It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is There a Fail-safe? A Way to Know If You're Wrong?

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bb23108
The findings that led to the Uncertainty Principle are certainly relevant to objective existence - as the experiments were conducted on an elementary or fundamental particle - considered to be "a basic building block of the universe from which all other particles are made" (Wikipedia: Elementary particle).

The Uncertainty Principle does point to the unknowability or paradoxical nature of one of the basic building blocks, so cannot be casually dismissed. I agree that such findings do not provide the necessary grounds for a complete theory of everything, but these findings certainly do point to the paradoxical nature of trying to KNOW what everything is, in our objective reality.


It has to do with being able to measure what is being observed. It has to do with the limitations that are inherent in observation. Not the structure of reality.



Originally posted by NorEaster
I'm saying that YES I can specifically state that the actual sub-structure of physical reality is objective, constant, predictable, and knowable, and that I do believe that I have identified it and factored how it develops as default progression to what we know and experience as human beings. And this is why I launched this thread concerning how it might be that a person could objectively find out if they had "done it" or if they were hopelessly lost in the outfield.
I think we need a very clear definition of "knowable". I am not talking about being able to predict the behavior or pattern of some "thing", nor simply describe it, nor even being able to know its exact chemical make-up, etc. I am asking you if you know what the "thing" itself IS? What it actually is, in reality - not just a very detailed description about it, its characteristics, patterns, etc. No such complete knowing is possible, and the Uncertainty Principle also supports this at a most basic level of objective reality.


The sub-structure of reality isn't a "thing" with a chemical make-up. You've proven here that we're having two distinctly separate conversations. Knowing the fundamental existential platform that all that exists rests upon isn't the same as knowing the minute details of every thing that rests on that platform. Who would ever insist that they know every minute detail of everything that exists. Who could ever mistaken what I've been discussing here with that sort of claim? The platform isn't the crap that's piled on top of that platform.



Originally posted by NorEaster
As you must be able to appreciate, given our exchange, this is a possibility that one cannot simply assume to be true. It has to be challenged, and yet, after 4 years of ongoing challenge, it seems very much to be holding up as bullet-proof. I guess that I'm a little intimidated by the implications of what I may have done here.


I certainly appreciate your passion and well-considered thought processes relative to this. I still am unclear about what you are actually presenting as your total view of reality, though I did finally get a chance to catch up on your other posts in response to others, and see that you subscribe to Holon theory. I assume your insight into reality is an extension of this philosophy or theory?


It's not an extension of holon theory. Holon theory is the result of the existential imperative that is Identity Survival. I only referred to holon theory in relation to a question concerning Identity Survival. As an example of how much it affects how progressive development results in increasing complexity.


Okay, if it is true and holds up to various challenges, can you actually prove it altogether or is it (or at least aspects of it) simply self-evident to you? I guess I will just have to wait to hear more about what you are actually presenting...


I guess that I honestly believe that I've already proven it altogether, and our exchange here has given me a lot of renewed confidence in (at least) my capacity for disciplined critical thinking. I'm glad I started this thread, and I'm glad you joined in to challenge me. I'm feeling better about my chances that I've actually cracked this nut, and I want to thank you for your help in putting me through a few paces here. I needed to know if I could manage a little pressure at this end of the premise without a crack opening up here or there. I work in solitude, and robust challenge is hard to come by.


edit on 5/8/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 8 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 

Originally posted by NorEaster
It has to do with being able to measure what is being observed. It has to do with the limitations that are inherent in observation. Not the structure of reality.
Right, that was my point - reality cannot be known, nor can even the simplest object be known exactly as it is. I never said that the limit is relative to reality - the limit is relative to knowing.


Originally posted by NorEaster
The sub-structure of reality isn't a "thing" with a chemical make-up. You've proven here that we're having two distinctly separate conversations. Knowing the fundamental existential platform that all that exists rests upon isn't the same as knowing the minute details of every thing that rests on that platform. Who would ever insist that they know every minute detail of everything that exists. Who could ever mistaken what I've been discussing here with that sort of claim? The platform isn't the crap that's piled on top of that platform.
So this substructure has no atoms, no matter, no elementary particles of any kind?

Regardless, the example I gave still applies - can you actually know what any thing is? What it IS! Not just a description of its attributes, but what it actually and simply, is.

If so, can you tell us exactly what something actually is? I am not asking for endless details - simply, what is it? No one can know this, but this consideration can give us at least a glimpse of the unknown, reality itself, when fully considered.

Also, are you talking about unconditional Conscious Light or Consciousness (not just human perception/attention/observer function) as the "platform" in which everything arises and is a modification of? I haven't gathered that is what you are talking about, but what else could be without any chemical make-up whatsoever?


Originally posted by NorEaster
It's not an extension of holon theory. Holon theory is the result of the existential imperative that is Identity Survival. I only referred to holon theory in relation to a question concerning Identity Survival. As an example of how much it affects how progressive development results in increasing complexity.
Okay, then I am still unclear about what you are actually proposing as truth.


Originally posted by NorEaster
I guess that I honestly believe that I've already proven it altogether, and our exchange here has given me a lot of renewed confidence in (at least) my capacity for disciplined critical thinking. I'm glad I started this thread, and I'm glad you joined in to challenge me. I'm feeling better about my chances that I've actually cracked this nut, and I want to thank you for your help in putting me through a few paces here. I needed to know if I could manage a little pressure at this end of the premise without a crack opening up here or there. I work in solitude, and robust challenge is hard to come by.
I am glad you got something out of our exchanges - they have been useful to me too. Are you saying you already have proven it altogether here somewhere that we can all read? If you don't want to elaborate, I understand - but if you already have proven something here and wrote it down here or elsewhere, I would like to read it (again). Thank you.


edit on 8-5-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bb23108
reply to post by NorEaster
 

Originally posted by NorEaster
It has to do with being able to measure what is being observed. It has to do with the limitations that are inherent in observation. Not the structure of reality.
Right, that was my point - reality cannot be known, nor can even the simplest object be known exactly as it is.


Again, you let my point slip right through your fingers. I'm sorry, but I obviously can't reach you here.



Originally posted by NorEaster
The sub-structure of reality isn't a "thing" with a chemical make-up. You've proven here that we're having two distinctly separate conversations. Knowing the fundamental existential platform that all that exists rests upon isn't the same as knowing the minute details of every thing that rests on that platform. Who would ever insist that they know every minute detail of everything that exists. Who could ever mistaken what I've been discussing here with that sort of claim? The platform isn't the crap that's piled on top of that platform.
So this substructure has no atoms, no matter, no elementary particles of any kind?


Of course not.


Regardless, the example I gave still applies - can you actually know what any thing is? What it IS! Not just a description of it's attributes, but what it actually and simply, is.

If so, can you tell us exactly what something actually is? I am not asking for endless details - simply, what is it? No one can know this, but this consideration can give us at least a glimpse of the unknown, reality itself, when fully considered.


Here's a small taste of what matter is. A particle is a entangled density of event trajectories that has developed as a means of each involved quantum unit of action pursuing Identity Survival within the largest holon structure presently available. I'll let you consider that small bit of reality, and imagine the implications it suggests. It's actually worth more than you might suspect, but I'll show it to you anyway.


Also, are you talking about unconditional Conscious Light or Consciousness (not just human perception) as the "platform" in which everything arises and is a modification of? I haven't gathered that is what you are talking about, but what else could be without any chemical make-up whatsoever?


No such thing as primordial consciousness. That's putting the caboose in front of the engine.



Originally posted by NorEaster
It's not an extension of holon theory. Holon theory is the result of the existential imperative that is Identity Survival. I only referred to holon theory in relation to a question concerning Identity Survival. As an example of how much it affects how progressive development results in increasing complexity.
Okay, then I am still unclear about what you are actually proposing as truth.


Truth? Truth is a determination. A qualification that pitches in to establish existential Identity. It's "paired" with Logic (for lack of a better way to describe it) and can be absolute (unaffected by context) or relative (contextually determined). I'm not actually proposing anything here concerning the mechanics of the truth/logic determination process.



Originally posted by NorEaster
I guess that I honestly believe that I've already proven it altogether, and our exchange here has given me a lot of renewed confidence in (at least) my capacity for disciplined critical thinking. I'm glad I started this thread, and I'm glad you joined in to challenge me. I'm feeling better about my chances that I've actually cracked this nut, and I want to thank you for your help in putting me through a few paces here. I needed to know if I could manage a little pressure at this end of the premise without a crack opening up here or there. I work in solitude, and robust challenge is hard to come by.
I am glad you got something out of our exchanges - they have been useful to me too. Are you saying you already have proven it altogether here somewhere that we can all read?


It will be available eventually. The book world takes forever to do what it does. For this kind of book, it takes even longer. If it was a book about me dying and seeing Jesus, it'd already be on the shelves. Everything is market-driven. Even something that you'd think would be as fascinating as reinventing the way that science approaches dealing with physical reality.
edit on 5/8/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   
What is your take on the "uncertainty principle" where a wavelength becomes a particle when observed. You seem obsessed with scientific observations are you going to dismiss this also because it contradicts your last four years work which you are confident tells the whole story of all that has ever been and will be.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Just butting in to say that I am totally enthralled by this thread. So many mind blowing concepts & nerdy words...but I love it!

I am just an old crone...but my gut instinct tells me when I am wrong, although it is not verifiable to anyone else.

So, nevermind me, but I am following...



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   
1 feels OP its instinct + faith backed by research and open-mindedness along with a part of self evaluation before even presenting to others self evaluation as to CONSIDER ultimately your POV is subjective no matter how close to the Objective TRUTH it is. This self evaluation part to 1 allows filter before present, which allows for more objective data to perhaps be obtained.

1 would be leaving you somewhat in the dark if 1 didn't mention the aspect or part of the RISK being needed to be accepted as a part as well for the more risk sensed or WATCHEDwatching also proves... It seems. and so also becomes filter.. 1 Apollos if somewhat unclear OP...

LOVE LIGHT ETERNIA*******



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 

Originally posted by NorEaster
Again, you let my point slip right through your fingers. I'm sorry, but I obviously can't reach you here.
Nor can I reach you, it seems. The question is simple, what IS any object in reality? We do not and cannot know this inherently. You seem to be saying that you do, but do not demonstrate it.


Originally posted by NorEaster
The sub-structure of reality isn't a "thing" with a chemical make-up.
So this substructure has no atoms, no matter, no elementary particles of any kind?


Originally posted by NorEaster
Of course not.
But you just said it has NO chemical make-up and now you say the opposite. These are contradictory statements, it seems to me. Can you explain this further? Edit: I am now assuming you are saying quanta are not part of a chemical make-up? But still I can ask you, what are quanta in reality? It is unknowable.


Originally posted by NorEaster
Here's a small taste of what matter is. A particle is a entangled density of event trajectories that has developed as a means of each involved quantum unit of action pursuing Identity Survival within the largest holon structure presently available. I'll let you consider that small bit of reality, and imagine the implications it suggests. It's actually worth more than you might suspect, but I'll show it to you anyway.
And now you are saying that the Holon theory is an essential part of your consideration - when I just asked you this, you said it was not or at least minimized its importance. It is no wonder there are at least two conversations going on here! In any event, this is an interesting notion.


Originally posted by NorEaster
No such thing as primordial consciousness. That's putting the caboose in front of the engine.
That is not the Consciousness I was speaking of. You are only defining consciousness as an evolved characteristic, when I am speaking of Consciousness as the acausal infinite field in which all modifications are perturbations of Consciousness' own self-aware Light. It is unconditional, prior to all objective reality but not separate from it. Objective reality arises in Consciousness.


Originally posted by NorEaster
Truth? Truth is a determination.
No - Truth is simply Reality and is self-evident when recognized, and perfectly self-evident when realized.


Originally posted by NorEaster
It will be available eventually.
Okay, fair enough, and the best to you!


edit on 8-5-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 


I'm sorry, but you're not comprehending anything that I've tried to share with you. I appreciate your engagement, but I think this exchange has run its course. Have a pleasant day today. It looks to be sunny and warm. I'm going to get out and enjoy it.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheomExperience
What is your take on the "uncertainty principle" where a wavelength becomes a particle when observed. You seem obsessed with scientific observations are you going to dismiss this also because it contradicts your last four years work which you are confident tells the whole story of all that has ever been and will be.


Wave and particle are what is observed when the point of perspective changes. Nothing else has changed relative to the bit of matter under observation. Researchers seem to acknowledge this, and yet never go the full step toward conceding that their point of perspective is integral to the "transformation". It's just another clue to what's the most important consideration when working to figure out why the human scientific search for answers has hit so many dead ends. The fact that human perception (and the translation/interpretation of that perception) is inherently flawed. The data can be definitive, but if it's incorrectly interpreted, the findings will reflect that error.

The science that is being used to interpret the latest findings is based on traditional ignorances. Until that's fixed, the dead ends will never stop showing up. My effort isn't to address the accuracy of the data being collected. I'm trying to reset the fundamental understanding of what's real, so that the latest data can finally make sense to those who are receiving that data. Our machines and monitors have finally become precise enough to debunk our erroneous view of reality's sub-structure, but our scientists are being either unwilling or unable to adjust to what the data is insisting. Some would rather declare that reality itself is subjective and imposed by the conscious mind of the observer.

Truth is that when you've gone so far as to completely reject the objectivity of science - as a scientist - then you've lost your way and need to reconsider the basis for everything you've constructed as representing reality. We're at that crucial juncture, and I think that there's a way forward that doesn't dismiss the objective findings or declare all of reality to be nonbinding.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by MoonSage
Just butting in to say that I am totally enthralled by this thread. So many mind blowing concepts & nerdy words...but I love it!

I am just an old crone...but my gut instinct tells me when I am wrong, although it is not verifiable to anyone else.

So, nevermind me, but I am following...



Yes....nerdy words. My wife has gotten me into watching reruns of the Big Bang Theory, and I have discovered my inner Dr. Sheldon Cooper as a result. In fact, as I write, it's his voice that is ringing as internal dialogue lately. It's kind of fun and kind of annoying, all at the same time.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


It just seems to me that nothing is a constant over time. As our instruments improve in technology so do the findings and consequently the "facts". If you can write a book that withstands the test of time than i command you but what your setting out to achieve is more like a religion than substantiated facts. Not trying to upset you here but i have observed that you are working in a closed box and that is it. Not prepared to change the way you choose to see things. I respect that but as the funny man Jim Jefferies says "please know that your wrong".



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheomExperience
reply to post by NorEaster
 

Not trying to upset you here but i have observed that you are working in a closed box and that is it. Not prepared to change the way you choose to see things.


I've radically changed the way I see things. Not here in front of you, but let's face it, if I am now seeing things radically different than anyone else sees then, then I changed the way I see things. I won't simply accept someone else's point of view if I can prove it to not be accurate, but that doesn't mean that I'm rigid. It just means that I already know that that person's point of view (from what I've already learned before encountering that point of view) isn't accurate relative to what we're examining with our discussion. You must take into consideration that I have many years of intense research already behind me before posting this thread. I'm not new to this topic.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Ok so back to the subject, in your experience have you discovered a fail safe? A way to know that your wrong?



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
I'm sorry, but you're not comprehending anything that I've tried to share with you.
Well, sweeping away my yet-to-be-answered questions with a statement like this, rather than fully considering them, simply tells me that you are also not comprehending what I have tried to share with you and/or perhaps avoiding them and their implications altogether.

If indeed you have discovered a better "platform" for scientists to work from, I applaud this discovery and hope it helps scientists find even better ways to serve mankind - we certainly need all the help we can get! The best to you relative to this!

However, after all is said and done, anything you conceive relative to your discovery (and anything else) is still in the realm of mind, is still assuming a limited point-of-view, is still about knowledge, whether that be at the most elementary particle level or most macroscopic level - it is simply conceptual/perceptual knowledge, and how to use that knowledge for further scientific discovery, etc. This is good, even potentially great, and is very admirable - but is still limited to point-of-view, whether microscopic or macroscopic.

Because... most fundamentally, you still do not know what any thing IS! Does this not tell you intrinsically that reality is ultimately unknowable? You do not know what even the most elementary particle IS, not to mention what anything more complex IS. This is not something scientists like to open up to - Sheldon Cooper would be appalled at such a statement!

But this fundamental not-knowing of what anything or anyone actually IS, if truly observed and felt altogether, gives us a glimpse of reality, the unknowable "field" in which all existence arises as modifications of Consciousness' self-aware Radiance. (Again, I am NOT talking about the evolved brain-mind functions of conception, perception, and observation via attention or point-of-view.)

The deepening of this recognition of the unknowability of reality also may reveal that Consciousness is the indivisible field in which all forms arise, change, and disappear, and that we are ultimately, simply the witness of all of this change - as Consciousness Itself. This is a profound realization that transcends all the limits of form including all points-of-view - but can certainly be glimpsed in any moment by anyone, via the simple exercise of observing and feeling any "thing" and/or any "other" for what it or they ARE - an ultimately unknowable modification of Reality Itself.

In any moment of our release from having to constantly think, know, and assume a point-of-view, we can also simply notice that we are Consciousness Itself, unchanging, never aging - and when ultimately realized, that we are conscious light, absolute energy/love-bliss radiance.

And relative to your op, any knowledge based on any point-of-view, though possibly factual and true in terms of its usefulness scientifically, socially, practically, etc., is inherently limited - i.e., it is not absolute Truth because Reality is unknowable just like any and all of Reality's modifications are unknowable in terms of what they actually ARE. This does not mean that Reality is unrealizable or even unrecognizable, however.

So, NorEaster, let go of your identification with endless thinking, and observe and feel your fundamental non-knowing - enjoy the mystery of it when you walk in the sun today. I know Sheldon wouldn't be open to this, but I think NorEaster might be!

Thank you for the interesting thread, and you too have a pleasant day basking in the ultimate mystery and self-aware pleasure of being/existing!

P.S. It would be very cool if you won the Nobel Prize! And if you said in your acceptance speech, "That even after all this comprehensive understanding of our objective reality, I still don't know what a single thing IS!" - that would be even cooler!


edit on 9-5-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bb23108
You do not know what even the most elementary particle IS, not to mention what anything more complex IS. This is not something scientists like to open up to - Sheldon Cooper would be appalled at such a statement!


You have an amazing capacity for ignoring entire swaths of response.


Here's a small taste of what matter is. A particle is a entangled density of event trajectories that has developed as a means of each involved quantum unit of action pursuing Identity Survival within the largest holon structure presently available. I'll let you consider that small bit of reality, and imagine the implications it suggests. It's actually worth more than you might suspect, but I'll show it to you anyway.


This is what a particle is. I explained this just a handful of inches above your quoted statement about how I don't even know what the most elementary particle is. Well, I do know, and I'd already detailed what it is for you. I've run into this kind of belligerence with the NAMASTE bunch that hangs out here. Are you one of those kids? This bizarre refusal to even acknowledge very obvious responses from me suggests that you are.

If this is the case, then I admit to being taken in by you, and fooled into thinking that you were actually interested in the thread as it had evolved from the OP. I won't indulge you any longer and am a bit disappointed in myself for not recognizing this odd exchange for what it actually was.

This board has some real manipulators slithering about. I really feel bad for the folks who come here to learn.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheomExperience
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Ok so back to the subject, in your experience have you discovered a fail safe? A way to know that your wrong?


No. I wish I could, but I haven't been able to find such a fail safe. It helps to have a theory challenged, and to be required to explain it in detail, but in this case, that would take hours of one-on-one, and with a professional logician who is also well versed in physics and neurobiology.



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by TheomExperience
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Ok so back to the subject, in your experience have you discovered a fail safe? A way to know that your wrong?


No. I wish I could, but I haven't been able to find such a fail safe. It helps to have a theory challenged, and to be required to explain it in detail, but in this case, that would take hours of one-on-one, and with a professional logician who is also well versed in physics and neurobiology.


Are you saying that you cannot be sure that you are right?



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheomExperience
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Ok so back to the subject, in your experience have you discovered a fail safe? A way to know that your wrong?


This is a play of Maya. Truth is beyond the phenomenal world. The observable world, including the thoughts, ideas and concepts of understanding within the mind, is Maya. Every conclusion about reality or truth that is drawn from the observations of this phenomenal world, including the images and concepts in your mind, is Maya....and illusion. Forming beliefs and conclusions about that illusion..creates dellusion. This includes all philosophies, theories, opinions and perspectives. 99% of the World is doing this. Maya is always pointing the way to truth, but truth is not within Maya.

Truth lies beyond the phenomenal world, the mind itself, is a part of the phenomnal world that we observe. Truth, is beyond the capabilities of the mind to grasp, and when it is recognized...you will need no compass nor litmus test to verify it.

Take all of our theories and concepts about truth and reality and throw them in the garbage bin. And while your at it, take the ideas, opinions and philosophies you have about yourself and toss them in the garbage bin. That's always a good start. Do that everyday..and you will gradually see.
edit on 9-5-2013 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   
There is no fail safe. As far as we know. : )

That is the beauty and magic of being a thinking human being.

And the foolishness of having convictions about anything. We simply can't avoid theorizing about the world, but I think it's cuz we're meant to.... we just haven't unraveled the Mystery...

yet

Saying that, there are things you can do to keep your mind in check. And I think you have to revisit your beliefs over and over again and challenge them over and over again (in a real, meaningful way). It's also good to create your criteria by what amount and type of evidence you require to believe a specific point.

It's also just plain okay to be on the fence about something, maybe leaning toward one opinion but not giving in entirely. There isn't a ton of value to giving into a belief system so fully, you need to be willing to change it upon new evidence. That is your test, sort of.
edit on 9-5-2013 by BlueApple because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueApple
There is no fail safe. As far as we know. : )

That is the beauty and magic of being a thinking human being.

And the foolishness of having convictions about anything. We simply can't avoid theorizing about the world, but I think it's cuz we're meant to.... we just haven't unraveled the Mystery...

yet

Saying that, there are things you can do to keep your mind in check. And I think you have to revisit your beliefs over and over again and challenge them over and over again (in a real, meaningful way). It's also good to create your criteria by what amount and type of evidence you require to believe a specific point.

It's also just plain okay to be on the fence about something, maybe leaning toward one opinion but not giving in entirely. There isn't a ton of value to giving into a belief system so fully, you need to be willing to change it upon new evidence. That is your test, sort of.
edit on 9-5-2013 by BlueApple because: (no reason given)


What your prescribing is an endless walk in the dark. It doesn't matter what a person has learned, or what knowledge he holds in his Mind, if he limits himself to that information only, he will never find truth, never know it and will continue to ask questions and walk as a blind man.

There is not one single human being in the history of the world, that has found the answers to these questions. including Buddha, Jesus, Krishna or any number of beings. However, the difference is that the Sages found out the source of the question, which led them to seeing the illusion of the questioner..and transcendence of their minds. It is only from that point, can truth be seeing and observed. This knowledge from these Sages has been passed on for thousands of years, and their are many beings today who are living and experiencing that truth every day. So don't fool anyone into believing that the mysteries of the manifested universe remain undiscovered...it's very old news. But it can not be transmitted intellectually, with theories and philosophies...it has to be a living experience to the individual seeking it. The ways to achieve this, has been passed on for thousands of years. But nobody wants to let go of their knowledge, their beliefs scientifically and religiously. So it remains a mystery for the majority of the people on this planet.

So, you will find out (if you havent already) that the Mind will always lead you on an endless journey to find answers. For thousands of years, the collective minds of humans have been doing just that. Yet nobody knows has the final answer. What hope of you finding it, in your 100 year life span by digging through humanities leftovers and inconclusive scientific nonsense?

There is a higher knowing, but it does not come from any concept formed within the mind. It is practical, simple, it hides behind every thought in the mind and in the appearance of the phenomenal world.
edit on 9-5-2013 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-5-2013 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join