Time, Space, Matter, Energy, relativity........

[Guest guest]

Namaskaar Sri Rishi

 

There is a time when you see no time, space or causation. This is the time

you are deep sleeping. Everyone knows that there is nothing in deep sleep.

Who registers this fact, that there is nothing in deep sleep. That means you

were awake yet time, space and causation slept on.

 

Answers you may not get but questions can still be dissolved.

 

Thanks and Regards

Bharat

 

On 4/22/06, rishi_2000in <rishi_2000in wrote:

>

> And then, Sir, I revert back to my earlier question, is everything

> relative to time, space and lets say matter and energy?

> I seem to be persistent in asking this.

> What is eternal then or shashwat, isit only my relative perception or

> yours or for that matter anyone else's..their individual experience

> and perception..is that what is reality finally?

> Empirical observations tend to push us in this thought that there is

> nothing eternal or absolute.

> Yet one seeks that very timeless, limitless, absolute, eternal.

> Or is it what science says more......that we can tend to reach to the

> limits of infinity but never the infinity; that we can get

> verrrrrrrry near to zero but never reach zero.

> Loud thoughts, for there can never be any acceptable answers to such

> queries.

> regards

> rishi

>

>

>

>

> , "crystal pages"

> <jyotish_vani wrote:

> >

> > Rishiji,

> >

> > It is not *my* postulate -- as I have stated in many an earlier

> > message or article here or elsewhere!

> >

> > Because *i* do not exist really, nor for ever!

> >

> > *CAse* closed, shall we say?

> >

> > In that earlier message on this forum -- space was mentioned, time

> > was mentioned but one thing was missed -- directly!

> >

> > RELATIVITY! A la Einstein!!

> >

> > Time and space though as different as siblings who fight and hate

> > each other -- are R-E-L-A-T-E-D whether they like it or not!

> >

> > Yes, it has astrological relevance!

> >

> > RR

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , "rishi_2000in"

> > <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Seth says that neither then, nor now , nor the time to come is

> > > permanent, everything is mutable.

> > > Reverting back to the tropical vs sidereal, there seem to be

> > > interesting common patterns in vargas, nakshatra padas and the

> > > calculations in tropical. Your postulate,therefore, as difficult

> > top

> > > prove or to disprove!

> > > regards

> > > rishi

> > >

> > >

> > > , "crystal pages"

> > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Now: Good evening ;-)

> > > >

> > > > , "rishi_2000in"

> > > > <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > RRji,

> > > > > A prediction is something which has to happen in future. It

> is

> > > > > related to time. Therefore, I refuse to give you the pleasure

> > of

> > > > > saying....."I told you so"

> > > > >

> > > > > rishi

> > > > >

> > > > > , "crystal pages"

> > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Rishi -- nice posting.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Here is a prediction for you!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > You will find the Jane Roberts/Seth literature very

> > interesting!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > RR

> > > > > >

> > > > > > , "rishi_2000in"

> > > > > > <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > RRji,

> > > > > > > An article in todays newspaper for your perusal, it has

> > some

> > > > > > > relevance to what we are discussing. Written by Jug

> > Suraiya,

> > > a

> > > > > > > popular columnist out here who is more renowned for his

> > humor.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1494959.cms

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > " Is the paper that you are reading really a paper — or

> > > > > > > any 'thing' at all — or is it merely the 'appearance' of

> a

> > > > paper?

> > > > > > > Further, are 'you' really you, or just

> > another 'appearance'?

> > > > Such

> > > > > > > questions could be put to you not by an other-worldly

> > > spiritual

> > > > > > > seer, but by a very matter-of-fact scientist.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Indeed, scientists are increasingly asking

> whether 'matter'

> > > > > > > or 'facts' actually exist in and of themselves.

> > > Investigations

> > > > of

> > > > > > > the subatomic world have shown that what we in the

> everyday

> > > > world

> > > > > > > take to be tangible matter — this newspaper, your hand

> > > holding

> > > > > it —

> > > > > > > is largely composed of emptiness.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > All material things — a flea, an elephant, an ice-cream

> > cone,

> > > > Mt

> > > > > > > Everest — are made not of discrete particles — like tiny

> > > > bricks —

> > > > > > > but of 'events' which slip in and out of existence and

> are

> > > > > > > inseparable from our consciousness of them.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > One way of looking at it is that they 'exist' because we

> > > > perceive

> > > > > > > them to exist. Contrarywise, do 'we' really exist other

> > than

> > > by

> > > > > and

> > > > > > > through our act of perception?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So if all matter is illusion, or at heart insubstantial,

> > why

> > > is

> > > > > it

> > > > > > > that your hand does not go straight through the

> appearance

> > of

> > > > the

> > > > > > > paper you're reading? Or, conversely, why doesn't the

> paper

> > > go

> > > > > > > through the appearance of your hand?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The scientist would say that is because though matter is

> > > > > > > insubstantial (not made up of any finally irreducible

> > > > substance)

> > > > > it

> > > > > > > is held together by interwoven force fields,

> > > or 'relationships'

> > > > > > > between the 'events', that make up the unfolding

> narrative

> > of

> > > > the

> > > > > > > universe.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This is beginning to sound not like physics but

> > metaphysics,

> > > > > > > specifically Buddhist metaphysics that talks about

> > samskara,

> > > > the

> > > > > > > world of appearance or phenomena, of which we are an

> > > > inextricable

> > > > > > > part, and which is based on the principle of total

> > > > > interdependence.

> > > > > > > ...(This paper is a paper because you are a reader, and

> you

> > > are

> > > > a

> > > > > > > reader because it is a paper.) The interdependence of all

> > > > > phenomena

> > > > > > > is the under-pinning of the Buddhist concept of universal

> > > > > > > compassion.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If all phenomena — a grain of sand, a galaxy, Salman

> Khan,

> > a

> > > > > > > blackbuck — are part and parcel of the same shimmering

> > > > interplay

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > appearance, it is not so much 'morally' wrong to seek to

> > harm

> > > > > > > another entity as just plain illogical because what you

> are

> > > > > trying

> > > > > > > to harm is only a reflection of you, and vice versa.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > A seer might call it the interdependence of all

> phenomena.

> > A

> > > > > > > scientist might term it as Heisenberg's principle of

> > > > uncertainty,

> > > > > > by

> > > > > > > which through seeking to discover we change what is

> sought

> > to

> > > > be

> > > > > > > discovered.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > A poet, who deals in metaphors, might describe it as

> inter-

> > > > > > > penetrative consciousness. A metaphor is a way of inter-

> > > > relating

> > > > > > two

> > > > > > > apparently dissimilar phenomena. 'Shall I compare thee to

> a

> > > > > > summer's

> > > > > > > day?'

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > A metaphor is a bridge, a force field, which links

> together

> > > two

> > > > > or

> > > > > > > more seemingly disparate phenomena: one's beloved and the

> > > > warmth

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > splendour of sunlight.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The poet's job is to reveal such linkages, which is why

> > > Octavio

> > > > > Paz

> > > > > > > described a poem as a cosmos complete in itself,

> as 'real'

> > as

> > > > the

> > > > > > > universe 'out there'. So is this paper that you are

> > reading,

> > > > > > > really 'real' or 'really' just an appearance?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > A scientist, a seer and a poet might give three separate

> > > > answers,

> > > > > > > which are but one. Just as are the poet, the seer and the

> > > > > > scientist.

> > > > > > > And this paper, and you."

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

>

>

SURRENDER JOYFULLY TO THE WILL OF THE ULTIMATE DIVINITY AND RELISH THE

> TASTE OF ABSOLUTE BLISS.

>

>

>

>

> ------------------------------

>

>

>

> - Visit your group

"<>"

> on the web.

>

> -

>

<-@g\

roups.com?subject=Un>

>

> - Terms of

> Service <>.

>

>

> ------------------------------

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Bharatji,

You are right in your comments, the unconscious part

of out awareness at times leads one on.

And there are times when no questions remain and no

answers are needed.

It is also not easy to relate this to the conscious

awareness!

One gets peace/bliss in a state of satchiddanand but

for ordinary human beings like us, life takes its toll

, dharma and karma takes its priority and time, space

all become real and relative.

Thanks for your response.

regards

rishi

 

--- Bharat Hindu Astrology <hinduastrology

wrote:

 

> Namaskaar Sri Rishi

>

> There is a time when you see no time, space or

> causation. This is the time

> you are deep sleeping. Everyone knows that there is

> nothing in deep sleep.

> Who registers this fact, that there is nothing in

> deep sleep. That means you

> were awake yet time, space and causation slept on.

>

> Answers you may not get but questions can still be

> dissolved.

>

> Thanks and Regards

> Bharat

>

> On 4/22/06, rishi_2000in <rishi_2000in

> wrote:

> >

> > And then, Sir, I revert back to my earlier

> question, is everything

> > relative to time, space and lets say matter and

> energy?

> > I seem to be persistent in asking this.

> > What is eternal then or shashwat, isit only my

> relative perception or

> > yours or for that matter anyone else's..their

> individual experience

> > and perception..is that what is reality finally?

> > Empirical observations tend to push us in this

> thought that there is

> > nothing eternal or absolute.

> > Yet one seeks that very timeless, limitless,

> absolute, eternal.

> > Or is it what science says more......that we can

> tend to reach to the

> > limits of infinity but never the infinity; that we

> can get

> > verrrrrrrry near to zero but never reach zero.

> > Loud thoughts, for there can never be any

> acceptable answers to such

> > queries.

> > regards

> > rishi

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , "crystal

> pages"

> > <jyotish_vani wrote:

> > >

> > > Rishiji,

> > >

> > > It is not *my* postulate -- as I have stated in

> many an earlier

> > > message or article here or elsewhere!

> > >

> > > Because *i* do not exist really, nor for ever!

> > >

> > > *CAse* closed, shall we say?

> > >

> > > In that earlier message on this forum -- space

> was mentioned, time

> > > was mentioned but one thing was missed --

> directly!

> > >

> > > RELATIVITY! A la Einstein!!

> > >

> > > Time and space though as different as siblings

> who fight and hate

> > > each other -- are R-E-L-A-T-E-D whether they

> like it or not!

> > >

> > > Yes, it has astrological relevance!

> > >

> > > RR

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ,

> "rishi_2000in"

> > > <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Seth says that neither then, nor now , nor the

> time to come is

> > > > permanent, everything is mutable.

> > > > Reverting back to the tropical vs sidereal,

> there seem to be

> > > > interesting common patterns in vargas,

> nakshatra padas and the

> > > > calculations in tropical. Your

> postulate,therefore, as difficult

> > > top

> > > > prove or to disprove!

> > > > regards

> > > > rishi

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > ,

> "crystal pages"

> > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Now: Good evening ;-)

> > > > >

> > > > > ,

> "rishi_2000in"

> > > > > <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > RRji,

> > > > > > A prediction is something which has to

> happen in future. It

> > is

> > > > > > related to time. Therefore, I refuse to

> give you the pleasure

> > > of

> > > > > > saying....."I told you so"

> > > > > >

> > > > > > rishi

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ,

> "crystal pages"

> > > > > > <jyotish_vani@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Rishi -- nice posting.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Here is a prediction for you!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You will find the Jane Roberts/Seth

> literature very

> > > interesting!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > RR

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ,

> "rishi_2000in"

> > > > > > > <rishi_2000in@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > RRji,

> > > > > > > > An article in todays newspaper for

> your perusal, it has

> > > some

> > > > > > > > relevance to what we are discussing.

> Written by Jug

> > > Suraiya,

> > > > a

> > > > > > > > popular columnist out here who is more

> renowned for his

> > > humor.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

>

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1494959.cms

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > " Is the paper that you are reading

> really a paper — or

> > > > > > > > any 'thing' at all — or is it merely

> the 'appearance' of

> > a

> > > > > paper?

> > > > > > > > Further, are 'you' really you, or just

> > > another 'appearance'?

> > > > > Such

> > > > > > > > questions could be put to you not by

> an other-worldly

> > > > spiritual

> > > > > > > > seer, but by a very matter-of-fact

> scientist.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Indeed, scientists are increasingly

> asking

> > whether 'matter'

> > > > > > > > or 'facts' actually exist in and of

> themselves.

> > > > Investigations

> > > > > of

> > > > > > > > the subatomic world have shown that

> what we in the

> > everyday

> > > > > world

> > > > > > > > take to be tangible matter — this

> newspaper, your hand

> > > > holding

> > > > > > it —

> > > > > > > > is largely composed of emptiness.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > All material things — a flea, an

> elephant, an ice-cream

> > > cone,

> > > > > Mt

> > > > > > > > Everest — are made not of discrete

> particles — like tiny

> > > > > bricks —

> > > > > > > > but of 'events' which slip in and out

> of existence and

> > are

> > > > > > > > inseparable from our consciousness of

> them.

>

=== message truncated ===