TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- God
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]


Posted by Renzo on Sep-17-2009 04:01:

elfreak? That's Krypton.


Posted by kadomony on Sep-17-2009 04:02:

quote:
Originally posted by Lao Tzu
The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao

... so kindly shut the fuck up!


Ah nice, I had a feeling that we'd see some banter between more schools of thought.


Posted by Domesticated on Sep-17-2009 04:03:

quote:
Originally posted by Renzo
elfreak? That's Krypton.


Okay.

Whoever it is, they're a loser.


Posted by Brahman on Sep-17-2009 04:09:

quote:
Originally posted by Lao Tzu
The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao

... so kindly shut the fuck up!


One cannot kindly do as you say.


Posted by winston on Sep-17-2009 05:02:

quote:
Originally posted by Brahman
Free yourself of the dark energy with which you project on others.


I am the dark side.


Posted by Brahman on Sep-17-2009 06:09:

quote:
Originally posted by winston
I am the dark side.


There is no such thing as darkness.


Posted by Rose on Sep-17-2009 06:40:

quote:
Originally posted by Brahman
There is no such thing as darkness.




Krypton!


Posted by Lao Tzu on Sep-17-2009 07:38:

quote:
Originally posted by Brahman
There is no such thing as darkness.


Only in so far as there is no distinction between dark and light. Without darkness there would be no light and without light no darkness. In reality both are one and the same.





~ The frog living in a well knows nothing of the ocean; it is as difficult for a scholar to understand the Tao.


Posted by SuspicionVandit on Sep-17-2009 07:46:

The bible goes on to say in the 20th verse of the 3rd chapter of revelation
quote:
I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

I'm ready god damnit to suffer tonight. I'm ready to come into somebody and do a change in they situation.
Let god turn it around for you. Let god make the difference. let god be what he wanna be in your life.




























































































(ferry corsten remix)


Posted by Moral Hazard on Sep-17-2009 11:29:

Re: Re: Re: God

quote:
Originally posted by Brahman
I am in you.


This statement is inconsistant with the concept of Brahman... Brahman is the ultimate reality... therefore it is everything... so he is in you rather then you in him (much as the earth is in the universe rather then the universe being in the earth).


Posted by karanicleaves on Sep-17-2009 11:49:

we are all brahman. everybody here. ONE.


Posted by karanicleaves on Sep-17-2009 11:57:

I like this analogy. We view ourselves as sepearte entities of each other because we live in the third dimension. There are 11 dimensions according to string theory.

Say for example we lived in the second dimension, and all we could comprehend was the a single plane represented by a sheet of paper. Now say somebody put their part of their hand through that piece of paper. All we would be able to comprehend or "see" is four seperate circles where the space is displaced by four fingers. We view each of these fingers seperately, without realizing that they are all part of the same hand.

Now lets talk about the third dimension. We view ourselves and human beings as seperate entities, almost like someone in the second dimension would view the four circular fingers and seperate entites.

In the fourth dimension we still see each other seperately, but without the concept of time. You would see youself almost as a caterpiller, like a long trail starting from the time you were born leading all the way to the time of your death, and accounting for all your steps in between. In the third dimesion we only see snapshots of this "caterpiller"

As we move up and up to higher dimensions, we are able to see the single unity that we all are: Brahman.

I apologize if my explaniation is a little confusing, i am by no means an expert, and its a lot easier for me to explain in person.


Posted by Brahman on Sep-17-2009 14:15:

quote:
Originally posted by Lao Tzu
Only in so far as there is no distinction between dark and light. Without darkness there would be no light and without light no darkness. In reality both are one and the same.

~ The frog living in a well knows nothing of the ocean; it is as difficult for a scholar to understand the Tao.


The light with which you see is dwarfed by that which you cannot see even in what you perceive as darkness.


Posted by Brahman on Sep-17-2009 14:18:

quote:
Originally posted by karanicleaves
I like this analogy. We view ourselves as sepearte entities of each other because we live in the third dimension. There are 11 dimensions according to string theory.

Say for example we lived in the second dimension, and all we could comprehend was the a single plane represented by a sheet of paper. Now say somebody put their part of their hand through that piece of paper. All we would be able to comprehend or "see" is four seperate circles where the space is displaced by four fingers. We view each of these fingers seperately, without realizing that they are all part of the same hand.

Now lets talk about the third dimension. We view ourselves and human beings as seperate entities, almost like someone in the second dimension would view the four circular fingers and seperate entites.

In the fourth dimension we still see each other seperately, but without the concept of time. You would see youself almost as a caterpiller, like a long trail starting from the time you were born leading all the way to the time of your death, and accounting for all your steps in between. In the third dimesion we only see snapshots of this "caterpiller"

As we move up and up to higher dimensions, we are able to see the single unity that we all are: Brahman.

I apologize if my explaniation is a little confusing, i am by no means an expert, and its a lot easier for me to explain in person.


You are certainly blessed my child.


Posted by Capitalizt on Sep-17-2009 16:35:

quote:

In the fourth dimension we still see each other seperately, but without the concept of time. You would see youself almost as a caterpiller, like a long trail starting from the time you were born leading all the way to the time of your death, and accounting for all your steps in between. In the third dimesion we only see snapshots of this "caterpiller"


FYI, time really isn't a dimension. That's a common misconception. It is integrated into all of the spatial dimensions like threads in a fine fabric.


Posted by winston on Sep-17-2009 20:27:

quote:
Originally posted by SuspicionVandit
The bible goes on to say in the 20th verse of the 3rd chapter of revelation


(ferry corsten remix)


the bible was written by the same people that thought the earth was flat

�Look at every path closely and deliberately, then ask ourselves this crucial question: Does this path have a heart? If it does, then the path is good. If it doesn't, it is of no use.� Castaneda


Posted by Brahman on Sep-18-2009 02:13:

quote:
Originally posted by winston
the bible was written by the same people that thought the earth was flat

�Look at every path closely and deliberately, then ask ourselves this crucial question: Does this path have a heart? If it does, then the path is good. If it doesn't, it is of no use.� Castaneda


The good path is one in which a soul uses its mind and body in the advancement of reaching its full potential.


Posted by astroboy on Sep-18-2009 04:39:

quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
FYI, time really isn't a dimension. That's a common misconception. It is integrated into all of the spatial dimensions like threads in a fine fabric.


To me that is the same as saying it is a dimension.. I wouldn't suggest it's the same as the spatial dimensions. The problem with reconciling our definition of time with our experience of spatial dimensions is that we only see "cross-sections" of time.

Imagine a two-dimensional being traversing the third dimension, looking at a three dimensional ball.. it could never see the entire thing - as it travelled along the third dimension it would see only two-dimensional cross sections: first a dot that would expand to a circle then contract to a dot and disappear. In the same way we traverse time. If we could see time in it's entirety we would see a person as a snake stretching from themselves as an infant to their eventual death (this ofcourse is merely an analogy, it is impossible to know what seeing the entire timeline would "look" like if looks is even the right word). However we are trapped as the two dimensional being to see only cross sections as we move forward in time - as we look at a childhood friend, for example, first we see them as a young child then as an adult, then as an old man etc.


Posted by Brahman on Sep-18-2009 04:53:

The present is the cross-section of time you are bound to. Through me you can realize eternity.


Posted by astroboy on Sep-18-2009 05:00:

quote:
Originally posted by Brahman
The present is the cross-section of time you are bound to. Through me you can realize eternity.


OMMM


Posted by kadomony on Sep-18-2009 05:00:

quote:
Originally posted by astroboy
Imagine a two-dimensional being traversing the third dimension, looking at a three dimensional ball.. it could never see the entire thing - as it travelled along the third dimension it would see only two-dimensional cross sections: first a dot that would expand to a circle then contract to a dot and disappear.


ah man Flatland was a good book


Posted by astroboy on Sep-18-2009 05:04:

quote:
Originally posted by kadomony
ah man Flatland was a good book


Never heard of it.. as it happens I'm looking for somthing to read atm.. might take a look at it at the book shop..


Posted by kadomony on Sep-18-2009 05:19:

quote:
Originally posted by astroboy
Never heard of it.. as it happens I'm looking for somthing to read atm.. might take a look at it at the book shop..


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland


Posted by karanicleaves on Sep-18-2009 08:10:

quote:
Originally posted by astroboy
To me that is the same as saying it is a dimension.. I wouldn't suggest it's the same as the spatial dimensions. The problem with reconciling our definition of time with our experience of spatial dimensions is that we only see "cross-sections" of time.

Imagine a two-dimensional being traversing the third dimension, looking at a three dimensional ball.. it could never see the entire thing - as it travelled along the third dimension it would see only two-dimensional cross sections: first a dot that would expand to a circle then contract to a dot and disappear. In the same way we traverse time. If we could see time in it's entirety we would see a person as a snake stretching from themselves as an infant to their eventual death (this ofcourse is merely an analogy, it is impossible to know what seeing the entire timeline would "look" like if looks is even the right word). However we are trapped as the two dimensional being to see only cross sections as we move forward in time - as we look at a childhood friend, for example, first we see them as a young child then as an adult, then as an old man etc.


Well said


Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.