guess that consciousness might be an epiphenomena of matter that emerges as brains become more complex -- without offering any scientifically logical rationale to explain it. And, without considering that consciousness is causative, but matter is not. So, they are left with the conundrum; Which came first, the chicken or the egg? So, in order to understand my ABC theory you have to study it carefully (just like the Secret Doctrine) and using your intuition read in and around the words and between the lines -- while referring to the new color illustration (starred* below my signature in my original letter) that gives a 3-D visualization of how the initial spherical cosmic fields fractally involve from spiritual to physical substance-matter before the supersymmetry is broken and the first physical particles appear to ultimately evolve through galaxies, stars, planets, etc., into us little people. ;-) Thus, spirit involves into matter as matter evolves back into spirit during the course of Brahma's (i.e., the Cosmos') lifetime. However, it cannot be grasped in its entirety by referring to only one e-mail letter covering a narrow area of the theory, or to my response to a particular question. In order to explain this theory in its fullest detail would take a tome at least as big as the first volume of the SD. Even though, it is entirely explained in the seven stanzas of the original Book of Dzyan in a more descriptive language that English cannot even come close to. Look at how many pages it took HPB to explain those seven short stanzas. My ABC explanation, so as to be consistent with be and predictive of modern physics and cognitive psychology, while also understandable to ordinary people, could be even more difficult to describe in so many words. But, here's a starter... If you can visualize the original G-force "singularity" at the primal beginning (zero-point center of all 14 initial fractally involved fields) as a *dimensionless* spherical point of "absolute SPACE in abstract motion" -- like a ball composed of infinite lines of force spinning in opposite directions at infinite vibrational frequencies on an infinite number of axes -- of which only three perpendicular axes refer to this universe... And see that when the spinergy around one of these three axes emanates outward in opposite polar directions and then weaves an expanding three cycle yarn-like ball (like twin bubbles within an outer bubble) -- with each inner bubble continuing to involve in two more fractal iterations to form the first 14 inner fields on the highest cosmic metaphysical planes, representing the first 7 conscious Dhyan Chohan monads (which I can't mention when talking to scientists ;-)... You might begin to understand how these fields by their continued fractal involvement, ad infinitum, that eventually evolves into the physical universe and all the particles and forms in it -- carried as holographic wave interference patterns on the surfaces of the lowest (frequency energy) order physical fields (ref: cosmogenesis diagram at: http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafield-spherical-color_G.jpg )... And reflected back coenergetically through all the fractally involved fields to the original G-force spinergy (akashic record) at the primal zero-point (which is everywhere). Thus, no information, no matter how much further the forms evolve or the greater experience they gain, is ever lost. So, the only way to really understand this ABC theory, is to either grasp it intuitively right from the start, or after studying the many letters and online notes I've written about it (along with the Secret Doctrine, if necessary) -- or ask the right questions that might give you clues. No matter how stated, however, the path to esoteric knowledge is always a difficult one that takes much self devised and self determined effort to comprehend fully -- with many stumbling blocks along the way. Because ABC is a scientific interpretation of the metaphysics of the SD is what makes it so much more difficult to explain to laymen, or to scientists who are conditioned by the materialist assumptions of science in general. One problem is that conscious beings on any level can only sense a limited range of the vibrational force of that level. And, therefore, the only reality is what their senses deliver to their awareness. Thus, it's difficult for them to imagine the existence of anything real beyond the reach of their senses or their instruments (no matter how sensitive) composed of the same substance that they are trying to observe. The main problem, however, is, as HPB also noted, that the English language is very ill suited to explaining metaphysical subjects and fractally involved vortically and spirally twisted coadunate but not consubstantial" spherical fields of consciousness woven of spirally interlaced lines of force that have no beginning or end, and whose evolved forms are holographically entangled with each other as both wave vibrations and particular forms of relative stability on the surfaces of those fields -- all of which are composed of energies that are absolute SPACE in motion. (Whew, that could be a bit too dense for most.;-) In addition, like the DNA molecule is replicated in every cell in each organic body, the initial zero-point singularity that is spread everywhere in the Planck vacuum between the particles of physical matter, contains the analogous (holographic) code of every form in the universe -- which is essentially, an infinitely extended hologram < http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-hologram.htm> . That's about as simply as either of us could explain it. ;-) The only difference is that today's science, while closer and closer to the metaphysics outlined in the SD, as HPB predicted, is even more complex than was the science of her time. So, much so, that even the scientists who write the mathematical formulas and theorize about them -- still don't really understand the metaphysical geometric nature of fundamental reality that underlies cosmogenesis, and haven't the faintest idea about the origin or nature of consciousness and how it links with mind, memory, brain or body. So, I guess, I'll just have to keep plugging along with whatever language I have at hand, until they finally get it. My guess, however, is that it won't be too long -- since science is already almost there, and soon the old scientists who were steeped in the materialist views of quantum physics will die off and the young ones currently up to their ears in metaphysical superstring/M-brane theories will accept this new paradigm -- which will add the ABC facts of consciousness and mind to their mix... And, the first one to come up with a provable theory will win the Nobel Prize. "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck: Leon Here are a list of some sites and illustrations that may help in further study, meditations and visualizations: http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/ http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/invlutionflddiagnotate.gif http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Invlutionfldmirror2.gif http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/TaiChiFldDiag-figure-2.gif http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafielddiag-fig.col.jpg http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/BuddhaBabyGordianKnot.jpg http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Origin-Arabic-Numerals.gif http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/CyclesofLifetext.gif http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/evolution2.html http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html http://www.zeropoint.ca/microcosm_4-7bleonmaurer.htm http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/UNIOMNIFORMexploded.gif http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Fract-Expansion-Cosmos.gif http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/yinyang.html http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/THOTH_IN_DIAMOND_SAMADHI.jpg In a message dated 6/1/07 10:29:44 PM, silva_cass@yahoo.com writes: > Leon > I hope you don't mind me saying it, but if you don't simplify your theory > so that the "little people" can grasp it your theory will continue to be > dismembered by the scientific community. > > Cass > > leonmaurer@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 5/20/07 11:33:56 AM, yanniru@netscape.net > writes: > > > The concept of a multiverse comes from the physics of M theory (string > > physics) and also various inflationary models of the Big Bang. It is not a > matter > > of opinion but a consequence of physics. > > > > Yes, and while the rational and symbolic mathematics of string physics > confirms it -- the actual basis of the multiverse could very well be as > follows: > > As this universe might reasonably be the result of the radiation on only > three perpendicularly crossed axes of the primal "G-force" or "spinergy"* > (infinite angular momentum) circling the zero-point of absolute ground > SPACE... That > triple axis "singularity" would necessarily be repeated infinite times as > parts > of the potentially infinite axes of that essentially spherical zero-point. > Thus, following the same radiative force field rooted laws as this universe, > there could be infinite potential universes that can spring out of that > primal > SPACE -- as similar fractally involved, electrodynamically coenergetic > fields > within fields within fields, ad infinitum... Each at different triple axis > spin angles. > > The apparent reason they are invisible to us is that, as two axis of this > universe could be the root of invisible dark matter, each parallel universe > of > the multiverse spins on similarly different angles of primal SPACE than the > single axis of spin of the "light" matter in this spacetime universe -- > which is > the subject of quantum physics. > > If this is the true nature of fundamental reality, that would explain why > conventional reductive physics might never reach a physical explanation of > that > reality -- nor could it ever explain subjective consciousness (awareness, > will, > qualia, etc.) -- which, in this view, would be the inherent subjective > aspect > of the immovable and empty zero-point of absolute space. Nor could it > explain how the "information" that triggers qualia is transformed and > transmitted > between the points of conscious perception and mind, memory, brain and > sensory > inputs. In this new paradigm, it is explained as holographic wave > interference patterns frequency modulated on the surfaces of the fractally > involved > electrodynamic fields in metaphysical Planck vacuum or hyperspace and on the > radiant physical matter fields of brain and body. This information is > transformed > from one field to the next by electridynamic inductive resonance processes. > > If that is the basic paradigm of a true universal science, then the > superstring physics that predicts the multiverse, may be mistaken in > presuming that the fundamental "membranes" it also predicts, may not be simply the > surfaces of > the triune fractally involved fields of light matter that initially radiated > out of the primal spinergy at the first moment of the big bang. Such > spherical > surfaces could also be the source of the curvature of space that is also > "flat" (since its total radii would approach infinity) as predicted by > General > relativity. Also, this multiplicity nature of infinitely divisible primal > SPACE > and its fractally involved fields, would also explain entanglement at the > sub > quantum level, as well as the holographic nature of all matter and > information of consciousness carried as wave interference patterns by all > metaphysical > and physical fields of matter. > > Best wishes, > > Leon Maurer > * http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafield-spherical-color_G.jpg > http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/ > http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html > > ------- Original Message------- > > From: yanniru@netscape.net > To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com > Cc: MOONBALLOON@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sat, 19 May 2007 4:17 PM > Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of > other bubble universes > > The concept of a multiverse comes from the physics of M theory (string > physics) and also various inflationary models of the Big Bang. It is not a > matter of > opinion but a consequence of physics. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: jamikes@prodigy.net > To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com > Cc: MOONBALLOON@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sat, 19 May 2007 4:17 PM > Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of > other bubble universes > > PtP: > and if the Pope of Rome (personally) subscribes to it? > A 'notion' is assumed. The "if" is either yes, or no, that is the reason why > it is an 'if'. Scientific decisions are not subject to democratic majority > votes, not even to the opinion of select 'big names' - I may disagree with > Newton (ha ha) or E. Kant, and be right or wrong. > I wrote the occurrence of a Multiverse in my narrative myself, on different > basis/logic and understanding from the physico-cosmological fables and their > mistakes they include, partly for mathematical matches to equations > containing > numbers of other poorly substantiated assumptions and consequences of such. > If you start to get out from the college brainwash of the contemporary > classical natural science reductionism, , there is no way to stop - doubt > rolls all > over. > People live with paradoxes and misnomers abound. > Think about it for YOURSELF once. . > John > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Pay_the_Piper > > > > To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com > Cc: Moon Balloon > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 11:55 PM > Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of > other bubble universes > > I forget where I read it ... maybe New Scientist. Most cosmologists, > including Hawking subscribe to the notion of a multiverse. > > PtP > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: John M > To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com ; astro@postbiota.org ; Eugen Leitl > Cc: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com ; Moon Balloon > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 1:50 PM > Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of > other bubble universes > > PtP: > > you ask a 'scientific' question upon an "if"? And if "if not"? I made up my > na > rrative for my common sense, so I left the Tooth Fairy for the other > "theories". According to my view there are 'infinite' universes and it is > hard to > select ONE that is 'cleverer' than "all infinite others". > E. Leitl wrote smart 'scientific' things, mostly based on sciemntists' > assumptions that could be continued (just as your above question accepting a > hypothetical "yes" to your "if"). The phenomenon assumed to be the remnant > (background) radiation of the allegedly "real" Big Bang is such an "if". And > so on, the > rest of Cosmology etc. > And so is the "inflation" no matter how 'necessary' for keeping the face of > the equations-related theorists. In valuation of today's physical > calculations > as applied to an incredibly different (physical??? And so is the "inflatio > > You feel free to make science upon the unknowable. All 'universes' (alleged > by MY narrative, never mind that I am not the first one thinking about > Multiverse - I just asccept the idea because I could not 'justify' a > negation) (may > be) different, which is not a Hi-Lo distinction. DIFFERENT. > We have no way to "understand" anything outside our circle of knowledge base > even if we fantasize about such. Do other universes have space-time > concepts? > (They - including ours - are timeless fulgurations and only WE (maybe not > exclusively) coordinate our image FROM THE INSIDE VIEW as a space-time > system). > Do other universes abide by a logic of the HUMAN mind? Do other universes > have comparable conditions to our 'physical observations' Do other un > One may build science upon 'if's to all questions. > > Best to you and Eugen > > John Mikes > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Pay_the_Piper > To: astro@postbiota.ast ; Eugen Leitl > Cc: MindBrain@yahoogrouMindBr ; Moon Balloon > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:42 AM > Subject: [Mind and Brain] Re: [astro] Towards observable signatures of other > bubble universes > > truncated > ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --------------------------------- Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From leonmaurer@aol.com Mon Jun 04 19:55:20 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: LeonMaurer@aol.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 34371 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2007 02:55:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.67.35) by m50.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Jun 2007 02:55:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m25.mx.aol.com) (64.12.137.6) by mta9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Jun 2007 02:55:17 -0000 Received: from LeonMaurer@aol.com by imo-m25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.2.) id r.d51.a3d802f (39332); Mon, 4 Jun 2007 22:50:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 22:50:43 EDT To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com Cc: yanniru@netscape.net MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Thunderbird - Mac OS X sub 310 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Originating-IP: 64.12.137.6 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 From: leonmaurer@aol.com Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] dark energy as consciousness X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=4099972; y=RA9mYldKROPcTn25JasYFg6P9kHc6XDiWluT-CGbY7F_Yd1aIMQ X-Yahoo-Profile: leonmaurer1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 40651 Richard, Thanks for your acceptance that my ABC theory might make sense=20 scientifically. But, I think you still have some misconceptions about wha= t I mean by=20 "consciousness," where it lies, and from what it is a subjective property o= f, as=20 well as the difference between perceptive consciousness and the information= of=20 consciousness that triggers such perception.=20=20=20 By consciousness, I mean both subjective awareness and will.=20=20=20 Awareness covers the experience of consciousness or qualia and also the=20 feeling of self identity.=20=20=20 Will, based on intent or desire, is the ability to direct one's intention t= o=20 a particular point of sense experience, as well as to a particular location= in=20 3-d space or an image in the mind or memory. It also acts as the=20 subconscious trigger to generate the neural energies so as to initiate the = remote action=20 of muscles that are holographically (through magnetic inductive resonance=20 entanglement processes between holographic images in coadunate electrodynam= ic=20 fields) controlling the positioning of the body with relation to the visual= =20 holographic images in the mind and memory fields transformed through the EM= =20 brainwave field.=20=20=20=20 Will is empowered by the ZPE or the "spinergy" (infinite angular momentum) = =20=20 surrounding every zero-point of consciousness -- that is also the source of= =20 empowerment of each neuron in the brain-body's neural network. The brain th= en=20 serves as the transponder and switching and control system for this entire= =20 sensory and mind-memory linked, and hard wire muscle linked, holographic=20 information transmission system guided by perceptive awareness and will act= ing in=20 conjunction with intuitive thought.=20=20=20 Therefore, consciousness, being an a priori function of absolute pre cosmic= =20 ground SPACE, is always fully available for subjective experience whether w= e=20 are awake or dreaming, or whether or not we are attentive to it. It conti= nues=20 to work subconsciously (below or outside our level of perception) when the= =20 brain is functioning in conjunction with the autonomic life support system = or the=20 longest term instinctive memories. Being always passively potential, and= =20 located outside of all physical matter (including the initial fractally inv= olved=20 hyperspace fields) it never sleeps or ceases to exist whether or not it is= =20 being phenomenally impressed or expressed (i.e., experiencing, observing,=20 considering and/or thinking, or actively imagining, doing and/or creating).= =20=20=20 IOW, consciousness is the eternal function and quality of fundamental groun= d=20 SPACE that is located at the zero-point center of the initial fractally=20 involved, higher frequency-energy order hyperspace fields that are spread e= verywhere=20 as the "quantum foam" in the "quantum vacuum" or Planck space. These=20 hyperspace fields also surround every relatively stable physical form -- fr= om each=20 individual quantum particle, atom, molecule, cell, etc. -- to the most comp= lex=20 living (organic) organisms, along with every inorganic form from the dust=20 particle to the largest star systems. It's these fields that permeate all= =20 physical matter, and that contain all the genetic information respecting ev= ery form=20 in the cosmos (as interference patterns of infinite spinergy or angular=20 momentum surrounding every zero-point entangled everywhere in the Planck va= cuum)=20 that determines the holographic nature of everything in the universe. = =20 Therefore, "consciousness" per se (as defined above) is NOT the "informatio= n=20 of consciousness" that is carried on the surfaces of the mind, and memory=20 fields -- that link the brain-body-sensory fields and the non local zero-po= ints of=20 consciousness with the central zero-point of individual self awareness=20 (located in the Naval chakra). And, these hyperspace fields are NOT equi= valent to=20 (although analogous with) the physical fields that are generated by the=20 vibrational energies and radiated from every quantum particle, or material = form --=20 whether they contain mass or charge or such mass/charge is canceled out by= =20 reverse spin or reverse angular momentum of the zero-point energy fields th= at=20 empower them. Such "neutral" particles however are still linked to their= =20 zero-point of origin through the fractally involved hyperspace ZPE fields t= hat=20 empower their standing waves. So, it's not the zero point that carries the information of consciousness,= =20 but the fractally involved hyperspace fields of various levels of mind and = long=20 term memories that surround them and holographically carry such information= as=20 electrodynamic wave interference patterns on their higher order fundamental= =20 wave frequency surfaces. Much like radio waves of megahertz frequencies c= an=20 carry (as either frequency or amplitude modulations) the information of=20 kilohertz frequencies, etc.=20=20=20 However, the frequencies of these hyperspace fields are several orders of=20 frequency-energy higher than the electromagnetic frequencies of physical ma= tter=20 (EM) fields -- although they are resonantly linked to each other -- like th= e G=20 string on a Bass fiddle is resonantly linked to the higher octave G string = on=20 a violin. That's, apparently, how short term memory information carried i= n=20 the brain's EM fields is transformed to the longer lasting higher order min= d=20 and long term memory fields. This accounts for the increasing strength, a= nd=20 consequent ease of access of kinesthetic memory, as a result of reinforceme= nt=20 due to constant repetition or practice -- which enables a musician to play = a=20 concerto from memory without thinking about it, or an actor to remember lin= es and=20 cues throughout an entire stage play. To answer your last question... While holographic information would have to= =20 be carried as wave interference patterns on the surfaces of all fractally=20 involved coenergetic fields so as to influence qualia -- the information th= at=20 resonates most closely with the highest order fields closest to the zero-po= int=20 spinergy, would necessarily be retained as long as that spinergy remains=20 differentiated from the primal singularity. Thus, we retain at the zero-p= oint of the=20 mind-memory fields -- linked (entangled with) the zero-point center of the= =20 brain field and all cell-organ fields, and also, directly to our zero-point= of=20 individual self consciousness -- all archetypal memories that serve our=20 instincts and autonomic life support systems. It follows that our zero-po= int of self=20 consciousness would also contain in its spinergy, the memory of all our pas= t=20 lives... That is, if, as it seems, this theory doesn't preclude the=20 possibility of reincarnation -- while also giving it and all other possibil= ities of=20 psychic phenomena some degree of credibility. I hope this answers all your questions, and if you have any more, I would b= e=20 glad to hear them. Leon In a message dated 5/17/07 8:19:33 AM, yanniru@netscape.net writes: > Leon, > =A0 > My compliments. This is the most coherent explanation of your ABC concep= t.=20 > I have my usual objections regarding the 'infinities'. But those aside,=20 > you=A0seem to be =A0saying that all=A0massive particles=A0possess conscio= usness. But also=20 > that the consciousness is carried by the EM fields radiated by the partic= les. > =A0 > Would this then apply to neutral particles that do not radiate? > =A0 > Also, holographic info is registered on a surface, yet you seem to=20 > attribute it to the zero-point. Could you resolve this apparent contradic= tion for us? > =A0 > Richard > =A0 > =A0 > =A0 > =A0 > -----Original Message----- > From: leonmaurer@aol.com > To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wed, 16 May 2007 11:10 PM > Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] dark energy as consciousness >=20 > Mark, >=20 > The real question to ask in order to confirm that "energy is motion," is;= =20 > What moves that causes energy to be expressed as force?=A0 >=20 > According to Einstein, that could only be space itself.=A0 Thus, since th= e=20 > energy contained in any quantum particle is E=3Dmc^2 -- the mass or densi= ty of the=20 > particle IS the energy which is proportional to its frequency... Therefor= e,=20 > all matter of any objective form is also that "space in motion" -- most=20 > likely, at the quantum level, to be a standing wave vibrating at whatever= =20 > frequency pertains to any particular particle.=A0 >=20 > If so, then all the holographic information pertaining to that particle m= ust=20 > be carried by modulations of its fundamental phenomenal energy wave of th= at=20 > "space" in motion and reflected in the noumenal interference patterns in = the=20 > ZPE's infinite angular momentum or spinergy surrounding its zero-point of= =20 > origin.=A0 It would appear, then, that all information pertaining to the = contents=20 > or information of consciousness must also be carried as wave frequency=20 > modulations of that same "space in motion" on the surface of whatever=20 > electrodynamic field is radiated from any point in space surrounding any = material form=20 > composed of those particles. >=20 > Since such space has zero-point "singularities" of infinite mass-energy=20 > according to general relativity, the perception of that information, in o= rder to=20 > be referenced=A0 to and quantitatively discriminated from other motional= =20 > energies should, apparently, be located at the static zero-point center o= f the=20 > singularity, or at the motionless center of any standing wave of space in= motion,=20 > or at the center of any radiant magnetic field surrounding any material=20 > formation electrodynamically capable of generating such electromagnetic f= ields. >=20 > Thus, we can conclude that not only is energy fundamental ground space in= =20 > motion, but also that all substantial matter is caused by the zero-point = energy=20 > at that zero-point singularity, and that consciousness=A0 (awareness, wil= l,=20 > etc.) is the nature of the zero-point itself -- wherever it is in the Pla= nck=20 > space between and at the centers of all quantum particles as well as all = atoms,=20 > molecules and more complex forms of matter made up of them.=A0 Implying t= hat=20 > the universe must be a hologram -- where all the information for everythi= ng in=20 > 3D geometric spacetime, is contained in the initial abstract motion or sp= in=20 > force of the zero-point of the fundamental formless zero-point ground spa= ce=20 > underlying all the material forms of space.=A0 >=20 > Best wishes, >=20 > Leon Maurer >=20 >=20 > In a message dated 4/25/07 8:13:38 PM, mpeaty@arach.net.au writes: >=20 >=20 >=20 > I agree with the basic proposition that, if energy is really > anything at all, energy is motion. But really I think the > simplest plain-English formulation is that 'energy' is the > conceptual and mathematical _construct_ we use and ascribe in > order to account for motion. With the energy construct we can > describe=A0 how motion occurs and how much, including how motion > of one kind of thing or substance can cause motion of something >=20 >=20 > --------ORIGINAL MESSAGE------ >=20 > Edgar, >=20 > I agree with the basic proposition that, if energy is really > anything at all, energy is motion. But really I think the > simplest plain-English formulation is that 'energy' is the > conceptual and mathematical _construct_ we use and ascribe in > order to account for motion. With the energy construct we can > describe=A0 how motion occurs and how much, including how motion > of one kind of thing or substance can cause motion of something > else. Potential energy is simply the promise or expectation of > motion that may or will occur if the situation being described > is disturbed or triggered into a change. >=20 > Your description of another way to account the potential energy > of something suspended above the Earth looks to me more like a > way of explaining force and acceleration. >=20 > Regards >=20 > Mark Peaty=A0 CDES >=20 > mpeaty@arach.net.au >=20 > http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ >=20 > else. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From proto37@yahoo.com Tue Jun 05 03:12:25 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: proto37@yahoo.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 21176 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2007 10:11:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m42.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Jun 2007 10:11:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n32c.bullet.scd.yahoo.com) (66.94.237.10) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Jun 2007 10:11:29 -0000 Received: from [66.218.69.5] by n32.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Jun 2007 10:09:54 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.201] by t5.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Jun 2007 10:09:54 -0000 Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:09:54 -0000 To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-compose X-Originating-IP: 66.94.237.10 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:6:0:0 X-Yahoo-Post-IP: 4.131.55.233 From: "proto37" Subject: Re: Compare what KH says about "God" with the Dvaita Vedanta School X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=130276474; y=zxm0CxAix-SlxPkEcZcozm1w0fZA2NEV84cIapDyAp4U-w X-Yahoo-Profile: proto37 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 40652 Check out Reigle's long article "When God came to India," about the corruption of an earlier non-theistic Hinduism. Great article! Don't know if it is on the net or not. - jake j. --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "danielhcaldwell" wrote: > > Compare what KH says about "God"=20 > with what the Dvaita Vedanta School teaches >=20 >=20 > Master KH writes in Mahatma Letter No. 88 (Chrono ed.): >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Pantheistic we may be called -- agnostic NEVER. If people are willing=20 > to accept and to regard as God our ONE LIFE immutable and unconscious=20 > in its eternity they may do so and thus keep to one more gigantic=20 > misnomer. But then they will have to say with Spinoza that there is=20 > not and that we cannot conceive any other substance than God; or as=20 > that famous and unfortunate philosopher says in his fourteenth=20 > proposition, "practer Deum neque dari neque concepi potest=20 > substantia" -- and thus become Pantheists.... >=20 > . . . We are not Adwaitees, but our teaching respecting the one life=20 > is identical with that of the Adwaitee with regard to Parabrahm. And=20 > no true philosophically trained Adwaitee will ever call himself an=20 > agnostic, for he knows that he is Parabrahm and identical in every=20 > respect with the universal life and soul -- the macrocosm is the=20 > microcosm and he knows that there is no God apart from himself, no=20 > creator as no being. Having found Gnosis we cannot turn our backs on=20 > it and become agnostics.... > ------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > This view of "God" is totally different from what, for example, > the Dvaita Vedanta School of India teaches. >=20 > Below are some relevant extracts from Wikepedia on Dvaita: >=20 > ------------------------------------------------------- > Dvaita...a school of Vedanta (the most widespread Hindu philosophy)=20 > founded by Madhvacharya, stresses a strict DISTINCTION between God=20 > (Vishnu) and the individual living beings (jivas). According to=20 > Madhvacharya, souls are not 'created' by God but do, nonetheless=20 > depend on him for their existence.... >=20 > Like Ramanuja, Madhvacharya espoused a Vaishnava theology that=20 > understands Brahman to be endowed with attributes and a PERSONAL God,=20 > Vishnu.... >=20 > Dvaita asserts that THE DIFFERENCE between the individual soul or=20 > j=EEva, and God, (=CEshvara or Vishnu), IS ETERNAL AND REAL. Actually,=20 > this is just one of the five differences that are so stated -- all=20 > five differences that constitute the universe are eternal.... >=20 > Some teachings of Madhvacharya look different from mainstream=20 > Hinduism. One example is his doctrine of ETERNAL DAMNATION. Generally=20 > Hindus believe in the eventual salvation of every soul. Many of the=20 > doctrines in the Dvaita traditions resemble those of STRICT=20 > MONOTHEISM that is predominant amongst followers of Semitic=20 > religions. Dvaita provides a greater role to Bhakti than other=20 > schools of Vedanta. Followers of Dvaita believe in the supremacy of=20 > Vishnu over other deities including Shiva and do not believe in the=20 > Hindu concept of Trinity, Trimurti of Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva. Shiva is=20 > worshipped as a subordinate god (deva). Though this appears=20 > intolerant, it is because of the strong monotheistic belief in A NON- > IMPERSONAL GOD unlike Advaita for which the identity of God does not=20 > matter as it is Nirguna. Historically, Dvaita scholars have been=20 > involved in vigorous debates against other schools of thought,=20 > especially Advaita. Whereas Advaita preaches that Atman and Brahman=20 > are one and the same, which is not evident to the atman till he comes=20 > out of a so-called illusion, Madhvacharya puts forward the truth as=20 > Brahman (Vishnu) and Atman (soul) TO BE ETERNALLY DIFFERENT, with God=20 > always the most superior one. It is the same point that Madhvacharya=20 > reinforces in one of his doctrines: >=20 > "If you feel there is no God, how do you explain as to why you cannot=20 > free yourself from the limitations on Earth? If you feel YOU are the=20 > one in control of everything (as Advaita preaches that Soul and God=20 > are one and the same), then how come you don't enjoy happiness always=20 > and are also subject to sorrow and pain (as God is supposed to be an=20 > eternity of happiness)?" > ----------------------------------------------------------- > caps added except the caps in YOU. > Quoted from: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvaita >=20 > Now some may say that all of the above doesn't really matter, but=20 > here is what Master KH once wrote to Mr. Hume: >=20 > --------------------------------------------------- > As you say this need "make no difference between us" -- personally.=20 > But it does make a world of difference if you propose to learn and=20 > offer me to teach. For the life of me I cannot make out how I could=20 > ever impart to you that which I know since the very A.B.C. of what I=20 > know, the rock upon which the secrets of the occult universe, whether=20 > on this or that side of the veil, are encrusted, is contradicted by=20 > you invariably and a priori.=20 >=20 > My very dear Brother, either we know something or we do not know=20 > anything. In the first case what is the use of your learning, since=20 > you think you know better? In the second case why should you lose=20 > your time? You say it matters nothing whether these laws are the=20 > expression of the will of an intelligent conscious God, as you think,=20 > or constitute the inevitable attributes of an unintelligent,=20 > unconscious "God," as I hold. I say, it matters everything, and since=20 > you earnestly believe that these fundamental questions (of spirit and=20 > matter -- of God or no God) "are admittedly beyond both of us" -- in=20 > other words that neither I nor yet our greatest adepts can know no=20 > more than you do, then what is there on earth that I could teach=20 > you?... > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Quoted from: > http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-22.htm >=20 > Daniel > http://hpb.cc > From proto37@yahoo.com Tue Jun 05 03:41:50 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: proto37@yahoo.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 32543 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2007 10:41:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.68) by m41.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Jun 2007 10:41:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO web32509.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (68.142.207.219) by mta11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Jun 2007 10:41:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 91949 invoked by uid 60001); 5 Jun 2007 10:41:43 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: E7VaYwkVM1n0XLd6kPZmVWFChHf7eUnHT34o_.j.GCa0HvY0zrxaX8yjqFA3Vh8nrdYLLTajzgYIxgCIfMGLWaQ4ISK72I6q8BqJ35ExvCMzRYj1eXrVLE1IncF5hg-- Received: from [4.224.174.97] by web32509.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 05 Jun 2007 03:41:43 PDT Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 03:41:43 -0700 (PDT) To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <353377.91723.qm@web32509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Originating-IP: 68.142.207.219 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 From: Mark Jaqua Subject: Re: Crop circles X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=130276474; y=UMcEA8EvBfU8h3hGKIaOVNbPqyO6zVOd_HmgRJal_KWRYQ X-Yahoo-Profile: proto37 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 40653 1a. Re: Quote for Sun., June 3 Posted by: "christinaleestemaker" christinaleestemaker@yahoo.com christinaleestemaker Date: Sun Jun 3, 2007 1:09 pm ((PDT)) http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2007/eastfield/eastfield2007a.html--- Yeah, christina, the crop circles are amazing. That is an especially complex one. I'd like to see how the skeptics could say that was made by a bunch of drunks in the middle of the night. One wonders what the source of them are - for one thing it keeps the "sense of the mysterious" alive in this utterly materialistic world. Maybe it is the work of the dhyan chohans for this purpose? - or Teachers, or maybe just the manifestation of elementals, as all natural forces work on mathematical lines - and were are in certain conditions astrally and cyclically, that makes them possible to manifest. Maybe some kind of outlet of to much force or energy on some level. - jake --------------- --------------------------------- Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com Tue Jun 05 10:02:05 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 10687 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2007 17:02:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.70) by m48.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Jun 2007 17:02:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n13b.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com) (69.147.64.113) by mta12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Jun 2007 17:02:05 -0000 Received: from [216.252.122.217] by n13.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Jun 2007 16:58:34 -0000 Received: from [209.73.164.83] by t2.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Jun 2007 16:58:34 -0000 Received: from [66.218.66.80] by t7.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Jun 2007 16:58:34 -0000 Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 16:58:33 -0000 To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-compose X-Originating-IP: 69.147.64.113 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:6:0:0 X-Yahoo-Post-IP: 69.9.27.77 From: "danielhcaldwell" Subject: God's Arrival in India & The Problem of Theism in India X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=39205895; y=gpPQXQ7mgUEbPEAwgKDEn4zY-pCCzCejekdAjCUHyszdt0WYsdJKYwrt X-Yahoo-Profile: danielhcaldwell X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 40654 God's Arrival in India=20 by David Reigle See: http://tinyurl.com/2qjqer Daniel Blavatsky Study Center http://hpb.cc From danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com Tue Jun 05 10:12:06 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 61215 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2007 17:12:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.72) by m41.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Jun 2007 17:12:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n5b.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com) (69.147.64.186) by mta14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Jun 2007 17:12:05 -0000 Received: from [216.252.122.216] by n5.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Jun 2007 17:11:58 -0000 Received: from [209.73.164.83] by t1.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Jun 2007 17:11:58 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.197] by t7.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Jun 2007 17:11:58 -0000 Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:11:58 -0000 To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-compose X-Originating-IP: 69.147.64.186 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:6:0:0 X-Yahoo-Post-IP: 69.9.27.77 From: "danielhcaldwell" Subject: Master Koot Hoomi on God X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=39205895; y=Z4n5t_EYrXRm6UJ4AkbUBWpvKZjtqrRYB_3A04rHRPr-egF3tFhFAF04 X-Yahoo-Profile: danielhcaldwell X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 40655 Master K.H. writes to Mr. Sinnett: "And thus according to Mr. Massey's philosophical conclusion we have=20 no God? He is right -- since he applies the name to an extra-cosmic=20 anomaly, and that we, knowing nothing of the latter, find -- each man=20 his God -- within himself in his own personal, and at the same time, -- impersonal Avalokiteswara...." Quoted from: http://theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-82.htm In another letter, KH writes: "Pantheistic we may be called -- agnostic NEVER. If people are willing to accept and to regard as God our ONE LIFE immutable and unconscious in its eternity they may do so and thus keep to one more gigantic misnomer. But then they will have to say with Spinoza that there is not and that we cannot conceive any other substance than God . . . and thus become Pantheists . . . . who but a Theologian nursed on mystery and the most absurd super-naturalism can imagine a self existent being of necessity infinite and omnipresent outside the manifested boundless universe. The word infinite is but a negative which excludes the idea of bounds. It is evident that a being independent and omnipresent cannot be limited by anything which is outside of himself; that there can be nothing exterior to himself -- not even vacuum, then where is there room for matter? for that manifested universe even though the latter limited. If we ask the theist is your God vacuum, space or matter, they will reply no. And yet they hold that their God penetrates matter though he is not himself matter. When we speak of our One Life we also say that it penetrates, nay is the essence of every atom of matter; and that therefore it not only has correspondence with matter but has all its properties likewise, etc. -- hence is material, is matter itself...." ". . We are not Adwaitees, but our teaching respecting the one life is identical with that of the Adwaitee with regard to Parabrahm. And no true philosophically trained Adwaitee will ever call himself an agnostic, for he knows that he is Parabrahm and identical in every respect with the universal life and soul -- the macrocosm is the microcosm and he knows that there is no God apart from himself, no creator as no being. Having found Gnosis we cannot turn our backs on it and become agnostics." ". . . We deny the existence of a thinking conscious God, on the grounds that such a God must either be conditioned, limited and subject to change, therefore not infinite, or (2) if he is represented to us as an eternal unchangeable and independent being, with not a particle of matter in him, then we answer that it is no being but an immutable blind principle, a law...." Quoted from: http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-10.htm ---------------------------------------------------- Daniel http://hpb.cc From danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com Tue Jun 05 10:28:09 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 16205 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2007 17:28:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.68) by m44.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Jun 2007 17:28:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n23d.bullet.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.67.213) by mta11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Jun 2007 17:28:09 -0000 Received: from [66.218.69.4] by n23.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Jun 2007 17:32:54 -0000 Received: from [66.218.66.86] by t4.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Jun 2007 17:28:06 -0000 Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:28:05 -0000 To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-compose X-Originating-IP: 66.218.67.213 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:6:0:0 X-Yahoo-Post-IP: 69.9.27.77 From: "danielhcaldwell" Subject: Sveinn Freyr's Rejection of K.H.'s Letter about God X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=39205895; y=b1UgTcyieSy_GhCSerNAErRlyUPQ00eFLJSj6irhJVYcGV1stGJ_btGp X-Yahoo-Profile: danielhcaldwell X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 40656 Sveinn Freyr, You wrote some time ago on Theos-Talk: ------------------------------------------------ This controversial letter "No. 88"? Is by my opinion not a letter written by an adept. It is a note scrap that should not have been issued and designated to master K.H. This scrap note has done much harm. ------------------------------------------------- I am interested to know your thinking on WHY this letter "has done much harm". Personally I have studied this letter NO. 88 [in the Chronological=20 edition of The Mahatma Letters] in great detail and have compared it to other RELEVANT letters in the Mahatma Letters as well as to what one can find in HPB's THE SECRET DOCTRINE and HPB's other writings. You state that it was NOT written by an adept, the Master KH. I see no good reason for coming to the conclusion you make above. What am I not understanding properly or not taking into account?? But consider the following. In ANOTHER letter NO. 93B (4th chrono ed.) Master KH refers to these VERY NOTES that you reject: ----------------------------------------------------- 5) It certainly does, and I have touched upon the subject long ago. In my notes on Mr. Hume's MSS., "On God" -- that he kindly adds to our Philosophy, something the latter had never contemplated before -- the subject is mentioned abundantly. Has he refused you a look into it? For you -- I may enlarge my explanations, but not before you have read what I say of the origin of good and evil on those margins. Quite enough was said by me for our present purposes. Strangely enough I found a European author -- the greatest materialist of his times, Baron d'Holbach -- whose views coincide entirely with the views of our philosophy. When reading his Essais sur la Nature, I might have imagined I had our book of Kiu-ti before me. As a matter of course and of temperament our Universal Pundit will try to catch at those views and pull every argument to pieces. So far he only threatens me to alter his Preface and not to publish the philosophy under his own name. Cuneus cuneum, tradit: I begged him not to publish his essays at all. ------------------------------------------------------------ Notice KH's words: "...that he kindly adds to our Philosophy...." Compare the subject matter mentioned in this letter with the subject matter of Letter No. 88. So I ask: Is this letter 93B ALSO not from the Master KH??? Moving on.=20=20 Here is what Master KH wrote in yet ANOTHER letter: -------------------------------------------------------- I dread the appearance in print of our philosophy as expounded by Mr. H[ume]. I read his three essays or chapters on God (?) cosmogony and glimpses of the origin of things in general, and had to cross out nearly all. He makes of us Agnostics!! We do not believe in God because so far, we have no proof, etc. This is preposterously ridiculous: if he publishes what I read, I will have H.P.B. or Djual Khool deny the whole thing; as I cannot permit our sacred philosophy to be so disfigured. He says that people will not accept the whole truth; that unless we humour them with a hope that there may be a 'loving Father and creator of all in heaven' our philosophy will be rejected a priori. In such a case the less such idiots hear of our doctrines the better for both. If they do not want the whole truth and nothing but the truth, they are welcome. But never will they find us -- (at any rate) -- compromising with, and pandering to public prejudices. ----------------------------------------------------------- The above extract shows that the Master is referring to the same subject matter of Letter NO. 88. And ALSO consider Letter No. 90 in the Chrono. Ed.=20 Again the subject matter in Letter No. 90 is much the same as in=20 Letter NO. 88. And once again COMPARE the contents of Letter NO. 88 and the other letters I've quoted from with THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL elucidation by KH to Sinnett: ---------------------------------------------------------- ....And thus according to Mr. Massey's philosophical conclusion we have no God? He is right -- since he applies the name to an extra- cosmic anomaly, and that we, knowing nothing of the latter, find -- each man his God -- within himself in his own personal, and at the same time, -- impersonal Avalokiteswara..... --------------------------------------------------------- Notice the words: "...He is right --- since he applies the name to an extra-cosmic anomaly...." I would suggest that Hume was doing the same thing as Mr. Massey. And what is Avalokiteswara? And in yet ANOTHER letter, Master KH elucidates the term: ------------------------------------------------------- ...Avalokita Isvar literally interpreted means "the Lord that is seen." "Iswara" implying moreover, rather the adjective than the noun, lordly, self-existent lordliness, not Lord. It is, when correctly interpreted, in one sense "the divine Self perceived or seen by Self," the Atman or seventh principle ridded of its mayavic distinction from its Universal Source -- which becomes the object of perception for, and by the individuality centred in Buddhi, the sixth principle, -- something that happens only in the highest state of Samadhi. This is applying it to the microcosm. In the other sense Avalokitesvara implies the seventh Universal Principle, as the object perceived by the Universal Buddhi "Mind" or Intelligence which is the synthetic aggregation of all the Dhyan Chohans, as of all other intelligences whether great or small, that ever were, are, or will be.... ...Avalokitesvara is both the unmanifested Father and the manifested Son, the latter proceeding from, and identical with, the other; -- namely, the Parabrahm and Jivatman, the Universal and the individualized seventh Principle, -- the Passive and the Active, the latter the Word, Logos, the Verb.... ------------------------------------------------------------- Notice the reference to Atman....and now compare these extracts about Avalokitesvara with the following extracts from Letter No. 88. I will suggest that part of the key to understanding what the Master writes in Letter No. 88 is to be found in these choice extracts from that very letter that you reject: ---------------------------------------------------- ...If people are willing to accept and to regard as God our ONE LIFE immutable and unconscious in its eternity they may do so and thus keep to one more gigantic misnomer. But then they will have to say with Spinoza that there is not and that we cannot conceive any other substance than God; or as that famous and unfortunate philosopher says in his fourteenth proposition, "practer Deum neque dari neque concepi potest substantia" -- and thus become Pantheists.... . . We are not Adwaitees, but our teaching respecting the one life is identical with that of the Adwaitee with regard to Parabrahm. And no true philosophically brained Adwaitee will ever call himself an agnostic, for he knows that he is Parabrahm and identical in every respect with the universal life and soul -- the macrocosm is the microcosm and he knows that there is no God apart from himself, no creator as no being. Having found Gnosis we cannot turn our backs on it and become agnostics. ----------------------------------------------------------- Much could be added to the above quotes from H.P.B.'s THE SECRET DOCTRINE. I would suggest that the underlying theme is consistent....from letter to letter, from extract to extract.... etc. Each quote, each extract fits together like jig saw puzzle pieces to show the whole picture. In other words, there is similarity/identity of key ideas and themes. See also what Mrs. Hanson and Mr. Linton wrote in the 2nd edition of THE READERS GUIDE TO THE MAHATMA LETTERS on the subject matter of letter NO. 88. I would also suggest that you read and study the relevant extracts I provided from the Encylopaedia Brittannica. See my posting for these extracts at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/40539 These extracts help to give necessary background material that may help one to see what the Master is writing about.... Of course, each student and reader will have to determine if Letter No. 88 is from an adept or not, but it appears that the subject matter is consistent as one goes from one Mahatma Letter to another and as one then compares what is said on the same topic for example in THE SECRET DOCTRINE. More could be written but I stop here. Hope some of this helps. Daniel http://hpb.cc From Sven04@comhem.se Tue Jun 05 12:10:48 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: Sven04@comhem.se X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 52204 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2007 19:10:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.68) by m47.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Jun 2007 19:10:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net) (80.76.149.213) by mta11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Jun 2007 19:10:42 -0000 Received: from c83-253-204-157.bredband.comhem.se ([83.253.204.157]:1391 helo=sveinn-fp1krz97.comhem.se) by ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.66) (envelope-from ) id 1HveQ3-0001Ed-9G for theos-talk@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:10:16 +0200 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:09:57 +0200 To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-Id: X-Authenticated: u13406688@ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net 31e37d9fbf4706ce25d494b5403217c4 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1HveQ3-0001Ed-9G. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net 1HveQ3-0001Ed-9G eaf3899c247336b176574d623029a047 X-Originating-IP: 80.76.149.213 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 From: Sveinn Freyr Subject: Re: Theos-World Sveinn Freyr's Rejection of K.H.'s Letter about God X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=288703295; y=0Q2cksQBChv7brqvO5qADum_CPgp8r1PAgNeoIUgJomy X-Yahoo-Profile: ari343 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 40657 Daniel H. Caldvell I have seen your letter and will respond. But it may take days as I am busy with mundane matters. This subject, is by my opinion, the most important of all that we deal with in Spirit oriented philosophy. There is no subject so critically important for us. It has to do with our understanding of ether gravity. Sincerely, Sveinn Freyr ~~~~~~~~~~~~~You wrote: ~~~~~~~~~~ Sveinn Freyr, You wrote some time ago on Theos-Talk: ------------------------------------------------ This controversial letter "No. 88"? Is by my opinion not a letter written by an adept. It is a note scrap that should not have been issued and designated to master K.H. This scrap note has done much harm. ------------------------------------------------- I am interested to know your thinking on WHY this letter "has done much harm". ____ From leonmaurer@aol.com Thu Jun 07 00:06:53 2007 Return-Path: X-Sender: LeonMaurer@aol.com X-Apparently-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 1244 invoked from network); 7 Jun 2007 07:06:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.72) by m39.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Jun 2007 07:06:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d21.mx.aol.com) (205.188.144.207) by mta14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Jun 2007 07:06:53 -0000 Received: from LeonMaurer@aol.com by imo-d21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.2.) id r.d1d.bd69d1c (14502) for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2007 03:06:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 03:06:40 EDT To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Thunderbird - Mac OS X sub 310 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Originating-IP: 205.188.144.207 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:6:0:0 From: leonmaurer@aol.com Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] To Leon Maurer & Everyone: Where does consciousness begin in the universe? X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=4099972; y=ApXR6cNa9KhOx1HTA-d7xN1tqngW4ve48i1YgAYQziYxWYurcrM X-Yahoo-Profile: leonmaurer1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 40658 John, It all depends on what you mean by consciousness. Are you talking about=20 pure perceptive awareness and willful intent that we experience when awake = or=20 while dreaming? Or, do mean the sense of self as separate from all other= =20 beings? Or, do you mean the opposite of unconscious, knocked out, drugged= , or=20 anesthetized? If the first -- in my view, potential consciousness along with potential=20 matter is a fundamental aspect of absolute or ground SPACE that is the prim= al base=20 of all phenomenal existence. Therefore, upon initial manifestation of the= =20 cosmos from the "singularity" of Absolute SPACE at the moment of the big ba= ng=20 -- which its awakened "will" initiates -- consciousness arises simultaneous= ly=20 and codependent with the initial fractally involved fields of matter as the= =20 universe continues to fractally involve and spherically inflate. After fu= ll=20 inflation and breaking of symmetry of the physical plane at the third fract= al=20 involution, the zero-point centers of consciousness become spread everywher= e in=20 the Planck vacuum at the zero-point energy field centers and poles of all=20 fundamental particles, as well as all the atoms, molecules, cells, and orga= nisms=20 they are parts of. Thus, consciousness is spread everywhere throughout th= e=20 entire universe within all matter that, essentially, is nothing more than=20 absolute dimensionless ground space in various modes of vibratory motion. = =20 This is the source of the visual and aural perceptive consciousness located= =20 in the exact center of our head, and the self consciousness that apparently= is=20 located at the center of the body aura fields in the naval chakra. It als= o=20 accounts for all the cellular consciousness throughout the body at the=20 zero-point centers of their analogous fractally involved coenergetic fields= -- which=20 accounts for remotely localized touch on the skin, smell in the nose, taste= on=20 the tongue, pain in a stubbed toe or pin prick on a finger tip, etc. In this view, all sentient beings have the same type of perceptive=20 consciousness (awareness, will, qualia, etc.) as us humans... Although, in = many cases,=20 far more sensitive. I'm also pretty sure that many animals are not only s= elf=20 conscious but can think causatively, and subconsciously calculate graphical= ly=20 and holistically from both instinctive and conditioned (learned) memory. = =20 Therefore, they have logical minds, although below the level of conscious=20 rationality. How else would a lion recognize its own pride, and be able t= o hunt=20 selective prey with calculated discrimination and anticipatory tactics -- f= ar=20 better, in some cases, than a human can. (Although they can't play the same= =20 sneaky tricks.:-) Warm regards, Leon=20=20 In a message dated 6/6/07 8:31:45 PM, compiler@wisdomworld.org writes: > To Leon Maurer=A0 Everyone: Where does consciousness begin in the > universe > Leon, I hope that I am more or less correct in my > understanding of all that you write about in this forum, which is that, > in my way of saying it, the starting point for everything, that great > unknown, so-called, that everything must rest in in order to come into > existence throughout the cosmos, such as the scientific Big Bang, all > other Big Bangs, and all related ideas such as the Multiverse, Absolute > Space, and so on with all of the different ways that you, and everyone > else here, describe the different levels, planes, fields, infinite > universes, and so on about how it all works, is that it all rests in, > emanates out of, begins, exists, evolves, goes back into, and so on, to > the source of all levels of cosmic activity and action -- which you say > is CONSCIOUSNESS. . I won't personally be repying to anyone, but I would > like to get as many views as possible from Leon and everyone else about > this -- meaning views on whether consciousness at every level that we > know about, in all the kingdoms, with thinking self-consciousness being > at the top of them all, comes from UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS that is the > source and guidance and memory of everything, or not? -- or does > self-consciousness evolve, little by little, out of the lowest forms in > all the kingdoms that we know of on our planet, on other planets, in our > galaxy, in all other galaxies, in all the invisible levels and planes > that we know about, and in all others that we probably don't know about > yet? . Leon, in advance, I want to most sincerely thank you