posted June 05, 2005 09:53 AM              

Heres the definition of absolute reality from Ramanujans viewpoint.:

quote:

---

He felt, for example, that zero represented Absolute Reality, and that infinity represented the many manifestations of that Reality. Ramanujan felt that each mathematical discovery was a step closer to understanding the spiritual universe. He once told a friend, "An equation for me has no meaning unless it expresses a thought of God."

---

Well, based on that some would interpret that there is Zero (zilch, nada, nought) absolute reality. Concept of zero was firt introduced to the world by the Vedic people. That does tell me something about their finding.

Some would consider coiled serpent(tail in mouth) as the absolute reality.

Some would consider 0 and infinity the same way as emptiness and compassion. I really wish someone didn't delete my previous posts. That had more discussion on the two.

Each one would come with its own interpretation. I would really be interested to find out what each thinks

posted June 05, 2005 10:05 AM            

While I consider myself pragmatic, I am not of a mathematical/scientific mind. And yet, I think that the road to Ultimate Knowing may just be paved with a combination of the scientific/mathematical, and the spiritual.
Which would be a lovely Yin and Yang equation, would it not?

I do hope you read some of Fritjof Capra's works, IAT, because I would be most interested in your reactions to them. You can get _The Tao of Physics_ for $2 on half.com: http://half.ebay.com/search/search.jsp?nthTime=1&product=books&keyword=The+Tao+of+Physics

Namaste

posted June 05, 2005 10:46 PM            

Trillian, any rides thru the galaxy lately? I have missed you !!!

Love,

posted June 07, 2005 09:55 AM            

Juni, maybe just a zip and zap 'round the Universe. I miss you too, and hope you are well and that your back has healed.

As for J.Z. Knight, I once had the opportunity to talk a bit with a man who wrote one of the Ramtha books back in the 80's. He felt that in the very beginning, Ramtha was truly with J.Z., but that he left quickly and J.Z. continued for all the obvious reasons. Ramtha always seemed to be misogynistic and judgemental. Never cared for him much. And any type of spirit who preaches such things isn't an 'evolved' spirit, despite the age he claims.

fayte, nope, didn't think you were starting a religion exactly, but you seem to need followers...and we can continue to agree to disagree. I am a born Devil's Advocate. I don't agree with the things your entities say, but you are welcome here at LL to present your truth. I always jump in when I think I see personal truth being elevated into Universal Truth (i.e., your contention that animals don't mind being food, so long as we thank them for their sacrifice. That ain't my God/dess speaking, and I find it ridiculous to speak for God/dess or the animals ).

I may challenge the message, but it's rare that I attack the messenger. And as far as I can recall, I've only come close to that with one messenger here at LL.

I would hope that we will continue to learn from each other...only time will tell.

posted June 07, 2005 06:09 PM              

fayte.m
Knowflake
Posts: 1112
From: ohio
Registered: Mar 2005
posted June 07, 2005 05:21 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saffron!
I am busy...but Thought I should answer you.
I as a rule do not read what others have written on the matters of channeling. I cannot really make a comment except that many of the so called channeled stuff I have heard of/about is not true...according to my contacts...or they were "messing" with the channeler's head and or were a delusional egotistical entity...who thought they were/had been so and so,....but some I have heard of were on the up and up....at least partially.....but they did not go far enough or question their contacts thoroughly enough.
The took what the contacts said at face value...never questioning, or not much.
Robert Monroe....Walsch(spelling?.the one who did Conversations with God..etc.) those two authors/channelers do have some validity. But they did not go deep enough.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

posted November 21, 2011 03:52 PM            

The Bible is very much against homosexuality and calls for their deaths. Of course the Bible also supports slavery, rape in some cases, the deaths of disobedient children, the prohibition of lobster and shrimp from our diets, and countless other things most Christians happily ignore today without any feeling of unease. I believe that within a couple more generations that the anti-gay passages of the Bible will also be consigned to the dustbin of bad religious rubbish. Not only are the UUs already there, but progressive Christians have also reinterpreted the antigay passages, as can be found here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

A friend of mine who is obsessed with proving that Christianity isn't toxic (though he's aware that there are all too many toxic Christians) even wrote an essay saying that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed not because of homosexuality but because of rape. However, Lot offered his own virgin daughters to be raped instead of the men (YUCK! While Christians & Muslims may count him righteous, I say no father of the year award for HIM!) and it was implied that had the men gang raped the virgins instead of the men that God would've spared them. But the Bible (especially OT) clearly views women as property rather than people.

posted March 05, 2013 09:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sailor Gemini:
Just stating: the Bible is NOT the word of the God, and Gays, Bisexuals, Lesbians, and Transgendered people have just as much right as anyone else. It's only sinful if you're not being true to yourself. Embrace who you are, because you can't ever change that.

---