Re: All are One. Buddha was a Borg. Resistance is futile.

Glen Gordon wrote:

>
> >Perhaps language may be polygenetic. But what reasons do you think
> >account for this simultaneous emergence?
>
> I've been supplying this answer for a while now. The concept of "language
> abstraction" where a new, more abstract form of language continually
> develops out of a simpler one like gesture/sign to vocal. Hope people might
> accept it or violently deny with a good reason so that I can finally stop
> propogate the myth and repeating myself to no avail.
>

Gerry: Your idea that a more abstract languge develops out of a simpler
one is a good place to start. But you still haven't clarified why this
language springs up in different geographic locales?

> >In Stephen Hawking's words: the universe always was
> >and always will be. It's similar to a theologic focus only without a
> >god. If for no other reason, this viewpoint has been around since >the
> >beginnings of mankind. Any comments Piotr? Or any from others >who wish
> >to speculate?
>
> Of course, I'm always game. :)
>
> You see, Gerry. Existence is non-existence and you are correct - even
> ancient man realised this. The Australian aborigines think of a "dream time"
> whereas Buddhists mask it with the concept of "Nirvana" but in the end, we
> are all one in the primordial ooze and our lives are an illusion.
>
> How do you say with such authority, you ask? Well, afterall, I did create
> the universe... and so did everyone that acknowledges herself/himself as
> conscious. The universe is defined as EVERYTHING. So for the universe to
> have been created, time must have been created too. However, you can't start
> the act of creation if there is no time, silly! Second, if we then finally
> accept that the universe was eternal, that would mean that it was never
> created. So... doesn't that mean that the universe doesn't exist? How can
> something exist if it never had a start to its existence?
>
> The only way to escape the madness of these creation-vs-eternal scenarios is
> to accept that existence is non-existence and that neither is the sole state
> of the universe or of anything in it.

Of course, by fully accepting and

> UNDERSTANDING such a concept would mean that you must throw away all want of
> anything because at this point, any logic ceases to have any meaning. One,
> in effect, slips back into the serene coma state of Nirvana, or if one
> prefers, the Dream Time. Call it what you will.
>
> Sweet dreams everybody. One day, I'll invite you all to my universe for free
> drinks and a free lunch. I'll make apple pie from scratch - literally. It's
> just I still don't have the recipe for pions yet and I can never stop my
> universe from imploding, but I'll work on it.
>
> - gLeN
>

Actually Glen your universe sounds bizarre. Stick to baking apple pies
for, erh, which holiday was it anyway? The given (back to Hawking) is
that the universe has always existed. And I agree that resistance is
futile. This is the point I was trying to make about simultaneous
evolution -- that things just evolve because they do and to counter the
flow is a no no.

So, back to our planet. We need to consolidate all of mankind under one
umbrella and substitute the computer for Buddha. Knowledge will become
god and those of us involved in the knowledge market will become
knowledge disciples.

And GG when your universe implodes, you're welcome to come to mine.
Gerry
__________
____________________________________________

>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Valentine's Day Shopping Made Simple. Click Here!
> http://click.egroups.com/1/1147/0/_/2431/_/949918574/
>
> -- Create a poll/survey for your group!
> -- http://www.egroups.com/vote?listname=cybalist&m=1

--

Gerald Reinhart
Independent Scholar
(650) 321-7378
waluk@...
http://www.alekseevmanuscript.com