|
|
Post by Gopal on Apr 23, 2013 9:36:53 GMT -8
hi Burt,
you no need to go deeply to understand this. I explain here little more, you can able to understand what am i asking here.
The basic question is whether creation continues from nothing or everything? For an instance we would consider about the meeting of a particular person in the future,and to meet that person, I would affirm or visualize. I hope you might be aware of how law of attraction works. now as soon as I affirm, universe manifested a particular probable line to meet that person. That means Universe orchestrate everything else to meet that person. Now the question is, whether the third entity which connects everything involves here or not, this is what our argument is.
Now let's look into what phil says,
There is no third entity involves here instead all individual are one,there is no separation, Intelligent which creates the thought and experience that simultaneously.so here,how we are meeting a person when we affirm can be answered by there is already a flow.
But what my point is,
There is third entity which already has all the manifested reality, So now, when the person affirms to meet another person, there is one probable universe will be chosen and manifested. So what is your thought in this? Do you think whether third entity is necessary for such orchestration or not?
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 23, 2013 11:22:41 GMT -8
hi Burt, you no need to go deeply to understand this. I explain here little more, you can able to understand what am i asking here. The basic question is whether creation continues from nothing or everything? For an instance we would consider about the meeting of a particular person in the future,and to meet that person, I would affirm or visualize. I hope you might be aware of how law of attraction works. now as soon as I affirm, universe manifested a particular probable line to meet that person. That means Universe orchestrate everything else to meet that person. Now the question is, whether the third entity which connects everything involves here or not, this is what our argument is. Now let's look into what phil says, There is no third entity involves here instead all individual are one,there is no separation, Intelligent which creates the thought and experience that simultaneously.so here,how we are meeting a person when we affirm can be answered by there is already a flow. But what my point is, There is third entity which already has all the manifested reality, So now, when the person affirms to meet another person, there is one probable universe will be chosen and manifested. So what is your thought in this? Do you think whether third entity is necessary for such orchestration or not? What caused you to choose to manifest this meeting? |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Apr 23, 2013 20:36:12 GMT -8
hi Enigma,
Nothing caused, my intent to affirm also part of the unfolding.But my question is, the time when i affirm and the time when i meet the person seemed to be orchestrated,how this orchestration towards the future exactly happens?
RAJ
|
|
burt
Member
Posts: 198
|
Post by burt on Apr 25, 2013 17:10:03 GMT -8
Raj,
Not to say that the way that you’ve envisioned that scenario is invalid, but do you see how there are other possible different models that might also explain the events in it but that would not require orchestration?
Start with the formation of the intent – this is your context, but it is arbitrary. We could ask and provide explanation for why the idea to meet that particular person arose at that particular time. Of the set of factors that went into that formation, each in turn could be seen to be a confluence of other factors: functions of some set of initial conditions and the natural laws applied to the objects subject to these conditions over time.
For example, let’s assume that you are sitting in a 2nd floor apartment and hear a vendor in the street shouting his advertisement … maybe this is an ice cream truck playing a jingle or think of a kid selling newspapers in the street in days gone by. You happen to be hungry for whatever the vendor is hawking so you get up and go downstairs and thereby manifest the destiny conceived by your hunger and having heard their cry.
Nowhere in that narrative does the question of a conductor necessary to orchestrate the events come into play – everything that is happening is simply a continuation of a sort of clockwork that was already in motion before we imagined it.
It’s important to note that either explanation (orchestrated or unattended clockwork) is equally as valid to this simple scenario. There are other factors and questions that can be introduced to differentiate them that would raise the questions of origin, randomness and terminus, and it would be in the exploration of these that the nature of the question of free will as being purely conceptual would come to light.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 25, 2013 19:04:48 GMT -8
hi Enigma, Nothing caused, my intent to affirm also part of the unfolding.But my question is, the time when i affirm and the time when i meet the person seemed to be orchestrated,how this orchestration towards the future exactly happens? RAJ I think your concern with it is that the events leading to the future are not random but rather related and interconnected. They are because everything is one, not because some third entity is orchestrating it. It is the nature of the singularity of expression that all aspects will be inter-related. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 27, 2013 7:17:08 GMT -8
hi Enigma, Nothing caused, my intent to affirm also part of the unfolding.But my question is, the time when i affirm and the time when i meet the person seemed to be orchestrated,how this orchestration towards the future exactly happens? RAJ I think your concern with it is that the events leading to the future are not random but rather related and interconnected. They are because everything is one, not because some third entity is orchestrating it. It is the nature of the singularity of expression that all aspects will be inter-related. Maybe someone needs some A-H links? |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Apr 29, 2013 20:54:37 GMT -8
hi burt
There are various levels of orchestration, when i ask my friends for treat, I may ask them to come to particular restaurant, Now everybody knows where the shop is,everybody know that what time it is. Now everybody knows this.This orchestration includes the example of yours, going to downstairs and meeting the vendor, when the bell sound came to you, you know all the steps already how you have to arrive there.
What i meant was, When i intent to meet a person, expect me, no one knows including the person whom i would like to meet. Even to me don't know where to meet and how to meet, I just only going to affirm or visualize, as soon as I decide it paves the way to meet that particular person, even first steps might be known to us but we might not be aware of the fact that this path may lead to meet that person, but once we meet that person, we can retrospect how that first opened path has led us here. Now tell me who orchestrate this? How this type of orchestration is possible without third all knowing entity?
RAJ
|
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Apr 29, 2013 21:53:24 GMT -8
"It is the nature of the singularity of expression that all aspects will be inter-related."
how future is getting exactly created by this singularity of expression.?
|
|
|
|
Post by Portto on May 1, 2013 8:58:15 GMT -8
"It is the nature of the singularity of expression that all aspects will be inter-related." how future is getting exactly created by this singularity of expression.? "Future" is an imaginary concept, one of many mind projections. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 1, 2013 13:45:29 GMT -8
"It is the nature of the singularity of expression that all aspects will be inter-related." how future is getting exactly created by this singularity of expression.? Moment to moment. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on May 2, 2013 11:20:38 GMT -8
"It is the nature of the singularity of expression that all aspects will be inter-related." how future is getting exactly created by this singularity of expression.? Moment to moment. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on May 6, 2013 22:33:14 GMT -8
"It is the nature of the singularity of expression that all aspects will be inter-related." how future is getting exactly created by this singularity of expression.? Moment to moment. Yes moment to moment, That's right, But the next moment may lead to the Crash of Earth and Moon so that your expected future may not be created,isn't it? what is the assurance? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 7, 2013 8:59:14 GMT -8
Yes moment to moment, That's right, But the next moment may lead to the Crash of Earth and Moon so that your expected future may not be created,isn't it? what is the assurance? No assurance, of course. I guess what I've been trying to say is that, while experience is personal, creation is impersonal. Experience is individuated while creation is whole. The individual is a 'perceiving mechanism' of sorts and does not create any more than a camera creates. The individual isn't an entity that can lay claim to it's own independent existence. Essentially, it's a window on creation. The window, itself, is not intelligent or alive. That which IS intelligent and alive is not individuated or personal, and as such it's more appropriate to refer to this as intelligence or aliveness. Since this intelligence is not personal, it is not a thinking/perceiving entity and therefore has no self direction. So what we have are windows on creation that do not create but only perceive/think, and impersonal creation that creates on the basis of what is perceived, but does not think. It means that nobody and nothing is running the show, which unfolds spontaneously. Spontaneously just means 'without mediation' and does not mean randomly. Creation is a function of what is perceived, and perception is a function of creation, and so it is tightly interwoven into a single fabric in which the creator, the act of creation, and the created, are inseparable. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on May 7, 2013 21:02:58 GMT -8
So the Individual and intelligent has a bifurcation? If so, you could say that intelligent is the connecting third entity,isn't it? Because you clearly said intelligence is not perceiving entity. I guess I and you are guessing in the same way, but we both are expressing in a different way.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 8, 2013 10:51:27 GMT -8
So the Individual and intelligent has a bifurcation? If so, you could say that intelligent is the connecting third entity,isn't it? Because you clearly said intelligence is not perceiving entity. I guess I and you are guessing in the same way, but we both are expressing in a different way. If it's not a perceiving entity, how does that lead you to conclude it's a third entity? There isn't even a first or second entity. I'm not guessing, and I'm certainly not guessing in the same way you're guessing. |
|
