Sitting this morning on the can taking my morning … (well you know), and reading an article in Buddhist magazine I had a realization. All of our past and future thinking is a denial of the Buddha-nature. (But this is not quit right.) It is the thought that I, the me, that is having the thought is the me of the future or the past and therefore ( Read more... )

When you could be on a surface of infinite length, you would feel like you are in the middle of that surface. Likewise, in any other dimension of experience that you might be able to perceive you would always feel like you are at the midpoint. This is because the horizon in either direction is limited by your ability to perceive, being finite, ( Read more... )

Speaking of the face of God-if-there-is-a-god, I have been seeing the universe as the face of God - not as metaphor but as the reality. Adya said as much in one of the tapes and that may be from where I took off. I suspect one way to describe the universe is to see it as face or shape of truth - the structure of the universe is the map of truth ( Read more... )

I have been thinking for a while about the idea that we are all theorems. Put another way, we are all truths, perfect truths, projections of the perfect god onto a lesser dimensional space. (You may not believe it, but I am carefully choosing my words so as to try and not imply too little.) Earlier, as I returning from dinner a few drinks on ( Read more... )

My wife, in her journal, quotes Adya as saying “the only objective reality is the infinite.” I like this, but I suspect that he really means the infinite-infinite or some trans-infinite truth. I think Rudy Rucker points in this direction. I have been reading Neal Stevenson’s new trilogy about the history of science and money in the seventeenth ( Read more... )

Self-reference seems to me to be the fundamental problem of thought. It is essentially unavoidable, and yet its introduction seems to me to create infinity. Another way of thinking about this is that the way we define numbers is entirely self-referential. We start with zero or one, depending on mood - modern mathematics prefers zero, and we say ( Read more... )

I only will be the only one that can sure this is true; nonetheless my prediction is/was that if you read exactly in reverse order that you will feel more jumbled in the sense that the number of times you had to reassess how I am/was is greater than seventeen. A very nice meta-meta self-reference. Therefore, if you could accept this statements as ( Read more... )