Observer vs Observed

[MikeS80]

Another way to look at it is that bad and negative beliefs and judgments changes the ego's perception of the physical reality. Thinking things and people as being good is not making a judgment because the universe is good.

Concerning the original intent of this thread - Observed vs. Observer.

https://youtu.be/XRmeL7UqE_g?list=PL...F2rGcUqIb4O F

&

https://www.hinduwebsite.com/kena.asp

"By whose commands this mind works? By whose will the life's breath circulates? Who is responsible for man's speech? What intelligence does lead the eyes and the ears?

It is the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind, the speech of the speech. Also the life of all life, and the eye of the eye. The wise abandon the sensory world and become immortal.

There the eyes cannot travel, nor speech nor mind. Nor do we know how to explain it to the disciples. It is other than the known and beyond the unknown. So were we taught by our ancients."



This dovetails nicely with the Vivekananda quote from his London speech, and that is not coincidence.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

The point I was making can be found in this speech.

https://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.i...ure_of_man.htm

Here's one pertinent passage I came across this morning but there are many others.


"We are not individuals yet. We are struggling towards individuality, and that is the Infinite, that is the real nature of man. He alone lives whose life is in the whole universe, and the more we concentrate our lives on limited things, the faster we go towards death. Those moments alone we live when our lives are in the universe, in others; and living this little life is death, simply death, and that is why the fear of death comes. The fear of death can only be conquered when man realises that so long as there is one life in this universe, he is living. When he can say, "I am in everything, in everybody, I am in all lives, I am the universe," then alone comes the state of fearlessness."



Wealth, possessions, power, fame and glory are limited things. It doesn't matter how one goes about their acquisition, with good, bad or neutral intent. Similarly thinking, beliefs, ego, etc... are limited things, however these limited things can serve an important purpose on the path to realization, but they are only means to an end and not an end. A boat is useful for crossing a river, however once across it's not to be a burden carried on one's back.

Do you believe that or do you just want to discuss it?

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Another way to look at it is that bad and negative beliefs and judgments changes the ego's perception of the physical reality. Thinking things and people as being good is not making a judgment because the universe is good.

Oy vey!

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Concerning the original intent of this thread - Observed vs. Observer.

https://youtu.be/XRmeL7UqE_g?list=PL...F2rGcUqIb4O F

&

https://www.hinduwebsite.com/kena.asp

"By whose commands this mind works? By whose will the life's breath circulates? Who is responsible for man's speech? What intelligence does lead the eyes and the ears?

It is the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind, the speech of the speech. Also the life of all life, and the eye of the eye. The wise abandon the sensory world and become immortal.

There the eyes cannot travel, nor speech nor mind. Nor do we know how to explain it to the disciples. It is other than the known and beyond the unknown. So were we taught by our ancients."



This dovetails nicely with the Vivekananda quote from his London speech, and that is not coincidence.

Is that r6r6r's intention of creating this observer v. Observed thread?

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Concerning the original intent of this thread - Observed vs. Observer.

https://youtu.be/XRmeL7UqE_g?list=PL...F2rGcUqIb4O F

&

https://www.hinduwebsite.com/kena.asp

"By whose commands this mind works? By whose will the life's breath circulates? Who is responsible for man's speech? What intelligence does lead the eyes and the ears?

It is the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind, the speech of the speech. Also the life of all life, and the eye of the eye. The wise abandon the sensory world and become immortal.

There the eyes cannot travel, nor speech nor mind. Nor do we know how to explain it to the disciples. It is other than the known and beyond the unknown. So were we taught by our ancients."



This dovetails nicely with the Vivekananda quote from his London speech, and that is not coincidence.

There is a second and completely differrent translation and view of Kena Upanishad on the hinduwebsite.com website that is more aligned with truth.
https://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacreds...arama/kena.asp

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by MikeS80

Is that r6r6r's intention of creating this observer v. Observed thread?

1} Observer = occupied space event/phenomena

2} Observed = occupied space event/phenomena ----ex a nervous system--- and that my also have resultant access to metaphysical-1{ spirit-1 } mind/intellect/concept, as in the case of most humans { ego/i |, and lesser degrees all other animals { less ego/i }.

3} Line-of-relationship = occupied space event/phenomena

........3a} ...ex a photon exchange between two electrons---,

.........3b} a metpahysical-1 { spirit-1 ...ex spirit-of-intent } abstract/conceptual line-of-relationship , that, again, are resultants of nervous system ergo complex biologicals with human being the most complex and woman more complex than man,


4} background against which all of the above is exists, and,

........4a} either consciously experienced by humans ---ex we experience the moon withing the background the rest of observed Universe....,

........4b} processed by humans access to metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts ergo a rational, logical common sense conclusion, that, there exists outside of our finite, occupied space Universe, macro-infinite, non-occupied Space.


Let me make this clear any and every poster in this thread who repeatedly mentions the infinite, in some context other than of only two kinds of infinite Ive laid out in past, and here below, then they are in error;

.....1} macro-infinite Space, that embracess/surrounds our finite, occupied space Unvierse,

.....2} metaphysical-1, abstract concepts of infinite ex those who say there exists and infinite set of numberss. Well that is other than just a concept., then point to us the location of where any and all can visually or with braile, begin counting those numbers and please specific the occupied space medium within which these occupied space numbers occur on or with in.

Finite = integrity, either systemically or structurally,

Infinite = lack of integrity

Addendum note 1: B Fuller leaves open the consideration micro-infinite subdivision of occupied space i.e. say we have a quantum of whatever medium, tree, quark, photon, graviton, electron, baseball etc., the question becomes if it is an occupied, does it never reach a limit within itself where there is we can say it does not occupy a space i.e. it does not occupy space micro-infinitely.

Ive reconsidered this point many times over the years, and always come to the same conclusion, no it does ergo I can envision that there can exist placse of true non-occupied space, between the places of occupied space.

Ex lets us say that our finite, occupied space Universe is the shape of a torus aka shape of doughnut or inner tube filled with air etc. There is hole in the torus. The tube goes around and leaves an unoccupied space by the tube.

So let us say there is two tori, and one of tubes goes through that non-occupied space and its own hole is filled by the the other torus. They actually fill each others hole.

Same goes for three tori. 3 tori and we begin to create a chain-like linked set of tori, where each tori could possibly be filling another tori's hole.

Now this is not to say that Universe is shaped like a torus, nor that this scenario may have some number of tori in whatever combination of collective shape, and one of the tori's hole might not be filled, for whatever amount of time.

In conclusion, I believe that, our finite Universe, is ultra-larges set of ultra-micro tori, interfering with other and over lapping with other and filling each others holes, however, I leave open the idea, that some of the tori of occupied space Universe, may not have their hole filled.

Addendum note 2: can the torus tube itself occupy space micro-infinitely?

I say no.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

1} Observer = occupied space event/phenomena

2} Observed = occupied space event/phenomena ----ex a nervous system--- and that my also have resultant access to metaphysical-1{ spirit-1 } mind/intellect/concept, as in the case of most humans { ego/i |, and lesser degrees all other animals { less ego/i }.

3} Line-of-relationship = occupied space event/phenomena

........3a} ...ex a photon exchange between two electrons---,

.........3b} a metpahysical-1 { spirit-1 ...ex spirit-of-intent } abstract/conceptual line-of-relationship , that, again, are resultants of nervous system ergo complex biologicals with human being the most complex and woman more complex than man,


4} background against which all of the above is exists, and,

........4a} either consciously experienced by humans ---ex we experience the moon withing the background the rest of observed Universe....,

........4b} processed by humans access to metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts ergo a rational, logical common sense conclusion, that, there exists outside of our finite, occupied space Universe, macro-infinite, non-occupied Space.


Let me make this clear any and every poster in this thread who repeatedly mentions the infinite, in some context other than of only two kinds of infinite Ive laid out in past, and here below, then they are in error;

.....1} macro-infinite Space, that embracess/surrounds our finite, occupied space Unvierse,

.....2} metaphysical-1, abstract concepts of infinite ex those who say there exists and infinite set of numberss. Well that is other than just a concept., then point to us the location of where any and all can visually or with braile, begin counting those numbers and please specific the occupied space medium within which these occupied space numbers occur on or with in.

Finite = integrity, either systemically or structurally,

Infinite = lack of integrity

Addendum note 1: B Fuller leaves open the consideration micro-infinite subdivision of occupied space i.e. say we have a quantum of whatever medium, tree, quark, photon, graviton, electron, baseball etc., the question becomes if it is an occupied, does it never reach a limit within itself where there is we can say it does not occupy a space i.e. it does not occupy space micro-infinitely.

Ive reconsidered this point many times over the years, and always come to the same conclusion, no it does ergo I can envision that there can exist placse of true non-occupied space, between the places of occupied space.

Ex lets us say that our finite, occupied space Universe is the shape of a torus aka shape of doughnut or inner tube filled with air etc. There is hole in the torus. The tube goes around and leaves an unoccupied space by the tube.

So let us say there is two tori, and one of tubes goes through that non-occupied space and its own hole is filled by the the other torus. They actually fill each others hole.

Same goes for three tori. 3 tori and we begin to create a chain-like linked set of tori, where each tori could possibly be filling another tori's hole.

Now this is not to say that Universe is shaped like a torus, nor that this scenario may have some number of tori in whatever combination of collective shape, and one of the tori's hole might not be filled, for whatever amount of time.

In conclusion, I believe that, our finite Universe, is ultra-larges set of ultra-micro tori, interfering with other and over lapping with other and filling each others holes, however, I leave open the idea, that some of the tori of occupied space Universe, may not have their hole filled.

Addendum note 2: can the torus tube itself occupy space micro-infinitely?

I say no.

My point exactly.

[MikeS80]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

1} Observer = occupied space event/phenomena

2} Observed = occupied space event/phenomena ----ex a nervous system--- and that my also have resultant access to metaphysical-1{ spirit-1 } mind/intellect/concept, as in the case of most humans { ego/i |, and lesser degrees all other animals { less ego/i }.

3} Line-of-relationship = occupied space event/phenomena

........3a} ...ex a photon exchange between two electrons---,

.........3b} a metpahysical-1 { spirit-1 ...ex spirit-of-intent } abstract/conceptual line-of-relationship , that, again, are resultants of nervous system ergo complex biologicals with human being the most complex and woman more complex than man,


4} background against which all of the above is exists, and,

........4a} either consciously experienced by humans ---ex we experience the moon withing the background the rest of observed Universe....,

........4b} processed by humans access to metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts ergo a rational, logical common sense conclusion, that, there exists outside of our finite, occupied space Universe, macro-infinite, non-occupied Space.


Let me make this clear any and every poster in this thread who repeatedly mentions the infinite, in some context other than of only two kinds of infinite Ive laid out in past, and here below, then they are in error;

.....1} macro-infinite Space, that embracess/surrounds our finite, occupied space Unvierse,

.....2} metaphysical-1, abstract concepts of infinite ex those who say there exists and infinite set of numberss. Well that is other than just a concept., then point to us the location of where any and all can visually or with braile, begin counting those numbers and please specific the occupied space medium within which these occupied space numbers occur on or with in.

Finite = integrity, either systemically or structurally,

Infinite = lack of integrity

Addendum note 1: B Fuller leaves open the consideration micro-infinite subdivision of occupied space i.e. say we have a quantum of whatever medium, tree, quark, photon, graviton, electron, baseball etc., the question becomes if it is an occupied, does it never reach a limit within itself where there is we can say it does not occupy a space i.e. it does not occupy space micro-infinitely.

Ive reconsidered this point many times over the years, and always come to the same conclusion, no it does ergo I can envision that there can exist placse of true non-occupied space, between the places of occupied space.

Ex lets us say that our finite, occupied space Universe is the shape of a torus aka shape of doughnut or inner tube filled with air etc. There is hole in the torus. The tube goes around and leaves an unoccupied space by the tube.

So let us say there is two tori, and one of tubes goes through that non-occupied space and its own hole is filled by the the other torus. They actually fill each others hole.

Same goes for three tori. 3 tori and we begin to create a chain-like linked set of tori, where each tori could possibly be filling another tori's hole.

Now this is not to say that Universe is shaped like a torus, nor that this scenario may have some number of tori in whatever combination of collective shape, and one of the tori's hole might not be filled, for whatever amount of time.

In conclusion, I believe that, our finite Universe, is ultra-larges set of ultra-micro tori, interfering with other and over lapping with other and filling each others holes, however, I leave open the idea, that some of the tori of occupied space Universe, may not have their hole filled.

Addendum note 2: can the torus tube itself occupy space micro-infinitely?

I say no.

You have one very sharp mind and an at eased brain/central nervous system. I understand most of what you wrote above, and I will read what I do not understand until I understand it all as a whole. Thank you for the post and for the challenge.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by heart

Are you saying that life 'has' to be complex in order to understand it?

No, I am saying that (in my view) The Flow of Life is an inherently complex phenomenon, whether one understands it to be so or not. Here is a link to an earlier post of mine, emphasizing this and higlighting some of the more 'negative' consequences of over-simplification:
http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...#post188 3521

Originally Posted by heart

Does that mean your saying the opposite of simplicity is complexity?

Opposite? No - except on a certain conceptual continuum. The Ten Commandments are 'simple' rules, but Life's issues are too complex to be so 'simply' resolved IMO. It is best not to honor mothers and fathers that are abusive, for example. Also, sometimes the most Life-serving and Life-affirming choice may be to 'lie', for another example.

Originally Posted by heart

Is it not the simple things in life worth having too?

Anything that enriches and augments Life one's and others' Love and Joy experience is 'worth' embracing, IMO - simplicity is not a relevant criterion for deciding one way or another in this regard, also IMO. When they are 'simple' (i.e. 'easy' to access) they may be experienced as ''unearned' blessings.

Originally Posted by heart

Does not nature follow/find the easier path?

Bird, animal and human parents often go to extreme lengths and endure great hardships in doing their 'best' to rear their children. Wouldn't that qualify as 'nature' in your view?

Originally Posted by heart

[When] We plant a seed do we ponder over the complexities of how and why?

Some do and some don't, depending on their philosophical curiosity and mental capacity. Everyone doesn't have the same degree of curiosity or capacity in this regard.

Originally Posted by heart

Life forever ebbs and flows or does it require immense effort to create every living thing?

In my view, the cumulative-total amount of intention and effort it took and takes (by living Beings!) to create and maintain the panoply we know as Earthly Life was and continues to be immeasurably IMMENSE.

Originally Posted by heart

Does a warrior make killing his enemy a complex thing? You like quotes... in Captain Millers poem "Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die"

Arjuna, the protagonist warrior in The Bhagavad Gita, would not have been at all satisfied/content overs-implistically dismissal of the complex issues involved in all life-or-death related decisions, IMO. If that (yours is not to reason why) philosophy is your choice, fine. But as I have indicated in my other posts, such kind of thinking (or non-thinking rather) is an abdication of personal relational response-ability, and hence amounts to a 'betrayal' of Life (Life's innate imperative, that is) IMO.

Originally Posted by heart

Is seeing believing or do you have to see before you believe?

Observers 'see' (i.e. 'observe') what they believe to be the case and so expect to 'see', as clearly (quite simply, I would add!) demonstrated in the video of peeps who were hypnotized to think and feel like they were chickens. Please know that this is an over-simplistic assertion. Left on their own (without ongoing reinforcement of such belief) they would 'wake up' from such delusion/dream.

Originally Posted by heart

Bear in mind as I respond to your postings you are helping I [me] understand what it means to believe.... so thank you for the opportunity to divulge

I very much appreciate your sharing of this. May your and my understanding(s) increase on all scores as a result of everyone's (not just my) "divulgings" in this forum.