The only thing greater than God.

[Realitycheck]

You're all WRONG! There is the sun and it's life-giving light, the earth and it's life-giving water, and the moon, well that's just a little souvenir we have around to look at, but some would say that it keeps the water moving.

 

While I levitate upside down carrying a blue marlin in one hand juggling canteloupes in the other. Hehe. Top that, Vedavillian dude.

[tar]

Realitycheck,

 

You're all WRONG! There is the sun and it's life-giving light, the earth and it's life-giving water, and the moon, well that's just a little souvenir we have around to look at, but some would say that it keeps the water moving.

 

 

Well, you forgot the stars. What about the stars?

 

The sun is our sun. The moon is our moon, and is sort of a continuation of the Earth, locked in mutual rotation/revolution, almost a siamese twin sister/brother planet. So that is two. Earth/moon and Sun.

What of the third?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

You are leaving out the absolutely unquestioned MAJORITY of the equation, that being, the REST of the universe.

 

P.S. And that "third" is sufficiently huge and sufficiently old enough for Greatest I am, to not

reject eternal things out of hand.

 

Appolinaria,

 

Took a quick peek at the chapter 33 you linked. A very complicated "notion" to understand on its face. There is great mixture of figurative and literal notions and I am unwilling to emerse myself in the "logic", when the division between literal and figurative is not seemingly obvious. However, if I am to be honest to my goal of "finding the translation", I probably have to consider it, and perhaps it will provide some elucidation as to the "meaning" that humans find in existence, and perhaps I will see the one to one correspondences between such intricate imaginations and the experience we all share.

Edited November 3, 2011 by tar

[rigney]

Calling something eternal is a logical fallacy and un-provable and I reject it out of hand.

 

As to the Vedas, I have enough of one fantasy to deal with without adding another to the mix.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

Would you rather listen to this well dressed intellectual who has never worked a day in his life, and be convinced by his rhetoric, or listen to your own thoughts? It isn't whether you profess a religion or are a devout atheist, each person must believe in something even if that something is nothing more than chance.

Edited November 4, 2011 by rigney

[Appolinaria]

Appolinaria,

 

 

 

 

Do think you are onto something. Not sure I see the reasoning, why those different entities would go particularly with each concept. Perhaps you can explain a bit, but I like your thought...

 

 

 

Add rktpo...

 

 

 

And Freud with the Id, Ego, Super Ego.

 

And Hegel with Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.

 

 

There seems to me to be a theme here, that is not foreign to anyone.

 

Like you say. Same concept. Different quantities.

 

Interesting to me, that there is this "meaning" that seems very understandable and real to all, that is argued about and denied, simply because the phrasing is different, and the conclusions drawn somewhat arbitrary and/or self serving.

 

I would like to throw into the mix the concepts of 1st person, 2nd person and 3rd person.

 

Seems all languages have the concepts of I, you, and he/she/it.

 

Who and what we put in the we camp with us, probably has a lot to do with the credos we go by. What "we" believe.

 

Seems relevant to me, to consider the "translation" between one's own credo, and "their" credo.

 

Not to say that the conclusions are not dissimilar. But the meaning behind the belief in question, might very well be the same meaning behind the credo of the "other". This guess is based on the fact that there is only one reality and "we" (who or whatever, that group may consist of) are in and of it.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Tar, I meant to respond to this... you made so many interesting connections to the trinity concept that I'd never even thought of.

 

 

My favorite statement was;

 

"Interesting to me, that there is this "meaning" that seems very understandable and real to all, that is argued about and denied, simply because the phrasing is different, and the conclusions drawn somewhat arbitrary and/or self serving."

 

I believe that is so true.

[tar]

Well I think we confuse different aspects of the trinity, with God. He is all three coexisting.

 

He is the beautiful symphony created when 3 different instruments come together.

 

 

We see the trinity everywhere in religious texts, stories, mythology, etc.

 

You might be able to transfer this symbolism to nature.

 

The stellar, lunar, and solar influences are similar, but differing. But all equally important.

 

Each portion of the trinity is equally important, but the combination of all three is defined as God.

 

 

 

 

Father: Sphere, Stellar, Spirit, Air, Mercury, El, Saturn, Creative

 

Holy Ghost/Mother: Cube, Lunar, Body, Water, Salt, Is, Asherah, Wisdom, Sophia, Feminine, Ruling

 

Son: Pyramid, Solar, Soul, Fire, Sulphur, Ra, Word

 

Appolinaria,

 

But what are your reasons for putting each of a "triad" into a particular column?

 

I know you said you put together a chart. I am interested in your reasoning. This interest is along the line of my investigation into the "meaning" behind language. Certain of the speculations in the link you posted earlier, such as Lucifer's number being 741 or whatever it was, have no meaning to me. One has to know what Lucifer is in the first place, and then figure out why this particular number has any relationship to the concept of Lucifer. Without some form of reasoning, that suggests why such and such should be true, I am at a loss to "translate" it into what I "know" to be true. That is, understand the "meaning" behind it. For instance if I have 741 pennies, is that a bad thing, but if I had 742 or 740 then that would be OK. Why?

 

So in that light, and with the thought that you are an intelligent young woman, I was, and am, interested in the reasoning behind the groupings you made. Not to prove them right or wrong, just to understand how "we" think, and to speculate on the reasons why we seem to see things in these various triads.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Appolinaria]

Appolinaria,

 

But what are your reasons for putting each of a "triad" into a particular column?

 

I know you said you put together a chart. I am interested in your reasoning. This interest is along the line of my investigation into the "meaning" behind language. Certain of the speculations in the link you posted earlier, such as Lucifer's number being 741 or whatever it was, have no meaning to me. One has to know what Lucifer is in the first place, and then figure out why this particular number has any relationship to the concept of Lucifer. Without some form of reasoning, that suggests why such and such should be true, I am at a loss to "translate" it into what I "know" to be true. That is, understand the "meaning" behind it. For instance if I have 741 pennies, is that a bad thing, but if I had 742 or 740 then that would be OK. Why?

 

So in that light, and with the thought that you are an intelligent young woman, I was, and am, interested in the reasoning behind the groupings you made. Not to prove them right or wrong, just to understand how "we" think, and to speculate on the reasons why we seem to see things in these various triads.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Well, it is all up for interpretation. I don't know myself.

 

 

 

 

For example, this is what I take from the sphere/cube/pyramid idea. I could very well be completely wrong.

 

 

 

 

"The sphere rests upon a point, the cube upon a surface; the sphere is therefore used to symbolize spirit, and the cube, matter." (Quoted from chapter 33)

 

 

 

 

A point moved upon itself becomes a line. Spirit put into motion, or put through time, creates matter.

 

 

 

 

A pyramid can rest on a surface, as well as a point.. it works in both the spiritual and material world. Just as a son contains aspects from both parents.

 

 

 

 

It is the motion of the sphere that allows us to measure a cube.

 

 

 

 

Yesterday I was on wikipedia & was reminded of "Newton" by William Blake.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notice the motion of the scroll, the surface of the scroll, the recording device, and also... where all of these emanate from.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps this idea holds some truth, perhaps it doesn't.

 

 

 

 

It is still interesting how often I see it, though.

 

 

[immortal]

Sir,

 

1. No. There are only three entities- Braham(God), Jeev(soul) and maya(power of God which makes us materialistic)

So, there can be only two religion- One which leads to God and other which leads to maya. Thus the path leading to God has no effect of religion. Every religion would suggest contradicting ideas but look for the Vedas which would help you understand why contradicting facts are written.

 

2. Look, God and soul are both eternal but soul is a part of God. If I ask you who you are, you would say you are a scientist. But that's your post. Then you would say that you are Greatest I am but that would be your name. Than you would say that you are human. But that's your body. Look, you are soul why because you relate to body as something other than you. We say," My eyes are black" but not "Me eyes are black." Nor God created man nor man created God. God is no senior to us in terms of age.

 

3. Surely, getting human body is the top grace which God and bestow.

 

4. God lives everywhere. He provides the power to soul to work. Even if the soul attains a body of dog, God would be still with the soul.

 

5. What everyone wants is happiness without even being taught. Have you seen someone who wants pain? No, even if he practice for hundred or thousands of years he would still want happiness. Why is it so that naturally, without being taught, everyone wants happiness? Because we are a part of God and God is happiness or Bliss. Read again. Happiness or Bliss doesn't lie in God but he is happiness. from time immemorial we have worked to attain happiness because human can't remain non-doer for a second. (This is why even people of heaven wants human body). But we have rejected all and still continue to find it. Every part loves his whole. We would remain doing so for time immemorial again because until we attain God we can't attain bliss. No one can get milk out of water.

 

I would like to remove your misconception about God. God is one and eternal. He has two parts- Anshavatar- The parts which are governed by Swaroop Shakti an power of God. These have never been under maya or they have never been materialistic. They have their different abodes. Other is Vibhinanshavatar- which are under maya from time immemorial and would remain unless they attain God. All souls and people of heaven and hell are included. So, God is one and eternal.

 

6. He can never be! He remains inside you even if you are against him.

 

Regards.

 

Doesn't the Vedas also say that it should only be taught to worthy and deserving people. Let God turn his Rajo gunas into satwa guna (characteristic qualities) then it would have been the right time to remove his misconceptions.

[Appolinaria]

Appolinaria,

 

But what are your reasons for putting each of a "triad" into a particular column?

 

I know you said you put together a chart. I am interested in your reasoning. This interest is along the line of my investigation into the "meaning" behind language. Certain of the speculations in the link you posted earlier, such as Lucifer's number being 741 or whatever it was, have no meaning to me. One has to know what Lucifer is in the first place, and then figure out why this particular number has any relationship to the concept of Lucifer. Without some form of reasoning, that suggests why such and such should be true, I am at a loss to "translate" it into what I "know" to be true. That is, understand the "meaning" behind it. For instance if I have 741 pennies, is that a bad thing, but if I had 742 or 740 then that would be OK. Why?

 

So in that light, and with the thought that you are an intelligent young woman, I was, and am, interested in the reasoning behind the groupings you made. Not to prove them right or wrong, just to understand how "we" think, and to speculate on the reasons why we seem to see things in these various triads.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Numbers & symbolism fascinate me merely because I see certain ones everywhere- particularly 1, 3, 7, 12.

 

In the Bible, with the woman clothed with the sun (having a garland of 12 stars), & in literature.. for example, Dante's Beatrice and the descent through the spheres, the 12 soul lights, the 7 terraces of Purgatory... also... I see it a lot in Rosicrucianism.

 

 

We see this 1, 3, 7, 12 along the concentric petals in the center of the cross. So what does it actually mean? I have no idea. I'm still trying to figure it out.

 

 

However, beyond influence of the Bible, we even see this concept in nature. Going along with the trinity, alpha omega, whichever quantity you want to use... just these different aspects all creating a singular God... We can compare it to light rays, for example. When all seven wavelengths of light are combined, they create one. White light. The prism which refracts light into 7 rays, might be comparable to the "sky" god created to separate light from darkness.

 

This idea exists sans Bible, so that's why I think there's importance to it.

 

It's true significance I'm not sure of, but how often I see it occurring makes it curious to me.

 

 

When you begin to notice that the symbolism in religion corresponds to occurrences in nature, science & religion seem to become one.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Appolinaria

[tar]

Well, it is all up for interpretation. I don't know myself.

 

 

 

 

For example, this is what I take from the sphere/cube/pyramid idea. I could very well be completely wrong.

 

 

 

 

"The sphere rests upon a point, the cube upon a surface; the sphere is therefore used to symbolize spirit, and the cube, matter." (Quoted from chapter 33)

 

 

 

 

A point moved upon itself becomes a line. Spirit put into motion, or put through time, creates matter.

 

 

 

 

A pyramid can rest on a surface, as well as a point.. it works in both the spiritual and material world. Just as a son contains aspects from both parents.

 

 

 

 

It is the motion of the sphere that allows us to measure a cube.

 

 

 

 

Yesterday I was on wikipedia & was reminded of "Newton" by William Blake.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notice the motion of the scroll, the surface of the scroll, the recording device, and also... where all of these emanate from.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps this idea holds some truth, perhaps it doesn't.

 

 

 

 

It is still interesting how often I see it, though.

 

Appolinaria,

 

Interesting.

 

The sphere resting on a point, the cube resting on a surface and the pyramid on either.

 

However it is difficult to balance a pyramid on its point, and you could also try it with cube. In fact you could try it eight different ways with a cube, and try resting a cube 6 different ways on an edge. Not exactly sure why, but perhaps the point of the pyramid is to rest the sphere on.

 

So anyway, the sphere is spirit, the cube is matter and the pyramid is created by the union of the two?

 

Jesus as the "son of God" is spirit in material form, or for all intents and purposes, man, since we have elements of each, that make us up. Right?

 

And I think the item in Newton's hand is a measuring device, not a recording instrument. But the two arms pivoting(moving) at the fulcrum point, along with the line being measured, form a triangle. But it also is not unlike a compass that could trace out the arc of the semicirle.

 

Regards, TAR2

[rktpro]

Doesn't the Vedas also say that it should only be taught to worthy and deserving people. Let God turn his Rajo gunas into satwa guna (characteristic qualities) then it would have been the right time to remove his misconceptions.

 

Absolutely, and by a worthy man too. I am not a practical and theoretical man.

[tar]

Numbers & symbolism fascinate me merely because I see certain ones everywhere- particularly 1, 3, 7, 12.

 

In the Bible, with the woman clothed with the sun (having a garland of 12 stars), & in literature.. for example, Dante's Beatrice and the descent through the spheres, the 12 soul lights, the 7 terraces of Purgatory... also... I see it a lot in Rosicrucianism.

 

 

We see this 1, 3, 7, 12 along the concentric petals in the center of the cross. So what does it actually mean? I have no idea. I'm still trying to figure it out.

 

 

However, beyond influence of the Bible, we even see this concept in nature. Going along with the trinity, alpha omega, whichever quantity you want to use... just these different aspects all creating a singular God... We can compare it to light rays, for example. When all seven wavelengths of light are combined, they create one. White light. The prism which refracts light into 7 rays, might be comparable to the "sky" god created to separate light from darkness.

 

This idea exists sans Bible, so that's why I think there's importance to it.

 

It's true significance I'm not sure of, but how often I see it occurring makes it curious to me.

 

 

When you begin to notice that the symbolism in religion corresponds to occurrences in nature, science & religion seem to become one.

 

Appolinaria,

 

1,3,7,12

 

Not sure about the seven concentric circles or levels. Not understanding what that means. However, I am a fan of 7 for some of the reasons you talk about, but also in relation to the number 8. There are eight elements in the second row of the elemental table, 8 notes in an octive in music (7 really, with the eighth being the "same" as the first, only on a different level (double the frequency of the first, I believe)), and 7 days in a week, with the eighth day being the same as the first. 7 sort of the series, and 8 the completion and the start of the new.

 

This octive idea led me many years ago, to consider what it might be about our thinking that was 7 and 8 like.

It occured to me, that we think in three dimensions. A cube is a good represention.

 

We can think of something,(a point)(1) and its opposite, yielding a line (edge)(2), which along with its opposite form a surface (4) and its opposite surface completing a cube(8) which is again 1 thing.

 

My theory at the time, which I still think may be the case, is that we can think of 1 thing at once,(point) 2 things at once(line), or 3 things (triangle) or four (square) and can hold the opposites as well, but four is already 2 opposites and one more opposite gets us to the 8 (which is max/complete/full)(3 opposite maximum) and to go any higher we have to start to group and think "over time". I did try the theory out for myself with flocks of birds, groups of people and other various items, and it did seem I started to "count" (over time) or "group" (3+3+4 for instance) when the number was greater than 7 or 8. 7 or 8 seemed to be the maximum number of things I could hold/imagine at one time.

 

I once had a VP that had 12 direct reports, and was looking rather frazzled. I remember explaining my theory to him, suggesting it might be easier to manage 8 or less, (at one time). Might be coincidence but he did restructure his organisation to 7 direct reports, and things did seem to run smoother, and he less harried.

 

So maybe there is basis for 1 (something), 3 (three dimensions) and 7 (the max we can hold at once, without going on to something else, the next level).

 

As for 12, I found that a very interesting way, when I was experimenting with "dense packing" of spheres.

 

It is the max number of ping pong balls you can put around a central ping pong ball. Makes the same "figure" that you get if you cut the corners off a cube, to the midpoints of the edges. 8 triangular faces and 6 diamond(square) faces.

 

So 12 could very well be an "important" number.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

P.S.

Kant has 12 Judgments which relate to 12 Categories. Four triads in each.

 

not to mention a dozen, and inches in a foot.

 

months in a year, number of toes and feet, number of fingers and hands

 

here are the ping pong balls

 

couple other angles on the same figure

 

again

 

the figure also has 4 intersecting hexagonal "planes", each containing 7 balls, 6 axis, each containing 3 balls, but "unluckily" has 13 balls total.