What is better in gods universe?

So this goes back to the ancient question: If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Darrell, a lot of what you're saying is based on how the universe is perceived by those that are able to sense it. What if there were no sentient beings to perceive the universe? would it still exist?

 

Well, this certainly is an interesting question. It seems that it would depend on various factors. A couple I can think off right off the top is, 1) which universe are you referring to? 2) who is perceiving this universe where there is no sound?

I ask "which universe" because we are all creating infinite universe's, or have been since [insert unknown quantity here] infinities ago. And not always in this particular level (or realm) of existence.

I ask "who is perceiving", what I should have said is "what is being perceived?" In order to say there is such a universe where there is an object in that universe called a tree, where that tree in that particular universe fell, something had to be observed in order to identify a specific universe. Or, someone had to be creating a universe that had a tree in it that fell. And in order to say "A Tree", there had to be something there to be observed, identified, perceived in order to call it a tree. So someone was there fabricating a tree in their universe that fell in which they more than likely heard it.

In the universe we all create, there is a lot of it we are not in touch with because we haven't yet created it. However, there are those in the same level of existence who are creating their universe in exactly the same manner in which we are. Occasionally we all run into each other and we are continually creating our universe around each other, constantly describing our creations to each other, some influencing the others perceptions, and then we move on. In one universe, this person created a tree, in my universe, I too created a tree, in exactly the same spot the other person created theirs. Only difference is, in my universe the tree fell, where in the other persons universe it didn't fall.

Or, in my universe it was already fallen, where in the other person's universe it hasn't fallen yet. But, somewhere in between our passing each other the tree had fallen. Now the question is, "did it really fall", or "did I just create it in the position in which I observed it"?

It is quite near impossible to assume there was no one around to hear a tree falling, considering there are living beings everywhere, small, large, and these beings were human at one time, and we were those other non-human beings as well at one time. Also, earth is not the only planet in this particular visual universe, so we created our universe in a different part of it an infinite number of times.

My particular universe, is not the same as her particular universe, is not the same as his particular universe, is not the same and their particular universe, is not the same as your particular universe. If it were, you would have MY eyes, MY ears, MY nose, MY tongue, MY body, MY mind ... you would be ME. Not this "we are all one" thing. In order for your universe to be the same one I was living in, you would have to be me. But you're not, because you (ditto for all sentient beings) are creating the universe based on the contact you have with it. You contact it the same way, but your experience is not the same, i.e., the feelings you experience are not the same, your perception of it is not the same, the way you fabricate it is not the same, and your awareness of it is not the same. The mechanism for bringing about these events are the same, but the experience is not the same.

So, just on planet earth alone, assuming there are 6 billion people, then there alone are 6 billion different universes being created. Add on to that the plethorea of different insect, land-/aquatic-mammals, fish, birds, and any other kind of life form that may exist on this planet, and you have a rather large number of universes being created alone in just this remote region of samsara. More than I can wrap my head around.

In other words. If there were a tree in any universe, then someone had to have observed it in order to create it. Else it just doesn't exist ... yet. And if it did, then it was because it was observed there. And if it was observed in order to say whether or not it has fallen, someone, or some sentient thing had to have observed it either falling, or already fallen. In which case, shared ideas indicated that if it was laying down, then it had to have fallen so the observer is fooled, tricked into believing that it actually FELL, even if they had not had the opportunity to have observed in the movement of falling.

If I see a tree perpendicular to the horizon, then that is what I see. I don't occupy myself with the what-ifs, or the why's of the position of the tree. I could care less how it got there. Why engage in stress? Besides, in my universe, it didn't fall ... I created it exactly the way I see it.

So, it seems that to be an impossible question to answer. Particularly if there was a universe that had a tree in it to either fall or not fall, someone had to be there to observe it into existence to say something had fallen or not fallen, and whether or not it did or did not make a sound. That would be like me walking out my door everyday saying, "will a boat sail up to my front door today if I am not here to observe it?" Or, better yet, "if I put a cat in a box with a decaying radio-isotope attached to a triggering mechanism of a gun, is the cat dead or alive?" Come to think of it, that sounds exactly like the same question.

Are you sure that is an "Ancient" question?

HTML:

 

maybe not. It sounds like some ancient zen riddle or a question put forth by a great greek philospher. I really have no clue what the origin is. It sounds ancient lol.

You believe we all create our own universes. So would I be correct in stating that you don't believe something can exist unless there is an observer to view it and observe that yes, it exists? I understand your philosophy, but I have some problems with it.

Take the tree, for example. Just because a sentient being is not around to observe it should not take away from its actual existance. It still falls in the forest. This event still takes place, with or without observation.

The same can apply to the universe...you speak of individual universes that sentient beings create simply by observing and feeling with the senses. But what of the vast universe that encompasses all of us? The universe that is ruled by certain laws of nature that do not change depending on the person observing them. Take for example a car speeding down the highway at a rate of 60 miles per hour. One person observes the car from another moving car speeding at the same rate. Another person observes the car from a standstill on the side of the road. The appearance of the car changes based on the observation point, but the rate of speed remains the same. The car will always be moving at a rate of 60 miles an hour.

The tree will always fall.


There are mysterious objects and forces existing in space that might not ever be observed by sentient beings, yet these objects are still there.

 

I can say for certain, it is not my philosophy. Now on the question, "... unless there is an OBSERVER to VIEW it ...". VIEW as in see, hear, smell, taste, touch and think? As in VIEW can be an experience through sight, sound, taste, touch and thought? Yes. But, I don't consider it a belief. Rather an understanding through direct experience.

Many people have this "direct experience" but because they don't understand it, have relied more on belief to hold their views till they do understand. For them, it's okay.

So, according to the Schrodinger equation and the superposition principle, yes, it both does and doesn't exist. Everything is in a probability state, that is, until AN observer actually OBSERVES it, then it is however the observer observes it. Be it there, or not there. In Quantum Mechanics, the wave function of any state vector reduces itself to one of the many possibilities once it interacts with an observer. That is, it is a condensation of all possibilities into a single occurance whenever it is in contact with an observer.

We literally create the universe, and everything in it, non-stop, continually, moment-to-moment. Because everything in it is in a probability state and the moment you contact with it, you reduce it to whatever you are observing, or whatever you WANT to observe. And many times we create our reality around us in accordance to what everyone else around us tells us how we should be creating it. Some people can be very forceful when it comes to describing their perceptions of reality.

I think the car-to-tree comparison is not a very good one. One requires an observer, the other doesn't. One says what is happening is happening because it is being observed that way. The other says what is happening is happening only because someone says it is without proof that it is really happening. In reality, IF there is NOONE around to witness a tree, whether it is falling or not falling, the tree itself both does and does not exist. It is in a state of flux, being and not being simultaneously but is one or the other the moment someone observes it. And thought has a lot to do with it. If you think you see something falling, you see something falling. But the moment there is nothing there to think about, then there also is nothing to apply the action of falling to.

Are they? I'm not sure I can subscribe to this kind of thinking. It sounds rather uncertain. We literally create reality around us by the thoughts we have in our minds. You are creating that computer you are siting in front of, or cell-phone, or iPod, or iPad, or whatever means you use to type on the internet. Just by the fact you are thinking about it all the time you are in contact with it.

Uncertainty brings about fear, not knowing whether it will be harmful or beneficial. In being fearful, we fixate on the fear itself and in this fixation, we make whatever it is we are fearful of exist. If not immediate then in a not-to-distant future. Uncertainty also has impatience, anger, hatred and violence as a companion.

I think it is about time people stopped letting others create their universe for them. It's about time people woke up and started seeing things as they really are. We all are beings of pure light, pure energy, and are not constrained by the limitations of our own perceptions and awareness. It is when we begin letting others tell us how we SHOULD be observing our own realities that we create it in THEIR image, and not how it really is.

Something I ran across in the teachings of the Buddha describes the possibilities for one who lives in Serenity and Insight:

• Having been one, you can become many;
• Having been many, you can become one;
• You may appear and vanish;
• You may go unhindered through a wall, through an enclosure, though a mountain, as though through space;
• You may dive in and out of the earth as through it were water;
• You may walk on water without sinking as though it were earth;
• Seated cross-legged you may travel in space like a bird;
  With your hand you may touch and stroke the moon and sun so powerful and mighty;
• You may wield bodily mastery even as far as the Brahma-world;
• You may, with the divine ear, which is purified and surpasses the human, hear both kinds of sounds, the divine and the human, those that are far as well as near;
• You may understand the minds of other beings, of other persons, having encompassed them with your own mind;
• You may understand a mind affected by lust, and a mind unaffected by lust;
• You may understand a mind affected by hate, and a mind unaffected by hate;
• You may understand a mind affected by delusion, and a mind unaffected by delusion;
• You may understand a contracted mind, and a distracted mind;
• You may understand an exalted mind, and an unexalted mind;
• You may understand a surpassed mind, and an unsurpassed mind;
• You may understand a concentrated mind, and an unconcentrated mind;
• You may understand a liberated mind, and an unliberated mind;
• You may recollect manifold past lives, that is, one birth, two births, three births, four births, five births, ten births, twenty births, thirty births, forty births, fifty births, a hundred births, a thousand births, a hundred thousand births, many aeons of world-contraction, many aeons of world-expansion;
• You may, with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, see beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate, how beings pass on according to their actions;
• You may, by realizing for yourself with direct knowledge, here and now enter upon and abide in the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the descruction of the taints.
• These things, serenity and insight, when developed lead to the penetration of many elements.
  __________

Source:
Majjhima Nikaya, 73
Mahavacchagotta Sutta
Paragraphs 18 through 24
​

What is better in gods universe? Whatever you decide is better in it.

I don't believe in god/God. Seeing how you create your own universe, YOU are GOD, and it is your universe where ALL things are possible. If one would just stop fixating on what is in front of them. It's this fixation that says a tree is a tree. Not sure I said it in this thread already, but you dont SEE a tree. The EYE does not hear, the EYE does not smell, the EYE does not taste, the EYE does not touch, and the EYE does not think ... the EYE SEES LIGHT. The EAR does not see, the EAR does not smell, the EAR does not taste, the EAR does not touch, and the EAR does not think ... the EAR HEARS SOUND. The NOSE does not see ... the TONGUE does not see ... the BODY does not see ... the MIND does not see, the MIND does not hear, the MIND does not smell, the MIND does not taste, and the MIND does not touch ... the MIND THINKS THOUGHTS.

One does not SEE a tree. One does not SEE a car. One does not SEE another HUMAN. One does not SEE and animal. All these things one say they SEE, they DO NOT SEE, unless they say they SEE LIGHT. That's all the eye sees ... light. Nothing more. Not One Thing More ... only light. So when you say you see something and you give this something a name, then you are fooling yourself, tricking yourself, and deluded. You ONLY SEE LIGHT. A Tree ONLY ... ONLY ... exist because YOU say it does, you hold on to this thought, you cling to this thought, you fixate on this thought, and you convince yourself that what you are seeing is actually what you think it is. You've defined the parameters of whatever you are in contact with and you give it existence. You say it is solid, belive it is solid, fixate on solid, and when you reach out to touch it, you contact with solid because you've convinced yourself that is what it is.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive. And we are deceiving ourselves every single moment of our current, past, and all possible future existences.

Wake Up!

HTML:

 

I like your buddhist teaching. It conflicts with no experience and does not require belief.

 

It may only be just that ... MY buddhist teaching. I guess that makes it Darrellism. Because the only thing that I quoted the Buddha on was the source from the Mahavacchagotta Sutta. The rest are inferred from "experience" from constant reading & meditating ... oops, and chanting.

To some, this may even be considered pernicious.

HTML:

 

I was actually referring to the Mahavacchagotta Sutta.
The mastery of our own energetic expression is a universal curriculum. Only the time we take is optional.

Really, pernicious. Those some, cannot know that their will is inviolate.

 

Hey, dope, I had a senior monk call me gay, but only in a way that in inferred that I WAS GAY. I couldn't believe he even said what he said, so I just kept replying back that I didn't understand him.

In truth, I didn't. He, as all seriously practicing Buddhist monks should know, we literally are what we practice. And him asking me that question implied that I practiced being that way ... he said, "you don't have wife, no children, no girlfriend, you're gay!"

News flash ... Buddhist monks don't have wives, don't have children, and don't have girlfriends ... celebacy ... hello!

HTML:

 

That is interesting. What do you imagine his intent was?

 

Doesn't really matter. All that mattered/matters is understanding, and final realization. Most of what I've been typing here of late ...

HTML:

 

I find peace beyond all form. In terms of the absolute everything else is an abstraction, a corridor of refraction.
Love, without condition, everything else, respiration.

 

As far as matter or mattering, whenever I am confronted with a situation I do not recognize, I ask, "what is it for". Form serves function

 

Darrel. I read all of your posts, and excuse me if im wrong but you say that we, each are the creator of our own personal universe, this includes every imaginible idea or experience, thus we are our own Gods, we through our choices causally effect everything that happens.
This last point is where i have, interest. surely to exclude ourselves (our choice making attribute) from this causal chain, or to place ourselves at the beginning of the chain is to deny that we ourselves are caused just as much as we cause. I put it to you that we in fact have no causal power at all, and our consciousness is itself a culmination of many (maaany) chains of cause and effect crossing over so to speak. choices are merely a calculation of inputs. To talk of your self, or myself outside of the usual mundane sense of the guy in the mirror doesnt really make sense, are 'we' not just blobs of universe? just as easily knocked around by forces and energy as the next blob.
i think im losing my thought trail here, forgive me ive been up since 4:30 am and am lacking food.

 

Cause and effect don't seem to be an accurate description. More-to-the-point would be best to say Action and Results of Action, or even more succinct Karma, since Karma is a word used to describe "Action and the Results of Action". But I'll most likely just stick with talking about action and results/consequence.

Did I say Imaginable? If I did, it may have been misunderstood. Unless one considers what it is they are perceiving, acting on, and aware of as imaginable, then this may have been what was conveyed. I'm sure that if I did say Imaginable, it was not what one can imagine as in dreaming or conjuring in the mind pertaining to a future event that hasn't happened yet.

Again, I'm not sure that I made a point of indicating that we are not part of the causality. Every action has a consequence. This is what I keep saying. Seeing is an action, so seeing has a consequence. Hearing is an action, so hearing has a consequence. Smelling is an action, it too has a consequence. Tasting, touching, thinking are actions, they too have consequences. The consequence of which is feeling, perception, mental volition (action), and awareness (consciousness).

If we are to create A universe (I didn't say 'this' intentionally because we create whatever universe dependent on the result of actions still remaining after the expiration of the body), we MUST have a means in which to exist within this universe. Although there are instances we have created universes for but a few moments, few minutes, few hours, few days and then just stopped creating that one and moved on to create another

We ACT all the time. Non-stop. I will put to you these, please answer truthfully:

1. Do you see?
2. Do you hear?
3. Do you smell?
4. Do you taste?
5. Do you touch?
6. Do you think?

Seeing is acting on the contact between eye and light. Hearing is acting on the contact between ear and sound. Smelling is acting on the contact between nose and aromas. Tasting is acting on the contact between tongue and flavors. Touching is acting on the contact between body and tangibles. And, thinking is acting on the contact between mind and thought.

Every action has a consequence (Cause: Action, Effect: Consequence)

A calculation based on what?

If our calculations are based on feelings, then perhaps they are just mere calculations. If our calculations are based on perception, then perhaps they are just mere calculations. If our calculations are based on mental volition, then perhaps they are just mere calculations. If our calculations are based on awareness, then, perhaps they are just mere calculations. If they are based on want, desire, passion, lust, greed, then perhaps they are just mere calculations. If they are based on dislike, impatience, anger, hatred, ill-will, then perhaps they are just mere calculations. If they are based on confusion, uncertainty, ignorance, illusion, delusion, then, perhaps they are mere calculations.

I always talk about my self outside the mundane. Everytime I say, "This is not me," and, "This is not my self," and, "This is not who I am." There is no self in what I see, what I hear, what I smell, what I taste, what I touch, or in what I think. Each contact which constitutes seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking are momentary, fleeting, gone the moment contact has been established, so contact has to be established again, and again, and again, and again ... non-stop.

Does one huge gigantic photon strike your eye and you see everything around you or is your eye continuously being bombarded, flooded with light when the eye-lids are open? Is each photon that strikes a nerve inside the eye the same one that continuously strikes the nerves in your eye over and over and over? Or are each one different?

Is your ear bombarded by one gigantic sound wave and you hear everything there is to hear around you, or are your ears continuously being bombarded by varying soundwaves? Is the succeeding soundwave the same one that came before it, and is it also the next one, and the next, and the next? Once a soundwave strikes your ear, it is gone ... no more ... it is followed by another wave, and another, and another, and another, continuously, over and over and over.

If sound is a calculated event, then we really don't like nor dislike what it is we are hearing. So why bother turning up the device that plays music? Why bother continuing listening? Why turn it on?

Every object associated with the senses are continuously changing, never the same as the one that came before it. We don't necessairly act on each and every one that we make contact with, but what we do act on is considerable to the point where we fixate on the ones we do contact. But we can, and do have the capacity to contact and become aware of several thousand of these moments per second.

Choice is when we make decisions based on factors for making a decision and are more related to feeling. These factors being whether we like what we are experiencing, dislike what we are experiencing, or are unsure of what we are experiencing. As a result of these factors, we perpetuate the experiences by constantly maintaining contact with each object associated with the senses, rather we are acting on this contact between sense and sense-object.

Also, speaking about "blobs" ... we can be A N Y T H I N G we choose. We already are now. Some people choose to be sad all the time. Some choose to cry a lot. Some choose to be wealthy. Some choose to be poor. Some choose to smoke. Some choose to drink. Some choose to be slobs. Some choose to be blobs. Some choose to be bolemic. Some choose to be peaceful. Some choose to be hostile. Some choose to be hateful. Some choose to be mean. Some choose to be contancerous. But the one thing EVERYONE does is act. And more than often everyone acts on the results of their previous actions, whether those results from previous actions are from this life, or a previous life/lives.

And because the outcome of a choice is results, once having made the choice we act and all actions have results, we act on the results of our choices and from this come a whole new set of results, and we act on those results and come a whole new set of results, and we act on those results ...

We create everything around us with seeing as a basis, with hearing as a basis, with smelling as a basis, with tasting as a basis, with touching as a basis, with thinking as a basis. We are constantly making choices with pleasure as a basis, with not-liking as a basis, with uncertainty as a basis, i.e, we are motivated to make choices, this motivation is the basis on which we act. We ... Literally ... Become ... The ... Choices ... We ... Make ...

And the universe we create is a result of the actions we take by fixating on what we see, hear, smell, taste, touch and think. We convince ourselves moment-to-moment that what we are creating is real, and it becomes our reality, and the reality of it is, none of it is real at all ... it's just you convincing yourself that it is real because you {like, don't like, are unsure of} what you feel as a result of continuous contact, {seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking}. You bring about your own feelings, your own perception, your own mental volition, and your own awareness.

It's all you, and you alone. You either like what I've shared. Or you dislike what I've shared. Or, you're uncertain about what I've shared. Basically because you have your own way of {seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking} and this awareness of yours in built and designed around your liking, disliking, or uncertainty.

One of the beauties of this conversation is that belief is not required.

HTML:

 

BTW, Spaz, being wrong is only when one regrets a choice they've made. Basically we do what we know to do as a result of the choices we make. All actions are motivated out of greed, ill-will or delusion. When we consider the choices we make as being wrong, then all we're doing is regretting the choices we made.

You do what you know to do, and you do it because you either like it, dislike it, or are uncertain.

So, I'll never say you or anyone else is wrong. I may think that some are fools, and may even think it out loud on occasion, but I don't ever recall telling anyone they are wrong.

HTML:

 

Darrell, i'm interested in your opinion concerning possibilities.

For example, I read an interesting article recently about parallel universes and the theory that because there are an infinite number of choices that each individual can make, it spawns seperate universes that one being creates.

So if one person, one consciousness observes something through their senses, their consciousness is able to see two seperate and distinct possibilities, thus spawning two universes from one being..therefore each being can theoretically exist in one or two or a million different universes.

I do a really lousy job at trying to articulate these ideas so I hope what I just said makes sense to you

 

• Having been one, you can become many;
• Having been many, you can become one;

HTML:

 

I read this book once: Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos, by Michio Kaku. Still have it, I think. The only book by Michio Kaku I have not read is Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration into the World of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel.


The first book of his that I ever read was Hyperspace. And what freaked me out was the second day after starting my reading, I see this book on the pilot episode of Sliders. I kept saying, "No way ... no way ... no way".

HTML: