First Things First

People are interested in finding principles, concepts that govern creation. The search for fundamental equations and causes has dominated Philosophy, Physics, and in a way, Religion. The reason Creationists even bother to rebut ideas like evolution or the big bang is because they think these ideas are plausible or have explanatory power. But the universe is not governed by principles, equations or concepts.

I was reading a question on a Physics Q&A site about whether Newton's Second Law implies cause and effect. Well, in a naive way it seems to: Force causes Acceleration. Acceleration cannot pull a Force in to existence. But in terms of science, this law does not imply causation. Science says that cause and effect are not part of what has been discovered so far, and don't seem likely to show up.

Shouldn't that mean that scientists should not waste time positing a big bang at all then? It has been criticized as untestable, unfalsifiable, unnecessary, in a word: unscientific. But, inquiring minds want to know! Trying to find reasons for things is dualistic: it separates you from what is. That doesn't mean you should never do it, it just means that as dualistic thought, it is not definitive or ultimately true, it leaves something out. It leaves you and your experience out. If it can exist without you, then you can exist without it. So, drop it.

Are goals important?

Why? I chose some, but it was more to give focus to thought, making it more pleasant, than for any other reason. My energy is low lately - still recovering from surgery and so on - so it does not make me follow through on my goals. But I know what they are. I decide not to add more, or to send my limited energy off in other directions. "Do these things, or rest." That is how goals are helping me, so I don't revisit the question endlessly. Goals help me not think. Very useful!

the All-Seeing I

Over a year ago I had an experience during a guided visualization that created a permanent change in perspective. I won't describe it, other than to say that it was about the Two Real Things: the Void, and Experience. This morning I had an interesting thought about how we perceive, and what our view means. Experience is seen in analogy by looking straight forward and noticing the round, seemingly edgeless window of sight. (Like what Douglas Harding describes in his book "On Having No Head") The Void is understood by analogy to the invisible realm "behind our heads" which is outside the field of view, all that we cannot be conscious of.

"With, not thro' the Eye"

This morning I was turning my head a bit to be aware of the inconspicuous boundary of my vision, and I felt that something within me was trying to stretch that edge as far back and around as possible. Could the Ego be wanting to see in all directions at once, to know and control everything? Maybe. But it is also true that the Third Eye is known as "the All-Seeing Eye". It is understood in the Astral Realm as including all forms of perception and thought itself: the "6 senses" described by the Buddha. At Enlightenment (or Liberation, or whatever the most exalted state is called) there is no unconscious, and all that can be perceived and known is present.

So maybe the pull I was feeling is the natural growth of the being? What do you think? Do the experiment, and become aware of what you see, and what you do not see.

explanation

People are always wondering why the universe (or life) is the way it is. They ask why God would make things this way? "What kind of a God would..." and as far as I know, even the believers don't have an answer that makes sense or is convincing. But I have one.

Let's not get carried away

Someone I know says that Experience exists because "the Void can't know itself." So, presumably, the Void created Experience, and now Seeing is seeing Itself. That makes sense, right? Can we say that this is at least a consistent picture? If you were all possibility but no actuality, and no present awareness, wouldn't you create Experience in order to know... what you actually are? I would.

So, what kind of a universe would you make? Personally, I would have no clue where to start, so I suppose I would start with the fabric of space and time, then make some forces and particles. From there, as we know, particles can make choices, and we would be off and running. In other words, a God that knew nothing at all would do exactly what we observe to be the case. And a God that already knew everything would have no reason to do it in the first place.

Next question.