What Do You Think? (part 1)

[tribunalofmercy]

(Before I do this, please bear in mind that to Me, it is truly not so much ‘fuzzy logic’ as it is that I do not always Clarify: therefore, for example, if I were to explain a connection between a bottle of hair spray on my table and a pillar candle, they do not seem “identical” to me…..I might better say that I see that they are similar in an Aspect, which is that they are both upright and cylindrical. I do not speak of absolute correlations but of Comparisons, for relative thinking).



We understand the difference between a ‘house’ and a ‘home’, right? The first is something physical, something we can see with our eyes, touch with our hands and walk around in the rooms of, right? The second, a ‘home’, is something we Feel, because it represents a sense of security, belonging, something more meaningful and (hopefully) permanent, in our lives. ‘House’ is a concrete thing; a ‘home’ , is an abstract Idea.



As I correlate to the ‘God Particle’, the first (house), might represent particle; then the second (home), wave. With the God Particle, the two exist at the same Time. The first represents a manifestation; the second, a Higher Truth. Could this way of looking at it - this aspect - explain the idea of the house, and home? And possibly Many other things?




Moving on...to quote from Wikipedia, “A molecular vibration occurs when atoms in a molecule are in periodic motion while the molecule as a whole has constant translational and rotational motion. “ Even in diatomic or monatomic molecules, the atom(s) can both BE, and Represent, motion, vibration and “change”, while the molecule itself represents a more constant, Unchanging thing….this, is a microcosmic thing.
  Though both are motion, it is change, within a constant.  ...like the idea of the house, which (in a concept of temporary, or change) can be Your house, or My house, or an apartment, or hut, or cave...within a larger (less temporary, less changing) concept of a Home, which applies to Any place that we call our place of refuge and safety....?



How can this apply to atma and Brahma? (perhaps a macrocosmic thing) What is the similarity between the Buddhist concept of self-realization, and the Hindu teaching of Jivanmukta? To my understanding, both explain, in a broad view, that in the enlightened state one ceases to perceive a difference between the atma and the Brahma. Further, in Christian teaching, we say that “in him we live and move and have our being.” (Acts 17)




Is it Possible to think that we are Designed, microcosmically, to reflect the macrocosm of the Absolute? What do you Think? Do you see a connection between the Buddhist and Hindu teachings I mentioned above, etc? And do you see how the basic relationship of atoms and molecules might compare to this? Do you think that maybe Everything provides a building block for everything Else, as we go along?

[aceofcups]

Mercy,

In Alchemy studies it is stated as one of it's basic axioms AS ABOVE, SO BELOW -- AS WITHIN, SO WITHOUT.. it is one of a few principles and alive within  the Hermetic idea of correspondences.

The actual text of that maxim, as translated by Dennis W. Hauck from The Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus, is: "That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracle of the One Thing."

 You must have Gold, to make Gold.   But just having it doesn't mean it is shining forth yet. just it's essence is.

peace
aceofcups

[tribunalofmercy]

Yes – thank you Charlie There is a correspondence in everything, isn’t there? The recent thread here about stones, and energy, got me thinking because I have acquaintance who is an engineer and does not believe in empathy, as it involves an energy he cannot See. I understand his reticence but spiritually I was thinking of Many things here…perhaps I am too open-minded yet ignorant of proper teaching. If we accept the One thing, can we not consider the possibility of Another thing, unless and until we know differently? If we know that a house and a home can Both be used by one person – someone who lives in a house, yet considers it a Home; if we know that the House is the one we see, while a Home is more – and in our case here, if we Believe in the axiomatic of ‘As above, so below; as within, so without’; then how can we move from seeing just the One application, to Many?

Thank you again – I’ll be back later to finish this thought - peace today

[tribunalofmercy]

sigh It all becomes irrelevant, doesn't it? As always...gold is already There; yet not as we perceive it. For the combination of base metals does Not produce gold, without the transcendence of the Higher as both catalyst and fire?

"Vanity of vanities; all is vanity...The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done, is that which shall be done; and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is New? it hath been already of old time, which was before us."

"...I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under Heaven...I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit....To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under Heaven."

- from Ecclesiastes

[donq]

Dear Mary Anne,

Please don’t sigh. I really wanted to reply your post but I was so busy yesterday (taking my mom to the hospital again).
The difference between a ‘house’ and a ‘home’, right? Hmm…in Buddhism POV, there are two (kind of) truth: conventional and absolute Truths. If I remember it rightly, conventional truth is something we name it and assume it to be true. While it’s not be the case for an absolute truth.
We just “named” something physical that it’s a house. We also named an abstract Idea about this house, “home.” Frankly speak (an absolute truth) there’s nothing real in it. It’s just a plain building. It’s just an abstract Idea we gave to it.
Let’s see an example. I “assumed” that this is my house. Therefore, everything that happens to “my” house could make me fell sad or happy. I “assumed” that it is my home. Again, I “assumed” an abstract idea about my house (home), so everything that happens to my “home” could make me fell sad or happy. As long as I still cling to this house, this abstract Idea (home), I will never really be free.
As for particle and wave, I believe you already know about Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, right? The point is, there’s no real particle. Nor real wave.
About atman and Brahman, Hmm…this is a spiritual forum which is invited all believe. So, I could only say that, this is the different point between Buddhism and Hinduism.
Anyway, I understand you point, Mary Anne. Yes, there’s a connection as in William Blake’s poetry:

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.

P.S. I do like Ecclesiastes. I feel like reading Tao Te Ching every time I read it. :-)

P.P.S. Yesterday in the hospital, I was looking to some ill people there and wonder why life is so vain. I mean everyone has to be in this position one day (sick and dies). I saw some serious sick man who could not help himself at all. His daughter (she was a very small girl) had to push his (bed) stretcher here and there. Another patient, her relative had to carry her back to their car (before coming home) as she could not move even an inch!

[tribunalofmercy]

Somewhere in the Upanishads, there is a conversation between Gargi and Yajnavalkya; at one point, Gargi asks, “On what then, pray, are the worlds of Brahma woven, warp and woof?” To which Yajnavalkya replies, “Gārgī, do not question too much, lest your head fall off. In truth you are questioning too much about a divinity about which further questions cannot be asked. Gārgī, do not over-question.”

Thereupon Gārgī ceased to question. (though I Cannot promise that, haha)


It sounds So much better, in this passage, than when my pastor used to tell me, “That’s Not for us to know!”

[donq]

It's good, Mary Anne. You love knowledge. Doesn't philosophy mean philos (loving) + sophia (knowledge)? :-)

Besides, you are faithfuel (daily devotional) for soulitude (heaven). And you post are not sermoan (a dull Sunday speech) of sandwitch (a desert sorceress). hahaha
(Those cool words are from "Imaginary words" by Jeffrey and Carole Bloom.)

I was thinking of Fritjof Capra's "The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern" and M.C. Escher's work, let me quote Capra and post Escher's pictures here:

                                         


“Quantum theory thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe. It shows that we cannot decompose the world into independently existing smallest units. As we penetrate into matter, nature does not show us any isolated "building blocks," but rather appears as a complicated web of relations between the various parts of the whole. These relations always include the observer in an essential way. The human observer constitute the final link in the chain of observational processes, and the properties of any atomic object can be understood only in terms of the object's interaction with the observer.”

                                                                 


“Quantum theory thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe. It shows that we cannot decompose the world into independently existing smallest units. As we penetrate into matter, nature does not show us any isolated "building blocks," but rather appears as a complicated web of relations between the various parts of the whole. These relations always include the observer in an essential way. The human observer constitute the final link in the chain of observational processes, and the properties of any atomic object can be understood only in terms of the object's interaction with the observer.”

                                                        



“Subatomic particles do not exist but rather show 'tendencies to exist', and atomic events do not occur with certainty at definite times and in definite ways, but rather show 'tendencies to occur'.”


                                 



“The basic recurring theme in Hindu mythology is the creation of the world by the self-sacrifice of God—"sacrifice" in the original sense of "making sacred"—whereby God becomes the world which, in the end, becomes again God. This creative activity of the Divine is called lila, the play of God, and the world is seen as the stage of the divine play. Like most of Hindu mythology, the myth of lila has a strong magical flavour. Brahman is the great magician who transforms himself into the world and then performs this feat with his "magic creative power", which is the original meaning of maya in the Rig Veda. The word maya—one of the most important terms in Indian philosophy—has changed its meaning over the centuries. From the might, or power, of the divine actor and magician, it came to signify the psychological state of anybody under the spell of the magic play. As long as we confuse the myriad forms of the divine lila with reality, without perceiving the unity of Brahman underlying all these forms, we are under the spell of maya. (...) In the Hindu view of nature, then, all forms are relative, fluid and ever-changing maya, conjured up by the great magician of the divine play. The world of maya changes continuously, because the divine lila is a rhythmic, dynamic play. The dynamic force of the play is karma, important concept of Indian thought. Karma means "action". It is the active principle of the play, the total universe in action, where everything is dynamically connected with everything else. In the words of the Gita Karma is the force of creation, wherefrom all things have their life.



                                                




Don't know why I was still thinking of The Gitanjali (song offerings) by Rabindranath Tagore, especially this one:

I know that the day will come when my sight of this earth shall be lost, and life will take its leave in silence, drawing the last curtain over my eyes.

Yet stars will watch at night, and morning rise as before, and hours heave like sea waves casting up pleasures and pains.

When I think of this end of my moments, the barrier of the moments breaks and I see by the light of death thy world with its careless treasures. Rare is its lowliest seat, rare is its meanest of lives.

Things that I longed for in vain and things that I got...let them pass. Let me but truly possess the things that I ever spurned and overlooked.

[tribunalofmercy]

Wow. Thank you Monty


Its a lot all together, and the thought of the 'tendencies' of the subatomic particles reminds me of the video ace put up about Dr Emoto's water experiments...the tendency is to Reflect, yes?  Though perhaps for us, it is still 'seeing through the mirror darkly', because we cannot always Recognize why/how the one affects the other...I wonder if, from the eyes of the Absolute/God, the reflection appears more like your optical illusion in your first image?   Kind of like the idea of "simple harmonic" overtones that, to Us, do not quite reach a perfect double, but then, our compressed reality reflects That as well...

Again, it's not so important I guess   But it's Neat....but if we begin to believe that the tendencies of an object reflect the interaction of the observer, individually, instead of in just a finite number of possibilities, how can we Ever say "this is God", or "that is God"?   (Kind of like, "How big IS God??")


("Do not over-question, Gargi")  lol