Monday, September 26, 2016

Profound conversations

Read deeply the following profound conversations by 3 persons.

A: Researcher/Speaker/Narrative Writer
B: Lightworker
C: Creative Director/Writer

A: Hell is an archetype, but archetypes are imagined--and emotionally signaled constructs. Scientists who study the behavior of quanta have found a physical vacuum between fundamental electric particles and the wave energies released when attempting to observe and measure those particles.
It's an automatic reaction to succumb to emotionally loaded concepts and call the universe "Hell," but hence we might have to call the "Big Bang" a hell as well.

B: The world = The object of our mind = The projection of our mind
David Bohm said, "The way we see depends on the way we think". If there is the "Big Bang", there must be "Big Crunch" also. BTW, this mountain looks like Mt. Fuji.

A: Wonderful! And that "Big Crunch" may be the singularity. At the mouth of the Black Hole.

B: I feel that the singularity, or the mouth of the Black Hole may be the transcending point of the space and time. Namely, the singularity between the phenomenal world (historical dimension) and the noumenal world (ultimate dimension). In other words, "Big Bang" may mean David Bohm's "The implicate, or the enfolded order unfolds into the explicate order, or everything separate.". And "Big Crunch" may mean "The explicate, or the unfolded order enfolds into the implicate order, or the wholeness.".

A: Right-on; I have admired David Bohm's explicate/implicate order for some time. It goes quite far toward explaining the queer behavior of quanta and concluding that space-time might be the result of a seminal "objective reality." Some call this "God," some--"Ultimate Consciousness."

C: Very interesting. . .everything goes back to "perceiving", doesn't it? And, slowly scientists are coming around: Form (objects) are Void (Subject) and Void is Form. Why is that? Because both are the perceiving of them, and the perceiving of them are what they are. Therefore, there is no distinction between them (except conceptually, differentiated by a dichotomized mind, i.e. Duality).

B: I like your comment; "Form (objects) is Void (Subject) and Void (Subject) is Form (objects)." Yes, the perceived is the perceiver. And the perceiver is the perceived. A = B and B = A. This is Emptiness, or Interbeing. Ego's thinking, or mind cuts the unseparable wholeness into separate pieces. David Bohm said, "See, we are the earth because all our substance comes from the earth and goes back. ... Consciousness is much more important than money. Change in consciousness is essential."

C: two quick items: one, the mountain above does look like Mt. Fuji; two, I don't place much stock in David Boehm's utterances.  

Any resolution of a duality such as Subject and Object, through negation of "Neither (the one) nor (the other)," takes you to the "Suchness," "Subjectivity," (the Void of Prajna, of Han Shan) of what those concepts ARE when they are neither either. This Suchness is well beyond the ego/mind. It is experienced as a Voidness, which is a plenum. That plenum is the sense of ubiquitous Presence; it's conceptual opposite is Absence. So the "two" are actually cognized as not different, at this level, but with a deflection of "interest" the Absence is transformed into Noumenal Awareness, which is Absolute.  

No where, after the negation of subject/object is there any room for conceptual speculation of the kind that Boehm offers, for he is still locked in the mind that is split by those two concepts. Plus, any appearance (of anything) is Dualistic and, if it is conceived, is an interpretation by split mind of that which manifested it, namely Absolute. All the rest is conjecture and speculation from a position that can hardly be said to have experienced the higher states spoken of ...(?)


No Sunset