What was THE WORD at the beginning of the universe? How does it resonate in us, eternally?

Posted March 2, 2012 by slowlygetnthar in Open

commented on April 27, 2012
by parker



This question has arisen in me because I was just listening to a Jesuit brother/friend's lecture on Astrophysics and God...and theories regarding the beginning of "time."

Every time I read that section in the Gospel of John that says "In the beginning was the Word..." I have to stop and ponder what that means.
In Greek, the word WORD translates as LOGOS, which can mean "reason;" or "the word or form (symbol) that represents a concept/thought." This would suggest there is consciousness at the beginning of our universe, which is perhaps present in everything created/existing.

According to Yogananda and Hindu mystic tradition, the word that was at the beginning of the universe was "Om." Peace. (how cool is that?) It continues to resonate each day, and in each being, eternally.

According to some astrophysicists, the universe started with a bang, so hmmm.... maybe it wasn't a word, but a sound: "*B*A*N*G*!!!" The universe is expanding and accelerating away from the starting point of that explosion. Maybe the thunderclap and the accelerated expansion explains our addled perceptions of having less time, and the need to hurry *faster* all the time!

So, without religious dogma, what do you think the WORD might have been at the beginning our universe? How does this word resonate in each of us, daily, eternally?

  • parker Apr 27, 2012

    Your Creator, is the source of your life. That life, which is yours, is also His, because it is the expression of His Light, which He is. He is that Light, and that Light, is in Him, and it is from Him, and it is of Him, and that Light is the life of that, which is you. The symphony of the expression that is His Light, is the vibration of that Light, which is pure and perfect Love.

    The temporal sound of Yahweh, is the vibration of that Light, which is the name of Yahweh; that sound is not Him, it is His name, that vibration is not Him, it is an aspect of His Light - He was, is, and always will be, our One Creator, that is expressed by the sound of His vibration, which is the Light, that we are, and that we perceive.

    You are the uniquely Created one, of the many equally created sons of that Light, expressed within the one Creation, of the one Creator. The unique sound of your one Light, is that special vibration from within His symphony of Lights, which is you.

    The chosen sound of you, is the vibration of you, which is the Light, which is that expression of Love, which is yet to be purified and perfected, in you. You are that sound, which is that unique vibration, chosen of His Light. That Light, is that life, which is chosen for you. The sound of your name, is your name. That sound is not you, it is your name - you were, are, and always will be, His chosen, and His Created one, that He has expressed by the sound of that Light He chose to be you.

    The Creator is knowledge, and knowledge is begotten of the Creator. Knowledge begets Creation through expression. Creation is knowledge. Creation begets time, and Creation begets man. Thus, knowledge begets time, and knowledge begets man; therefore, knowledge is relative. Time and man, are the Creation. Time and man, are the knowledge. Creation is knowledge. Knowledge is the time, and knowledge is the man.

    You are knowledge expressed, therefore you know where to find your self. When you find the knowledge of your self, you have become knowledge itself, and you have found the Creator, for the joy of the Creator, is that which is expressed in you. The Creator resonates in you.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Apr 18, 2012


    Attempting to converse between two topics can create confusion for us and anyone else who is attempting to follow our dialogues; if in fact there is anyone else who has an interest in our recent exchanges.

    I suggest that we move our conversation over to A Second Try. After I attend to some chores I will respond to the comment you have posted over in that topic, possibly later this evening. It may be that my response over there will clear up some of your comments and questions directed to me in this topic.

    Naturally, if you have any questions or comments after reading my comments over in that topic, post them in that topic and I will respond there…..Jim

  • Anonymous Icon

    goddess22 Apr 18, 2012

    The WORD in the creation of this universe is love. This universe is created from the vibration of love. The first Universal law is love. Love's vibration resonates light. The lack of light creates an environment for learning. This is how we learn. In the light or becoming light we can understand everything from a higher perception. The faster the vibrations, the more we are in the light. This feel wonderful.
    In the absence of light, we create fear and misunderstandings. The low dimensional vibrations pull us into more misunderstandings. Frankly this does not feel good. We were created to resonate with higher vibrations. This is peace.

  • parker Apr 18, 2012

    @ Jim Centi:
    I am curious how you have concluded that the essence of an experience is limited to only one half of its being?

    Any thing that may be perceived or observed, must first be observable and or perceivable, which by every application of reason, must have first been expressed, or expressible.

    Either the perceived thing was self-expressed (meaning it simply “is” - if that is even possible), or it was expressed by an otherwise creative agent capable of expressing it.

    Therefore it is the mode of expression - or in this instance, the words expressed by you, that imparts the characteristics to the perceivable that “can invoke resentment or humour”, because the perceiver has nothing to perceive save but that which was first expressed.

    If there is humour to be found within the perception of an ego driven expression, it may be in the resentment evidenced by the expresser’s feeble attempt to hide his ego behind that humour.

    This ability to commune with one another, to pretend, to express according to our will, to perceive that which has been expressed, is all that we possess as our tool set by which we may learn the things of this universe.

    The universe, and all things in it, are expressed for this very purpose - to be observed as providing the evidence of itself. We do not need to think about it to experience it, we need only observe it, to learn about it.

    Your own acceptance of this is contained on your words wherein: “your departing from the world of thought” . . enables you to; “move into the domain of experience”, or observation of what is expressed, thereby allowing you “to experience an appreciation of the spiritual domain”.

    And on the lightest note, the joyful experience of the spiritual domain which you appreciate, is the universe expressed for that purpose. You are experiencing the joyous appreciation for the most wonderfully expressed creation. And although we have flipped between this thread and your's of "A Second try", we have continually shared words that elude to a modest comprehension of eternity that resonate within a spiritual aspect of us.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Apr 18, 2012


    Your last question somewhat describes my experience at the time the lyrics to the song were posted. I may have worded it a bit differently.

    It is not a permanent experience with me. It drifts in and out, depending on to what degree ego is influencing perception.

    The lyrics to the melody reveal that the author experienced the perception of the world conveyed in A Second Try and it was his or her intention to communicate that perception to children. This confirms my view that knowledge of Quantum Physics is not required to experience the world in this manner. Quantum physics is helpful in adding some credibility to the experience.

    I realize now, somewhat under the influence of ego, that it may not always be appropriate to introduce that perception into a serious dialogue as you were having with dinesh_dhadwal. Ego is mandatory when engaging in such a serious discussion.

    From another perspective, it is possible that some, who were not experiencing the ego required for such a discussion and have some familiarity with A Second Try, may have viewed the introduction of those lyrics in a humorous manner.

    What we are dealing with is different….transient….modes of perception that can invoke resentment or humor, depending on the mode of perception of the observer or perceiver at the time of the perception. This appears to be somewhat reminiscent of the double-slit experiments.

    On a lighter note, my computer problem has been resolved, with a bit of luck this may not be simply a temporary fix…..Jim

  • parker Apr 17, 2012

    @ Jim Centi:

    Is your life your dream? Are your words also just part of your dream? Or is your dream about your life and your words, just an illusion?

    If your life is your dream, how is it that others perceive your expressions? Are they dreaming your dream? Are you dreaming theirs? Or do we all share one dream, any or all of which may also be an illusion?

    Or do we just row merrily along to pretending to experience some temporal exposure to an eternal dream, which may all be an illusion?

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Apr 17, 2012

    Row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream: merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream......Or perhps an illusion?

  • parker Apr 17, 2012

    @ dinesh_dhadwal

    I have not professed to know anything, merely that I have observed some things that have been expressed for that purpose, and I have asked
    of the inner, or universal knowledge, that you imply may only be questioned or commented on by "the most renowned people", such as Buddha, Christ, Einstein, etc.

    It is within your free will to choose to believe that I, or others, perhaps even yourself, are incapable of communing with universal knowledge, but such a belief may be what is limiting you from that very experience.

    When your most renowned people expressed their opinions of "how" aspects of the universe may have started or how or why it is able to continue to function the way it does, they were reporting their comprehensive observations. In comparison, I have been blessed with much less understanding of these things than these people that you proclaim to be most renowned. In fact, much of Einsteins scientific stuff is way beyond what I fully understand, but I accept it as coming from a more astute mind.

    My words do not purport to explain how anything got started or how any aspect of the universe functions the way it does. I merely am reporting what is, because it is for all to observe, if they are willing to look. I do not pretend to understand how, or even entirely why, anything started or continues to function, yet this does not diminish what it is, or what may be known by anyone willing to ask of it.

    I also am in total agreement with you that, regarding how the universe started or how it continues to function; "no-one to date has been able to give the exact detail because it is beyond the comprehension of human mind or Human beings". If you are willing to commune with universal knowledge, I will presume it will also confirm that you are incapable of comprehending these things, as it did confirm that I was incapable, yet perhaps you will learn much more from it than I.

    I have only been able to gain a very limited knowledge of what is, not how it is, or how or why it is able to function as it is, just that it is. In this temporal life that I find myself, I also find myself having been made with these temporal limitations that are also far beyond my ability to fully comprehend, but within my capacity to accept. I humbly admit to being barely smart enough to observe some of what is, let alone being able to explain why or how it exists.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dinesh_dhadwal Apr 17, 2012

    @Parker You seem to know everything about the universe !!! as do most of other religions/philosophies. Let me remind you that we are just a very miniscule part of the infinite canvass of the universe. To proclaim that this is the exact way the universe is for eg an ant in a city proclaiming to know & understand the entire functioning of the city. Yes , we humans are blessed with intelligence to percieve & tap into the infinite power of the universe by aligning our lesser self with the greater self of the cosmos, BUT there are limitations to how much we can see or what we interpret. Even the most renowned people who ever walked this earth such as Buddha, Christ, einstien, etc could not describe exactly how it starts or what exactly is the functioning of this universe. Some of the common conclusions are that universe is governed by strict set of laws, it creats/ destoys maintains all creations at all times, many dimentions/ many universes exist, BUT no one till date has been able to give the exact detail because it is beyond the comprehention of human mind or Human beings. Sadly, The EGOS of us humans will never accept this & hence the quest & false Proclamations of the so called TRUE WORD continue

  • parker Apr 15, 2012

    All things perceived as mass, or as matter, or as concepts of time, whether eternal, or temporal, of space, of distance, or as thoughts, or as ideas, or as free will, or as emotions of love, or compassion, or as intelligence; all these things are the Creator, because they are the intelligent expressions of the Creator.

    All things are intelligently expressed by the Creator, so that the Creation may know the Creator, through perceiving these temporal expressions. The Creator is the origin of all intelligence, and the Creator has intelligently organized specific patterns of His inherent intelligence, to express all things we perceive as a form of energy.

    The perceived Universe is the Creator self-expressed. The Creator is Yahweh. Yahweh is eternal, the Universe is His temporal expression of Himself, therefore the Universe is not all of Yahweh, only that aspect of Yahweh that may be perceived by us, His temporal expression.

    Yahweh is the origin of free will and intelligence within you, thus you have the free will and the intelligence to perceive His temporal expressions according to His will. Your temporal perception of Yahweh is limited to what He has expressed as the Creation. You were not created to perceive that which Yahweh has not expressed.

    He has planted a temporal comprehension of His eternity and of His free will in our hearts and in our minds, and He has expressed all things within His Creation to us, as evidence of His being. Because He Created us so, He knows we yearn to experience eternity and to know Him, therefore He has given us but one instruction, which is that we Love each other as ourselves, because we are expressions of each other, and that we Love Him as ourselves, because we are individual expressions of Him.

    As consideration, He has promised us a reward; if we would ask in this temporal lifetime, He would willingly give us answers to all things He knows we need and desire, including an understanding of how and why we will attain His purpose for us, as members of His eternal Spiritual Family. This is His desire, because it is His desire that is expressed as our desire within us.

    Our choice is to accept this eternal knowledge that has been freely offered from Yahweh, or to pursue our own form of knowledge from our increasing, yet temporally limited comprehension gained by studying the Created things.

    This is that truth that sets one free. Seek within and you shall find how eternity resonates within you, because it is only hidden from those that do not have faith to look. If you have faith, yet cannot find, then you are asking amiss. If you do not know how it is, that you ask amiss, then ask someone that does. For to do good and to share is to Love one another.

  • DyckDyck Apr 02, 2012

    I find myself reverberating over the last several posts. For me the asking of a question is the beginning of a journey. With my years is coming little by little, patience.

    I'm not anxious for a pleasant journey to end quickly. So, an opened question for me starts a savoring & refinement. I often find I restate it as I gather information, experience, a maturing awareness of noticing, so that my serious questions change with time.

    As long as the question remains unanswered it has energy. This energy remains with me and comes up in unexpected moments of everyday life, prompting me to notice and gather and contemplate. No, I don't seek to answer a question hastily. Nor to I seek to understand it mentally. I'm suspecting holistic learning happens. Once the question's answered it's without further life... even though it seems intuitive that no question is ever truly answered... that active or intentional learning might never be dead.

    This thread, with its references learning, knowing, & to the Bible, (a historical accounting instead of a God-written book) seems related to another discussion thread (below) if anyone is interested.

    What would you do with a book actually written by "God?"

  • slowlygetnthar Apr 02, 2012

    I disagree that asking questions that are unanswerable is futile. Beginning to inquire leads to exploration, which may lead, eventually, to answers. That's not futility. That's growth in understanding.

    Also, answers that may be momentarily unattainable may become attainable someday. The previous inquiry and exploration may add depth and dimension to what is considered an answer/the truth about something.

    So, inquire, inquire, inquire....

    Maybe the word at the beginning of the universe was YES!!!

  • parker Apr 02, 2012

    Starting in 2000, several associates worked with me to research and investigate the true original intent and meaning of what theologians professed to be the Bible. Spent several hundred thousand dollars locating, authenticating and acquiring copies of the oldest known original Hebrew Scriptures. Spent several hundred thousand more dollars to have 3 world-renowned Hebrew linguistic scholars perform independent, blind, English transliterations of the work, on a paragraph by paragraph basis. Only when all 3 of them came (independently) with an identical or equivalent English meaning for a paragraph of text, did we then move to the next.

    It took us until 2012 to agree that our work should be published. The “NIBEV”, Natural Israelite Bible, English Version, the only known English transliteration preserving the original intended meaning of the original written Word.

    All KNOWLEDGE of the universe, its origins, the origins and attributes of mind, and the origins of mankind, of angels and dinosaurs, of health, of healing, of families and of communities, of life and of love, and even of the sciences - biology, astronomy, physics, and "noetic" experiences, gaining access to our inner self, and much more, was freely given to us, yet for centuries this was all deliberately veiled by self-righteous and self-centred and self-proclaimed guardians, who disguising themselves as the self-appointed theologians of nobility, hid the true originals and produced watered down copies for very limited public use.

    The veil was unwittingly reinforced and extended throughout history by any number of well intentioned idiots employed by this nobility and further disguised as translators, who took great efforts to translate only these nobility-amended copies, not the actual originals, believing we may only presume, that their revered nobility would not deliberately mislead them!

    We wonder why science and religion conflict, or why modern religions disagree. They (including modern Jewish believers) rely upon these many spurious translations that by legal definition of “Copy-Right”, are each necessarily deemed to be “sufficiently at variance (or different) from the original”, in order to qualify for said Copy-Right.

    The original Words of knowledge have been preserved. They reside in public museums, but remain their in a now near unreadable ancient form of language, which is nothing close to what is contained in Copy-Righted Bibles or Talmuds or Torahs. Until now.

    The NIBEV and its companion book, A New Mind are available at https://secure.myBookOrders.com/order/jonathon-parker

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Apr 01, 2012

    RE: "Although it first feels like a discussion with others... it often soon goes to me noticing what I feel inside from anothers response. I am then dealing (or dancing) with that... and not at all with a separate person. In other words, if I don't like what someone says... why? If I do like what someone says... why?"

    Do you doubt that this is what you learned and only what you learned? Would you agree with something if they replied to you in a language you did not speak? Well, where did you learn language? We only know what we know. And we resist what is outside our schema. It really is that simple.
    They are thinking patterns which are learn. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

  • DyckDyck Mar 30, 2012

    I would ask others to consider that there is indeed emotional learning.... and it may be most comprehensive and important-- not belonging to the mechanical physical (possibly trivial) world. And further, if the definition would include the heart, spirit, soul, it could include the 'round trip' of learning... both teacher and student within.

    Is there not learning in expression?

  • frequencytuner Mar 29, 2012

    The symbol I chose for my Avatar expresses this conversation clearly. The circle can be understood to represent tho infinite myriad of thoughts, feeling, likes, dislikes, attractions, aversions, facts, opinions, beliefs, assumptions, convictions-->everything everything absolutely everything. The dot in the center is the absolute Truth that all of these are a part of. There is One Truth with Infinite Expression.

    Like one of those unanswerable questions (to the human cognitive mind) we utilize symbols to express and understand such.

  • parker Mar 29, 2012

    If a question is unanswerable, then asking it is futile. The answer to the seemingly unanswerable, may simply be that we are not currently capable of comprehending the matter in question. Then, also I agree with you that some answers, or comments often evoke emotional responses as to whether we do, or do not "like" them.

    As to "why" we do or do not like certain thoughts, comments, or answers, that may be a difficult, but I don't believe unanswerable question. On reading many of these discussions threads, it becomes clear that a majority of participants are not only emotionally attached to various perceptions, they are quite willing and enthusiastic about expressing their attachments.

    And it seems that even when some of these participants express their agreement to a thought, comment, or answer that may be new to them, they often do so while concurrently explaining of how that new idea merges with their emotionally charged pre-existing perception.

    If we are attempting to learn of, or to express any truth, or to learn of anything that is absolute, then our learning is necessarily contingent upon our being emotionally removed from the matter, which is extremely challenging. So even when we read or hear of new things that we instantly comprehend as being true and absolute, we may experience some moments of emotional dislike of our new realization.

    Our solace then, rests in the hope that our zeal to learn the truth, will always remain greater than our emotional attachments to what we would merely like the truth to be.

  • DyckDyck Mar 29, 2012

    Most of these seemingly unanswerable questions can evoke in us some need to respond. I have pondered what that is for myself, at times.

    Although it first feels like a discussion with others... it often soon goes to me noticing what I feel inside from anothers response. I am then dealing (or dancing) with that... and not at all with a separate person. In other words, if I don't like what someone says... why? If I do like what someone says... why?

  • frequencytuner Mar 28, 2012

    In the beginning there was Nous, the Androgynous Divine Parent. Nous uttered Logos, the Word, and Yin and Yang were conceived. Yin is Mother, Yang is Father. Through Divine Mother and Father, Logos manifests.

  • parker Mar 28, 2012

    In a purely Scriptural context, the meaning of the "word at the beginning" of the creation of mankind as set forth in Genesis (not at the beginning of the universe, which is not set forth in Genesis), is as simply stated by John as follows [from the NIVEB - the only known transliteration of the actual original texts, as opposed to cumulatively successive translations of subsequent versions]:
    John 1:
    1:1 In the beginning was the spoken word, and the words were from Yahweh, and the words were Yahweh’s.
    1:2 It [the word] was in the beginning from Yahweh.
    1:3 All things were made through Yahweh’s word, and without it nothing was made that was made.
    1:4 In Yahweh’s words were Life, and the Life was the Light of men.
    1:5 And the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
    1:6 There was a man sent from Yahweh, whose name was John.
    1:7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of that Light, that all through him might believe.
    1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
    1:9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
    1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made because of Him, and the world did not know Him.
    1:11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.
    1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of Yahweh, to those who believe in His name:
    1:13 who were born not of blood or of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of Yahweh.
    1:14 And the word [of Yahweh] did make Him into flesh to dwell among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

  • moretocome Mar 28, 2012

    Hi 'Fallensoul',

    Thank you for guiding me to the thread on "Simultaneous Duality and Non-duality". I have transferred your questions over to that thread.

  • Fallensoul Mar 27, 2012

    Scott (moretocome): Thanks for the free ad. Perhaps you can read the Simultaneous Duality and Non-duality thread and respond there as we've had this discussion there. The questions I would have for you are:

    1. you speak about oneness and then about voidness nothingness. Can you clarify what is the ultimate picture of reality. Is there nothing or just one thing?
    2. all this information you're providing -- is it gained from your personal experiences that you have or are you using any other source of knowledge like the Vedic literature to substantiate your claims. In other words are you claiming that the Bhagavad Gita supports your idea of oneness and void or is it just that you've had this experience and you've concluded this is the ultimate reality.
    3. what happens when you reach the eternal stage of realizing theres no self? Does consciousness still exist at that stage? Is it possible that theres something beyond that no-self stage that you havent yet experienced?

  • moretocome Mar 27, 2012

    Hello 'Fallensoul',

    I read some of your discussion with Kyrani regarding the realization of no-self. You posed the question to Kyrani:

    "Where do you get the idea that there isnt a personal self?"

    I don't wish to intrude on your conversation, however, I can show you where you can go to have the no-self experience / realization, if you wish. I have had the no-self experience / realization. I have also experienced the 'Void' realm. The Void is also known as:

    The Unmanifest
    Original Source
    Darkness (not to be confused with “negativity” or “evil”)

    Both no-self (i.e. the absence of 'self') and ONE-Self (i.e. the totality of the ONE) can encompass an experience, a realization, and/or a state of Being. For example, the feeling of “emptiness” while in the Void realm would be an experience. Seeing that a separate ‘I’ does not truly exist is a realization. Living from a standpoint of Oneness (i.e. embodiment) is a state of Being.

    From my perspective, the ego-self is a mental construct created through programming and repetitive conditioning. The mind creates a separate "me" to make sense of things. This “me” is a mental construct (the ego-self) that originates from a false belief in "self". As Kyrani has said, in Truth, there is no separate (or personal) 'i'. It is illusory.

    After you have the no-self experience, you can readily see the illusion of 'self'. You realize the lie of a separate ‘self’.

    There are several things that you can do to ‘trigger’ the No-Self experience. All of the following are free:

    1) Follow the instructions on the Main Page of No-Self.com.

    2) Work one-on-one with one of our Staff Members. They will work with you to find your individual trigger.

    3) There is now a Forum that assists people with "seeing no-self". I haven't had any direct contact with them; however, 2 of our Staff Members also work with them.

    4) Read the online book Butterflies are Free to Fly by Stephen Davis.
    This was what initially triggered my experience. Much of the book is theory, however, it provides a lot of very interesting information.

    Peace and Joy to you. :-)

    Scott ('moretocome')


  • parker Mar 22, 2012

    We really don't know that the universe had an "in the beginning moment", we only truly know the universe exists. We also don't know if it started with a big bang or small pop, or maybe a fizzle. And we only presume it started. What we don't know for certain is this: If the universe started or began at such and such a time, then what pre-existed it to enable that start or beginning. We also don't know if the universe is expanding or just changing shape. Surely if all things that exist are to be considered as part of the universe as scientists purport, then so also must the space, place or void that the universe is alleged to be expanding into, be already a part of the universe, because it obviously already exists (or is being perpetually created, which opens a whole new discussion).

    We don't know, but more importantly, we are unable to comprehend or even imagine the beginning of our own life, let alone the beginning of the universe. Try as you may to determine your first thought, and you will always remain in wonder as to what you must have been thinking just before that moment. Also, try as you might to imagine your last thought, and you will always remain in wonder as to what your next thought will be just after that moment, and so on, and so on. It is the human condition. We are incapable of truly imagining either the beginning or the end of our thoughts, or of our ability to think.

    In this sense our individual thoughts hold many eternal qualities of their own. When you first "have" a thought, does it ever die? Was it an original thought, or has it always existed and just now "came" to your mind? Can you stop a thought from existing? Can you un'think any thought or anything? Can you prevent yourself from thinking? Thus individually, thoughts possess an eternal quality and energy of their own.

    We cannot recall having ever not having thought, nor can we truly imagine our thoughts coming to an end, thus our minds are programmed so to speak, with an inherent quality of thought, that regardless of reasoning, is eternal. We have this eternity planted within us, as part of us at a level much deeper than our ability to truly comprehend or explain, yet we know absolutely it exists. It is our very nature to resonate eternal.

  • slowlygetnthar Mar 21, 2012

    I love this statement: Scientists proclaim that "all things" are indeed the universe, and that the "universe" comprises all things, yet these same absolutists, offer not the slightest answer as to what to call that thing we refer to as the space, place, or void into which the known universe is alleged to be expanding..

    So true...

    Also, I fear that my own mind expands into that same unnamed space, and that's when I find myself charging into a room without recollection of why I went there in the first place!

    To start a new thread, click on the OPEN tab, scroll to the bottom of the listed discussions, and there is a button for starting a new thread.

  • parker Mar 21, 2012

    I'm new to this - how does one start a new thread?

  • parker Mar 21, 2012

    part II:
    For sake of expediency, the original Hebrew words as they were actually written, were meant to convey a time relevant to "the beginning of all things related to mankind being created as a part of this planet earth", which is a far distance from the presumption that it means the beginning of the universe, or of "all things" literally.

    Even this does not reflect the real dilemma. Scientists proclaim that "all things" are indeed the universe, and that the "universe" comprises all things, yet these same absolutists, offer not the slightest answer as to what to call that thing we refer to as the space, place, or void into which the known universe is alleged to be expanding. By the scientific definition, the "space", or "place", or "void" that the universe is expanding into, should by all accounts be part of the existing universe, because it is indeed a part of the otherwise real things that we know must already exist.

    Thus if this space, place or void already exists, and is therefore already a part of "all things" - it is already part of the universe, then equally as obviously, the universe cannot be found to be expanding, unless of course, we revert to a never-ending form of creation being the only plausible explanation for the existence and essential continuing growth of this alleged space, place or void that the universe is alleged to be expanding into.

    Therefore we are back to the most fundamental of questions; that being "how did the first egg hatch?", or "whether the chicken or the egg came first", while ignoring the obvious reality that both a hen and a rooster were an absolute prerequisite for that first egg to hatch. Oh sure, a scientist may postulate that the first egg was capable of fertilizing itself. But then what hatched out of it? A rooster, a hen, male and female twins, or an animal that could fertilize itself too? Or curiously, what kind of animal laid that first egg - or did it just materialize, and thankfully all things that happened by accident since, were accidentally done in an order and fashion that accidentally worked out okay?

  • parker Mar 21, 2012

    There is an element of reason often omitted when attempting to comprehend terms that may or may not have Biblical origins, but that are generally accepted as such. For example, when speaking of "the beginning", it is often presumed we mean to speak of the beginning of the universe. Yet nowhere in an actual Bible is this fact stated or even implied. Yes, almost every available version speaks of "the beginning", either in reference to creation, or in reference to the "WORD" that apparently was at that time, but we seem generally determined to forget to ask "the beginning of WHAT", and we rather simply presume the "what" that is currently written, is meant to be the universe.

    Science, or scientists in particular, seem excessively persistent in this regard, inasmuch as the "scientific beginning" always implies the inception of the universe. Religionists may be worse. They also presume the beginning as stated in their coveted books, refers to the inception of all that is; i.e., the universe, yet again, this is not what their Bibles state or imply, it is merely a presumption, supported by poorly translated language, and bolstered by blind faith sufficient to exclude any real investigation.

    Perhaps consideration could be given to opening one's mind to allow a scientific investigation of the available Biblical facts. This would require a serious look at what we know was originally written, or what we can determine was originally written, not just look at what happens to be conveniently available in modern copy-written versions of multi-layered successive translations of what may have originally been written. (To qualify for "copy-right", as virtually all available versions of the religionists' "Bible" now do, such a work must be found to be "considerably different than, and at variance with any original work of the same or similar nature", yet this very in-your-face legal requirement is effectively veiled by the very blind faith these same religionists wish to proclaim as virtuous.)

    part II, to follow:

  • slowlygetnthar Mar 21, 2012

    Parker, start some new threads raising these questions of yours:

    what is it that we perceive as what we like to call the "universe"? If "it" started at time X, what existed prior to that time. If it is expanding, what is it expanding into? If it confines all things, where were all things prior to its inception? If it is proposed to come to an end, where will all things then be?

    They should sure get some great discussions going!

    I agree with your interpretation of the Word--whatever it was, but what was there before that? From what did the consciousness arise?

  • jmatt4lifehoe Mar 21, 2012

    Parker, I agree with your commentary, thus far. You've expressed thoughts I've been unable to express, far more eloquently. Kudos to you!

  • parker Mar 21, 2012

    just found and joined this site - and then discovered this discussion. I've not participated in any type of on-line discussion prior to this; forgive me while I learn the protocol.

    Ma2 02 '12 slowlygetnthar offered thoughts on the WORD as at the beginning of the universe. An absolutely loaded question, presuming that one is able to assume to know what the universe is, and to assume to know when its beginning was. Limiting this comment to being a direct response to the purported "source" of the "WORD" being the Gospel of John, I would suggest investigating the translation history that resulted in that specific word being used in the manner referred to. Arduous research will establish the original intent was to refer to a "collection of thoughts", or as we now commonly say, "consciousness". Some 'thing' or some 'one' was being alleged by the writer to be conscious, or at least somehow holding a collection of thoughts at the beginning of what we now perceive as the universe.

    This begs a series of most natural next questions - what is it that we perceive as what we like to call the "universe"? If "it" started at time X, what existed prior to that time. If it is expanding, what is it expanding into? If it confines all things, where were all things prior to its inception? If it is proposed to come to an end, where will all things then be?

    It is much like asking whether the chicken or the egg came first, while ignoring the obvious reality that both a chicken and a rooster were an absolute prerequisite for the first egg to hatch.

  • slowlygetnthar Mar 21, 2012

    Well, Kyrani, I cannot understand why it would get under your skin so much. She seems perfectly sincere to me. As I have said, there are as many roads to Nirvana as there are people on the planet.

    I don't find it disturbing that she is saying she can have the connection to the whole by having her normal perceptions impaired or interfered with. Many people have exactly this sort of experience. She rationally experienced her interaction with the world in an entirely new way. Aren't you the one who is always saying that consciousness is everything and it trumps matter? She experienced that and now, you are saying she did it the wrong way?

  • KYRANI Mar 21, 2012

    @ Slowlygetnthar
    We have different opinions based on our individual experiences of life. I do see indications of foul play, which means others are involved. I have taken the MP3 file and I will listen to it and document what evidence I see. I have also suspended the posts on diabetes to get onto strokes and in the next few days or so I will post the info that you will see the foul play /ideas and how an unsuspecting and medically misinformed person will unwittingly adversely reacts as to have a hemorrhagic stroke.

    This woman has had an OBE and yes there can be a small degree of experience that is the first opening if we can call it that, where there is no self but that is a long way from nirvana!

    What is most disturbing is that she is implying, though it is not stated clearly, that one can find nirvana by having a brain malfunction and that is garbage. And that is also consistent with her saying that we are all connected "through the consciousness of the right hemisphere". This makes one sick to hear it because it is trying to sell the old paradigm by making it sound "New Age" and enlightened. It has too much the feel of a "sales job" to me.

  • slowlygetnthar Mar 20, 2012

    Kyrani, I tend to disagree with your interpretation of her behavior. I think, like many of us, she had things she had to get done that day, and pressure to move forward made her disregard whatever signals her body was sending her.

    An analogous situation is when people rear end other cars that are slowly mobilizing after a red light has turned to green. People moving fast (60mph) see the cars ahead at a standstill beginning to move. Because the 60mph driver's brain is on "GO!!!" mode, the driver does not accept that the cars ahead are not moving at the same rate of speed and slams into the back of the nearest car.

    Another analogous situation is when people who are really too ill to go to work try to mobilize to do so, before the illness stops them in their tracks.

    The brain, as you know, will override lots of other input, if it has a mission to get the body somewhere. This woman, from what I recall, was getting ready to go about her day: bathe, get dressed, go to work....It was routine, and the mammalian part of her brain, was just pushing her to keep going with business as usual until the body just wouldn't cooperate anymore.

    There's no indication that someone else had anything to do with her reactions and interpretations of her experience as she went through the ordeal she describes.

  • KYRANI Mar 20, 2012

    I am giving you my opinion here, from my own experience both of mystical experience/enlightenment AND disease AND toxic people and their foul play. I am not trying to tell you "how it is" as in being dictatorial! I don't think she contrived it. I think it was contrived by other, those that could have influenced her. There are many things other than her narrative that give this suggestion. For instance she is a neuroanatomist and she awoke with a severe pain behind the right eye or which ever one it was and did not see this as something serious to do with the brain? Why? She is a bright lady! The answer, as it appears to me is that she was awakened! And the only way she can be awakened, without someone coming into the room is for someone well known to her to have posed danger, serious enough to accelerate her heart and thereby awaken her. Fear also makes one highly perceptive AND lowers discrimination at that early stage because until we determine what is the source of danger, thinking is declined. The brain rationalizes its fuel resources to service those areas most needing fuel to perform their tasks. There is a whole body of evidence. I am not here just trying to attack her.

  • slowlygetnthar Mar 20, 2012

    Kyrani, with respect, again, as in postings on other threads, your comments seem to indicate no respect for the processes of others. I do not mean this as a personal attack, but you do seem to have these very rigid notions of what constitutes a "true" spiritual experience, and what your definition of "enlightenment" happens to be. There are as many avenues to these experiences as there are people on the planet. So, why are you so eager to poo poo another's experience and hold yours up as the only true way? Isn't this as empty and dogmatic as the scientific paradigm of which you are continually advocating we dispose? Isn't this exactly what has been so damaging to people encountering various religious zealots? As far as I am concerned, if the woman believes she had a profound mystical experience and caught a glimpse of Oneness/Nirvana/infinite-connection to the rest of the universe, who are we to say she did not?

    If offering a narrative about an experience is contrived, because she planned what she might say, in sequence of what happened to her, then, gee, isn't that just a way of presenting a coherent story that we audience members can follow and comprehend?

    From her explanation of her experience, I saw no claim of influence from someone else. So, on what do you base your claim?

    Can you claim that you have not been influenced by any spiritual masters/texts and anyone or anything else and that your spiritual state is wholly your own?

  • KYRANI Mar 20, 2012

    @ Dustproduction and @ Chezha
    Spiritual knowledge is not myth and not a matter of people telling stories. In its truest sense a myth is a narrative that attempts to describe something that cannot be described in words, like a parable. Spiritual knowledge which is the basis of religion is acquired through direct experience. "In the beginning was the word" is only a way of saying that there was some beginning to the appearances or the material reality.

    As for which god or gods.. if you really look into every religion you will find that at heart it is monotheistic. God with attributes is described in many and various ways and the many gods that look polytheistic are just this expression. Ultimately God is without attributes.

    Your remarks and other similar ones are the reason why I say that a new reformation is needed. Martin Luther helped the ordinary people gain access to the bible in printed form to read for themselves but much more is needed. Each person who is humane and for whom the door is open to enlightenment experience needs to do the work to gain direct experience.

  • KYRANI Mar 20, 2012

    The absence of 'I' is just the opening of the door just a little. It is not nirvana. You are right that nirvana cannot be expressed. There are no words to say anything about it. It is Emptiness, Thatness. You can't describe it because it is God without attributes.

    It may be possible to have a significant opening in some form of illness but the whole experience seemed too contrived. She could have been influenced by someone else. After all the stroke she had is no accident and not "of natural causes" as the medicos claim. It is harm done by foul play.

  • KYRANI Mar 20, 2012

    @ Fallensoul
    The Gita talks about individual soul, the jiva.. this is not a personal as in ego self.
    Atman is associated with and indistinct from Brahman or God without attribute.
    The jiva or individual self or soul is associated with and indistinct from Isvara or God with attribute.
    You can think of the jiva as a particular/specific manifestation of Brahman.

    There is no ‘I’ feeling as in personal self. There is no personal self it is an illusion created by ignorance, wrong identification.
    You are trying to understand it intellectually and that is not possible. You have to get practical.. experience. In the very first opening there is the realization of no self, which means no personal self. Stay with the observing self, the I am that is spaceless, boundless, limitless and watch the play of the mind.. detactched.. don't get involved. If the consciousness gets mixed up with the mind's activity there arises the idea of ego self, if the consciousness remains detatched then there is no self.

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Mar 19, 2012

    Re: "So, maybe the sound is hummmmmmmm..... "

    Scientific American recently had a piece abut this and wrote that it was "duh-h." Seriously.
    If I can find the it I will post the link.

  • slowlygetnthar Mar 19, 2012

    I actually like the idea of the word not being a word, but being a sound. I recall, many years back, when Tina Turner had a renaissance in her music career that there was an interview with her in Rolling Stone. She said that she meditated daily, attuning herself to the hum of the universe. So, maybe the sound is hummmmmmmm..... kinda like bees buzzing on a warm and lazy day...

  • Anonymous Icon

    dustproduction Mar 18, 2012

    While we are looking into the word "logos" let us also examine the word "mythos." It is obvious to me that references such as "the word" are part of a story, a myth. Could it be that the word is the symbol for the development of language itself in the species of word?

  • Anonymous Icon

    Chezha Mar 18, 2012

    My understanding of 'In the beginning was the word' is a reference to sound being the primary sense... (the big bang) and the idea that we speak our world into being....
    Florence Scovel Shinn was a 1920's teacher of metaphysics, one of her books is entitled 'Your word is your wand'
    Something else about the the sound/buzz that remains on old style televisions after the programmes have finished is supposed to be ...the sound of the universe ...the sound of the big bang.

  • Fallensoul Mar 14, 2012

    @Kyrani: Where do you get the idea that there isnt a personal self. The Bhagavad Gita is quite explicit about us all being personal individuals even in the spiritual world. The reference is 15.7:


    "The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal fragmental parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling very hard with the six senses, which include the mind."

    Read purport here: www.vedabase.net/bg/15/7/en

    Just because our current idea of ourselves is so closely related to this body, we mistake our spiritual self with the material self. But there is a spiritual self. So when you say there is no "I" it really should mean one should try to get out of the illusion that theres a material self and get back to his spiritual identity. And that spiritual indentity is being described here as a fragmental part of God. There is no merging at the highest level of spiritual perfection. This idea of pure awareness or "I AM" or just "being" is a really naive understanding of the spiritual reality. If this "pure awareness" was so highly sought after, why do we continue to develop relationships here in this world and gain enjoyment from it. It indicates that love and relationships are originating from the spiritual world, otherwise wherefrom do these beautiful things come from? How do you have a loving relationship when all that exists is "pure awareness." In fact one would simply get lonely and come back down here to the material realm to enjoy (and suffer). So the Vedic literatures doesnt agree with this idea which is really a misunderstood concept that is somewhat prominent in the western teachers trying to offer eastern understanding.

    Read this: http://www.understandreality.com/consciousness/jiva.txt

  • slowlygetnthar Mar 13, 2012

    I think part of what you find problematic with the woman's sense of Nirvana is that she was trying to describe it with our limited language. From what she expressed, it is clear that she found that absence of "I" and the merging with "All" that you have defined as the Nirvana experience.

    Also, I think the definition of Nirvana is too limiting, as it is expressed and death is not the end. Boddhisattvas experience Nirvana but return to earth to help others achieve spiritual growth towards Nirvana. They are not dead.

    There are many accounts of various mystics reaching Nirvana but not dying.

  • KYRANI Mar 12, 2012

    In an enlightenment /mystical experience the sense of “I” is gone. The statement “I found Nirvana” is not uttered by someone who has had enlightenment. The woman with the stroke talks about herself “I” AND as well as having done some action, ie having found (Nirvana).

    And I might add here too that enlightenment is not gaining anything, it is fully realizing what is already true. In our daily experience we miss this truth because of the “I” sense. Most people who have a significant experience first have at least one experience where they suddenly realize that the sense of “I” is an illusion, before they go on to having an enlightenment experience some time later.

    Bear in mind too that Nirvana is the highest state and one which is enduring. This really only comes through death.

    An enlightenment experience never goes away completely or put it in another way the “I” sense does return but it no longer holds center stage. It has lost its importance forever more. It fades and is continually wiped away more and more with each experience thereafter. While ever the body is alive there is always some sense of “I” but that wans and waxes, so one has mystical experience and then ordinary experience and so on. If in the death process God is remembered rather than the "I" self, then Nirvana is entered and it is permanent, from what I understand. These are those that go on to become arahats in Buddhism or what are known as the "ever-free". They can take up a human birth whenever is needed for teaching and restoring Justice/Righteousness (ie the station of prophet).

    A spiritual experience is not the same thing. In this experience there is a sense of I and it does have the same sort of feel as in ordinary experience in that there is the feeling of yourself as having some extraordinary and uplifting experience. A spiritual experience is describable because there is the I sense so one can say “I did/heard/saw etc … whatever”. I have to wonder though that she even had a spiritual experience because strokes, especially in healthy people are no accident. Someone is orchestrating through the presentation of ideas and that can mimic spiritual experience. If they were part of the medical industry then there is the motive of wanting to call spiritual experience a brain malfunction! If this is the case then she has been pushed and pulled like a puppet and doesn't realize it.

    You might like to read what I wrote in Jim’s thread at http://www.noetic.org/discussions/open/300/#comment_5572

  • slowlygetnthar Mar 11, 2012

    Kryani, I found this remark odd re: the scientist reaching Nirvana: "She has, by the sounds of what she has said, had a spiritual experience and not enlightenment/mystical experience. In spiritual experience there is aways the sense of I, whether it is faint or pronounced."

    Can you explain what you mean by it? Also, how would we know she is not enlightened?

    If we attain Nirvana, do we still maintain the sense of I?

  • frequencytuner Mar 11, 2012

    This is THE question. THE answer cannot be posted in a blog.

  • KYRANI Mar 09, 2012

    @ charliet,
    I can understand now why you feel there is a personal self. In a lot of professions where decision making is critical there is a strong feeling of responsibility and the question then becomes who is the one responsible? However as you say there is "higher intelligence" as you have pointed out in the statement you made earlier "When meditating or in deep thought I will get a "rush" at the "ah hah" moments. Its like your whole being leaves your body at light speed and returns almost immediately with the same "rush of energy" and with it comes the information you were seeking, is that maybe the resonance of the beginning, of the universe?" In taking responsibility too, trust in the process, in higher intelligence is a key method is arriving at no self.

    Also re you remark about "the "Brain Scientist Experiences Nirvana"? She certainly believes there is a personal self". I have listtened to this several times and I think there is a lot wrong. Howevr the important thing is that she claims "I found Nirvana" this is indicative of the fact that she has not! She has, by the sounds of what she has said, had a spiritual experience and not enlightenment/mystical experience. In spiritual experience there is aways the sense of I, whether it is faint or pronounced.

  • desertrose Mar 09, 2012

    "Eureka"- maybe that was the word. But Charliet, considering our present world situation it may just have been "oops" sadly so.

  • charliet Mar 08, 2012


    In answer to your question. Currently I am semi retired and work as an Independent building inspector, I see both commercial and private homes of many different ages and states of repair. Prior to that I worked as a Engineer in the broadcast technology field, plus various other jobs, most related to technical fields in either electronics or construction. I have also managed repair facilities for wireless communication devices. Plus military years ago.

  • KYRANI Mar 08, 2012

    The word at the beginning contains everything. It is the seed of all that will be. But it does not mean that the future is predetermined either. It is like the seeds that you plant that become trees. They may be all peach trees but each tree will also be unique in how it grows and what it becomes. So is the seed, the word sown, the universe the becoming and all that there is experiences existence.. being.

    Charliet what work do you do?

    I have also written something on Duality and non-Duality because it was more relevant there than here but related and I had said to fallensoul that I would write something there.

  • KYRANI Mar 08, 2012

    @slowlygetnthar and charliet.
    Who is writing these discussions? A very good question, a mystery!

    Language here is a constraint as charliet points out. Our language assumes certain things such as the ego self. Also the way we perceive nature is heavily influenced by science and the paradigm that nature is inert matter and unintelligent or at best that only the processes of nature (the material reality) may be intelligent.. maybe! Mainstream scientists do not accept that nature is intelligence and consciousness and that it has a non-physical aspect. Indeed we are so conditioned that when we see anything man-made we call it intelligent design, but we don’t call plants and animals and our own bodies included as intelligent design but they are. In biology these days they are finding literal molecular machines at the microscopic level. Even in billions of years these things can’t come into being through an evolutionary process that is blind and dumb.

    Your analogy charliet is not how nature is. Humans form organizations made up of many people and serving many people so communication is needed. So as you quite rightly say a receptionist is needed. But nature is not like that. There is a non-physical aspect (the void/emptiness) that underpins the entire seemingly 3d reality that we experience. The non-physical aspect is a singularity. It is timeless, spaceless, omniscience, awareness and intelligence. It is at once in direct connection to everything everywhere so we can call it omnipresence and omnipotence because it is the driving force of all that there is. There is no need of any receptionist because knowledge is instant between any two parts that are or have been related. We see that with non-locality, where relationally entangled particles instantly “know” the state of each other no matter how far apart they may be separated.

    It is impossible to put into words what is realized in mystical experience. Certainly there is a spiritual aspect but it can’t be described or defined. What I can say is that before mystical experience there is a realization that there is no personal self driving the body. There is intelligence. There is the awareness of thoughts appearing out of nothingness or what is often called the void and where thoughts are significant there is a flow on effect in the body. Some intelligence is behind everything but that is not apparent. It seems as if there is a doer orchestrating everything but there isn’t. A problem arises when we try to talk about it because the words we, you, I, me arise and unavoidably due to language. In contemplation there is no observer, no observed - only the observing, pure awareness.

  • charliet Mar 06, 2012


    Very well put. I agree, much better than my rendition.

    It seems as words get in the way, one word can mean many things to different people. The choice of words and the context of the sentence are very important.

    Many people babble incoherently as they really don't know or understand what it is they are saying. It is difficult at times to write what you wish to say, feelings are hard to fully express in the written word.

  • slowlygetnthar Mar 06, 2012

    Okay, I wanted to explain what I mean by I don't think emptiness = void.

    In November 1998, I had the opportunity to hear the Dalai Lama speak about the Heart Sutra. He specifically spent some time explaining:

    "Form is emptiness; emptiness is form."

    He said that we perceive ourselves (form) as separate from the world, when, in fact, we are not. This perception is empty, because it is not true. Yet, this existential from (body) is what allows our spirits to experience (through our 5 senses) and connect to the world around us. But the truth is that our 5 senses do not exist (are empty) as separate entities from all else around them. Our 5 senses --, our bodies --, and ourselves --are connected to all around us.

    So, this seems to mean that emptiness is not void. The illusion/perception of separateness is empty/void, not us. We are connected to all that is. Our true natures, connected to all that is, are not void.

    Hope I explained it coherently.

  • charliet Mar 05, 2012

    Hi Kyrani

    Have you had a look at the video associated with the post "Brain Scientist Experiences Nirvana"? She certainly believes there is a personal self. The doer.

    I agree with her, it is not separate but an extension of our "Self" and is part of the "All". Everything that I know and receive supports the existence of a personal self, it is very complex. To over simplify, it is like the receptionist in a very large company, all things come here first and are redirected as needed.

  • slowlygetnthar Mar 05, 2012

    I think that seeing emptiness=void may be a misinterpretation. I will explain when I have more time

    If there is no doer, then, who is writing these discussions?

  • KYRANI Mar 05, 2012

    @ slowlygetnthar
    you are referring to the nature of the personal self and that of course is changeable and no void. BUT the personal self is a fiction.. it simply doesn't exist. If you take note as you go about your daily life you will find there are thoughts and those thoughts give rise to actions in the body, where they are deemed significant or relevant. And you will observe that there is no need of any doer and indeed there is no doer.

  • slowlygetnthar Mar 04, 2012

    Our essential nature is mutable. We are not void.

  • KYRANI Mar 04, 2012

    some other form? Our essential nature is immutable! We are the eternal void.. emptiness. We ARE present. It is the Eternal NOW in which all is contained, past, present, future.. but please NO thinking!

    @ Cloudskimmer
    Who is evolving?

    Oops is in Om /Aum too!

  • slowlygetnthar Mar 04, 2012

    I think maybe we were there at the "oops" moment~just in some other form--maybe? If we are eternal, we come from the eternal void~the TaoG*dAllahAllThatIsTheEternal~and we contain It, then, we were present? Just thinking....hm...

  • Anonymous Icon

    Cloudskimmer Mar 04, 2012


    Great question! It's one I've asked myself. I wrote A New Story of Origin (http://realtalkworld.com/2011/01/09/a-new-story-of-origin/) about a year ago, which represents my effort to make sense of life as I've experienced it. It's a combination of common sense, experience and intuition. As with all things it is still evolving as I evolve.

  • Balderic Mar 04, 2012

    It is my understanding the Word is AUM and this is why it is so often suggested as a focal point when meditating.

  • KYRANI Mar 03, 2012

    @ Charliet
    Consider for you to have seen the eye dropper effect in the mind.. it is not that we were present there but that we are the One holding the eye dropper and who uttered the word "oops"!

  • charliet Mar 03, 2012

    Thank you, I'll be here all week.

    After some thought I wonder who would have been here to witness that eye dropper effect. Were we present or was that event also our birth?

    Maybe I'm alone in this and maybe not. When meditating or in deep thought I will get a "rush" at the "ah hah" moments. Its like your whole being leaves your body at light speed and returns almost immediately with the same "rush of energy" and with it comes the information you were seeking, is that maybe the resonance of the beginning, of the universe?

    If I would have been present at the eye dropper moment I would have been to in awe to utter a sound.

    Is it possible to even imagine the moment a brilliant spec became a universe.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Jim Centi Mar 03, 2012

    Charliet, If there were academy awards for comments, your eye dropper post would win without the need for voting….Jim

  • slowlygetnthar Mar 02, 2012

    Well, at least he didn't say, "Poo"--and that is what resonates throughout all beings and time!!!

  • charliet Mar 02, 2012

    Forgive me for this, I promise to give a better answer later, I'm in a silly mood today.

    What I see is the "big guy" standing over a black void with an eye dropper and a brilliant spec of light forming below him and he utters the word "oops!"

Stay in touch with IONS