To encourage the exchange of thoughts about Deepak Chopra and his work, we will post your comments, inquiries, and opinions. Please feel free to respond to someone else's comments or questions, or simply post your own. Post a Message | Read the Forum | Sign the Guestbook Please Post Your Comments Name: Email Address: Comments:

Here's a little birthday present from me to all of you. On my way to updating the Forum Archives Index with the headers for the messages involved, I thought I would share the dates for the 500 and 1000 milestones since the July/1999 list that's on the Forum Friends page.

Post#---Date

45500 Aug/10/1999
46000 Sep/1/1999
46500 Sep/15/1999
47000 Sep/26/1999
47500 Oct/14/1999
48000 Oct/31/1999
48500 Nov/20/1999
49000 Dec/15/1999
49500 Jan/2/2000
50000 Feb/5/2000
50500 Feb/16/2000
51000 Mar/13/2000
51500 Apr/15/2000
52000 Apr/27/2000
52500 Jun/30/2000
53000 Aug/15/2000
53500 Sep/19/2000
54000 Oct/14/2000
54500 Oct/28/2000
55000 Nov/12/2000
55500 Nov/22/2000

There's a gap in the posts between May/8/2000 and May/24/2000 due to the forum being inaccessible during that period.

Happy Re-Birthday Dave

Carol and Chris - very wise words for Pilar. And it sure doesn't hurt to hear them again to confirm many of the things I've learned in the past few years. Truly, it wasn't until I took care of myself and really focused on healing ME that I found someone (quite 'accidentally'). But it took a long time for me to realize that I first must love and heal myself.

Dave - yes! I remember Jean Luc Ponty...and ...in the mountains! Wow. Does time fly!

Pilar my heart goes out to you. I think I understand the pain you're experiencing as I've been there myself. You have an awesome opportunity to learn more about life and yourself in this moment than probably any other time in your life. I know these are just words but please try to hear the message. The feeling of love you have for this man you created. Something about this person sparked your awareness of love, but this love has existed inside of you all along, and will continue to do so long after the person who sparked it is gone. Your rose Pilar can not be burned. It is timeless, unborn and will never die. What you feel burning isn't love but attachment. Love is always powerful and strong, attachment is vulnerable and weak. The light at the end of this tunnel is real love, and the way you get to it is by forgiveness. Forgive yourself and forgive this man. You don't need to know how, just be open to doing it and the Universe/God will respond.

Please feel free to email me (cvedeler@ix.netcom.com) if you would like to chat.

Terry (and anyone interested), to navigate the archives in the most effective way, I suggest working with the URL (Address) slot in your browser. If it doesn't say http://www.randomhouse.com/features/chopra/forums.cgi?page=1&messages_per_page=30 at this particular moment, when you click on one of the little numbers below Refresh Page, it will.

By clicking in that slot you can overkey the "page=1" part with the page number you want, and the "messages_per_page=30" part with however many messages you want to see on one page. Just overkey the numbers in each of those places.

As an example -- yours -- fix the URL to read http://www.randomhouse.com/features/chopra/forums.cgi?page=1836&messages_per_page=30

Just be sure the number you divided by as Messages_Per_Page gets plugged in to the place for that number. You said 30 so that's what I used.

Let me know if that doesn't work right.

For me, in my opinion of course, the Universe didn't necessarily have me for MY purposes.

Thanks so much for the greetings, everyone!

Terry, I was three days old when Pearl Harbor was attacked. My mother turned 33 on that day. So I guess Spring of 1942 was my first one.

Pat, the date I have in my notes for your first post is Jul/30/98 and I think I may have welcomed you here shortly thereafter. Remember Jean-Luc Ponty? Remember "Pat in the Mountains"?

Chris, you're very close with the "busy intellect" thing for me, and I agree that the ideas and topics we have discussed have been fun. The astronomy connection is the biggest overlap of ours, I think. However, although I don't seem to get to that place as well through meditation as I do in just walking in the woods or sitting on the porch and "letting go" of things, I have found those moments you describe. I'm just not as big on the ritual part of meditation as some may be.

Carol, the words you had for Pilar are so well said that I can only say "Right on!"

My latest question reminded me of when I first started posting, and what you all have taught me ..................ask!

I also have learned how much I don't know, but I do know some things. Sometimes I just understand......... that I don't understand.

Now.........now that I have the amenities out of the way Dave, let's get back to work.

I take the 850, subtract it from the current post number, divide by 30 let's say, and now what???? (besides sticking it some where)

I know you wouldn't say that. Just being my usual smart ass self.

I am serious about the question though.

GREAT words Carol for Pilar.

When I accepted I was an a__h___, it all became soooooooooo simple.(L)

OK...........who's supplying the cake????

NAMASTE'

Your "light" has been showing for how many springs Dave?

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

Happy Birthday Dave!!!

Took me a while to catch up, but I think I recall when I first appeared. July, 1998? Not sure what day. I may have lurked for a week or two. There's been so much activity, I can't really recall a time/subject/conversation that comes to mind. It's all been interesting.

Happy Birthday, DaveR!

hey, Dave R!! Happy Birthday!!! :)

On the way to work this morning, I heard a guest on Coast to Coast AM, Neil Slade, who talked about the power of the brain. Click here for his website, Neil Slade's AMAZING BRAIN MUSIC ADVENTURE. Haven't had a chance to look at it too deeply yet, but it looks like it might be a fun site to explore.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, DAVE R. !!!

dear Pilar, your post is to Peggy but i hope you don't mind if i respond, too. i feel your desparation and hope you don't become bitter from your experiences, or do harm to yourself.

one of the most important jobs we have here is learning to love ourselves and if you could somehow see that, it would no longer be so important that others love you.

please, don't get me wrong, of course, we all wish for loving relationships but if you can love yourself first, and deeply, then you will see that most people are really struggling with learning to love, too.

it makes it a little easier when your relationships don't happen as you would like. you will be more centered and able to pick up the important things in your life and go on until that One comes along that makes you feel more complete.

fully understanding the concept of loving yourself must come from within and until you are able to completely understand this concept no relationship will ever be exactly correct for you. because until one is able to love self, love is only half right. it is important to love others and to want them to love you but it won't be whole until you love yourself, first.

so please, don't ever think of harming yourself or letting failed relationships get you down, for YOU are the most important job you have, here. value your own life and make it full of meaning and then when you least expect it to happen, it may ALL become exactly correct and your dreams fulfilled.

Dear Cathy & Chris, i enjoyed reading your posts very much this am. thanks for being here.

Cathy if you look back at my last 2 posts in italics you will see posts on types of meditation and where it can take us to. they are from a book i am reading, now, Minding Mind. while these posts may not help you to meditate more, they can help you to distinguish the stage you might be in from your meditation practice. i'll place the third type, here. i hope you enjoy reading these posts translated from ancient Buddhist lore:

The third type of meditation focuses on the cultivation of altered states of consciousness. Those who practice meditation for the sake of attaining nirvana may also use these altered states for the purpose of breaking attachments to conceptual and perceptual conventions, but they are thereby exposed to the danger of addiction to intoxicating trances. Buddhist teaching emphasizes sobriety to avoid being obsessed, or as it is said, "reborn under the sway" of unusual states, taking care to use them for specific pragmatic purposes rather than for self-indulgence.

Minding Mind
Translated by
Thomas Cleary

TO PEGGY: Peggy thx for your words of wisdom the other day. I tried writing to your email address, but doesn't work...I have read Revolution Within, actually I have read them aaallll. My goal now is to stay present, and do things differently. I have listened to Myss and Chopra endlessly and it still does not take away the pain of rejection. Furthermore, the splintered personality issue is a big one. Hence, If I really wanted a relationship, then the Universe would not keep 'doing this.' So, I did leave him a letter on his car stating "what did I do so wrong." I guess it was manipulative. Just drama,when he was very honest in stating: I cannot give you what you want and I'm terribly busy. And yet I do not listen whatsoever. This is a lesson in forgiveness and learning to love someone exactly for who they are. However, I want to love, and these souls with whom I briefly connect, take the rose which wants so much to grow and to love and they pour acid and butane all of its petals and set it ablaze. How do you continue loving when all you attract are those who reject? It's enough to drive one to really not want to live or ever love anymore. Pilar

Cathy I also find myself distracted during meditation. Most people do I think. It is tough to stick to it when you don't feel the benefits quickly. That's pretty normal I think. I believe that that is one of the main reasons to actually get instruction on a meditation technique. If nothing else it gives a framework for some discipline to keep doing it. It is kind of like riding a bike. Once you learn how, it is easy to pick up at any time.

I also can really relate to what you said about intellectually knowing this "stuff" but not knowing it "deep enough". I've got a pretty busy intellect (if you haven't noticed). I share that with Dave I think. That's part of the reason I feel I relate so well to his questions and how I perceive how he thinks. Lately I feel like I have finally gotten enough pieces of the puzzle to start taping into the wellspring of spirit that we all have access to if we could just let go long enough to let it wet us. It's like we are holding on to the valve to turn it on, but keep fighting and arguing for our right to keep it closed. We humans are really quite crazy! We give up happiness for the sake of defending something that isn't even real.

Where I am at spiritually now didn't happen by "understanding", but by forgiving and letting go of things that aren't real (like the past). Meditation helps in really experiencing being present. Something clicks suddenly when we act mindful within the moment. It's like tapping into a power source. If we can just let it take us, it fills us with peace, love and energy. I'm there maybe a few minutes a day now. That's compared to a few seconds a month just a year ago.

I get frustrated and have bad days still. Sometimes (hell, most of the time) I get caught up in my same old ruts. Just now I'm beginning to recognize more and more quickly that it's all just experiences and I'm the one creating my story about these experiences, and I can change the story any time I make the choice to do so. That gives a real feeling of power!

Here is to our Peace that passes all understanding!

Click here to read a great summery of "A Course in Miracles"

Chris

Well, I have had intentions to meditate for many years...I get started and go for a few days, a week, and then stop...I don't really have an approach in mind when I meditate and often feel distracted. I know I need to stick to it a bit longer, but haven't yet--I am not a very scheduled person in general, and have a hard time finding a regular time to do anything, let alone have some quietness ;-)

I came to the forum during a period in which I was feeling the quest...I go through periods of feeling good with how I'm living and feeling like I want to know more, do more etc...I had found Deepak's home page which mentioned this, I think? Somehow found my way here :-) I haven'tcome to know more deeply! You're supposed to be helping with that :-)I am a thinker and have been all my life--I have wondered about the wherefores and whys of Life since I was a kid and have read loads of stuff, thought about it, pondered etc...I feel like I know alot on an intellectual level about what I've wondered, but want to know it "deep enough" to borrow from your old post, so that I am full of joy and peace and love---you know, that peace that passes all understanding mentioned in the Bible--that's what I seek :-)

I am a fairly upbeat individual on a daily basis--though, as I mentioned, I have moments most days in which I worry a bit about how I see the world at large going about its business :-) Though I've also discovered that there is change going on in many areas--just don't know if it's enough to "save the world"--which largely saddens me for my three kids...

Anyway, your statement about playing a scientist on this forum cracked me up--ever heard the line from some movie...I'm not a nurse, but I play one on TV? Only funny, if you saw the movie, I guess :-)

Anyway, stay happy...it's contagious...I am happy that you have found an internal fountain of giddiness, and found your father...and look forward to sharing and learning more from you here...

Blessings!

Cathy

Thanks Cathy. I am feeling great lately. It is strange though. In the past 3 months I ended a relationship with my girl-friend, my grand mother, who I was very close to, passed away and I lost my job. I should be miserable… :-) I guess I discovered my tail (read the cat parable in my post below). I feel happiness bubbling up inside, and this happiness has nothing to do with the experiences I am going through (some of them have been quite hard). I feel like I have found my source or my essential self. That the pretenses of my life have been stripped away and I am free to be who I really am for the first time since I was a child. I have laid the foundation for a new and deeper relationship with my father and am living into a new future with him that would not have been possible if I continued to keep the past real in my present. For the first time in years (OK, ever) I am at a place where I feel I can enter into relationships simply being me instead of putting tons of energy into being who I think they want me to be. Honesty and authenticity are the best aphrodisiacs in the world. :-)

I don't mind you being nosey. :-) I do meditate, though not as often as I would like (a few times a week). I learned Primordial Sound Meditation this past summer from one of the old Forum regulars Kitty Morel. I'm also involved in a book reading group where we study "A Course in Miracles" which has really helped me get my arms around some of this stuff. And most recently I did a seminar called "The Landmark Forum" which kind of pushed me over the edge.

I'm not a scientist though I play one on this Forum :-) However, I am a serious amateur astronomer and have done a fair amount of study on my own regarding science. I work with computers for money, though my real passion is photography and building things (like remodeling houses etc.). I really enjoy science and where I used to work (Columbia University's Biosphere 2 Center) I had many friends that either are scientists or they work closely with them. I felt like I was a fly on the wall in nitty gritty scientific circles. Since I am currently between jobs, I don't have any coworkers to think I'm nuts. I rarely shared this kind of stuff with my old coworkers, so they probably thought I was nuts for other reasons. I really like Geoff's skewed perspective too.

I've enjoyed your posts too these past few months. Now that I have more time I hope to get close to new cyber friends again. I look forward to sharing more with you, and having you share with me. I guess I'd like to ask you some of the same questions you asked me. Do you meditate? What brought you here? How have you come to know more deeply? You also seem like a very upbeat and peaceful person.

Hi all--yikes--4 pages of posts to read through! I laughed at your comment Brad that this was like a job :-) It is one thing i like about this group--that it is typically "active". Chris--enjoyed your posts! Made a lot of sense to me--and the clarifications were indeed helpful. Dave regarding your efforts...I think I started posting about 6-8 months ago?? I didn't lurk much--maybe not at all (Can you tell I don't have a memory for specifics? ;-)) I don't have a specific favorite period, but most enjoy when people are sharing ideas on "big" topics--and doing so in a friendly manner :-) I mostly dislike (don't think you asked this?) when people are mad at each other rehashing the origin of the disagreement. Though I welcome whatever, because I think it's all helpful and good in one way or another. I can't remember if that's all you asked or not. I have no suggestions for format changes...what is the url again of the friends of the forum page? Thanks for your efforts!

Chris--you seem so joyful these days! Are you a meditator also? Any specific practices you employ? Sounds like you think about stuff a lot--from a skewered perspective, like Geoff ;-) If I'm not being too nosey, what branch of science are you in? Someone mentioned you were a scientist?? I think! :-) I just wondered, if your coworkers think you're nuts ;-) Though you mentioned one of them introducing you to this forum, so maybe not? Also, I followed the link Dave sent Carol to follow to some archives--as i typically don't visit archives, and you mentioned feeling sad about Princess Diana's death and how you felt death was not truly sad but you must not have known that deep enough because you felt sad---that is how I feel about "earth troubles" that I read about like climate change, global warming, overpopulation etc...I feel like whatever happens is okay, but I guess I don't know that really--or not deep enough...I've talked about this a few times here. I'm not really in one of my "worried" episodes, but reading you post reminded me. So how have you come to know more deeply? For it seems to me that you are very upbeat and peaceful...

Merry December!

Cathy

Newsflash, coverage on R.'s b-day.

Had a wonderful meal out. Went to the flea market to look for a jeweled throne, to survey my sovereign holdings. Nothing but Retro dining chairs. Oh well!

Much Merriment and Mirth

yes, it was, Dave. i'm telling them now that i was chatting with someone from Nashville. they were surprised, i have the whole state covered, ehh!

I'll get back to the archives for some more details. Nice chit-chatting! :-)

Being in the higher elevations probably accounts for some of that difference from ours.

they said the snow is all gone, now. my bro-in-law said 2 inches. my sis had said 3 inches earlier.

wow! that is some extremes!

On that same trip, we left Montgomery in the mid-80's or hotter, and by the time we got to Tuscaloosa (maybe 100 miles) it was in the 30's. You could almost feel the temp dropping. Weird weather! There were floods in West Tennessee when we went through there, and there had been tornados in East Arkansas just a few weeks earlier. Not a good time to live in Memphis, which we didn't!

yes, i think it just west of Sevierville. hey, guess what? their ears must of been burning! they just im'd me! ha! i love the synchro!

haha! no way, heat in the 80's!! it's in the 40's today. it is funny some of the elderly (hmm? i guess i'm almost in that category, heh!) dress real warm when it gets just the least bit chilly, here!

Is it down near Sevierville? I think my brother may have done some skydiving out of there. They have an airport for smaller planes?

I know about "winter" in the Deep South. Peg and I visited my folks one Christmas in Montgomery and it was in the 80's. They had the heat on!

Seymour is outside of Knoxville. yes, she said it wasn't going to last long, real dusty.

thanks, Dave! you know it is real chilly here today. the kids have the fireplace going, too. it looks real wintery outside, nice for Florida this time of the year.

We didn't get nearly that much. Maybe an inch or a little more. Most of it's melted by now, none ever stuck in the street, and there's just some dusting in the grass and on the cars. Where is Seymour?

Carol, you done real good! :-) Dick's a good friend to have if you can just remember what the word was. A thesaurus is also good if you know something close to what you want to say, but it's just not quite the right thing.

hey, Dave, my sis lives in Seymour, she said they got 3 inches of snow! she was so happy about it, ha!

when i said most of this on my own, i meant i do get some help from Webster's Dick occasionally, heh!

Lennie -- The weather was far from cold on that boat outing! It doesn't get cold in these parts until late November as a rule. We have a little snow on the ground today, but it's not usual to get snow before Christmas. How about your area?

Carol, I like your way of saying the thing about loving everybody much better than mine. It can't be forced or sought after; it has to happen, just as you said. Good clarifications.

or would it have been better if i said phenonmena? i am open to some word/language help. i am not that educated and do most of this on my own so i would appreciate any help in expressing myself better so that others can more easily understand my posts.

yes, Chris, that is the best way to look at being misunderstood. i try to clarify my position, too, when misunderstood by others and it is great when they remain open to discussion and give you the chance to make your point understood.

i would like to state that in that comment of Dave's about me and my loving everyOne, that it really wasn't an objective, it was a realization and it wasn't a pursuit as much as it was a happening. i hope i am stating this clearly because as Peggy mentioned words can change things and it seemed to me that these words would more closely define this divine phenonmenon in my life.

Wow Dave that was quick,I just didn't remember it being that close to cold weather.

My best memories are learning about the personalities that participate here,my favorites are Peggy's humor,your grounded truths Phoenix's descriptions ,I think I mispelled her name,anyway I enjoyed when Hadi was really on to something ,an it flowed thru his keyboard with out any effort.

I loved it when everyone would let go of everything and just be human despite some of the aggressions they have held against each otheri the past.I loved it on days when I would come home from an especially hard day at work and you all had found so many things to laugh about during the day,and some how when I read thru the post for the day I felt connected some how. I really like kitty"s snow pictures.Well maybe I will tell more later .Lennie

Bravo, Chris! I like that approach myself. Seeing that it's my fault when I am misunderstood makes an easier position to work from, since there's where I can exert useful energy in trying to make things better.

I hope Bob F won't take offense with this, but we used to have a cat named Bob, so named because whatever tail he had was either gone when he was born, or got removed in a fight or something. I can't remember which. But Bob had his happiness problem pretty well solved, wouldn't you say? I can't remember if Bob ever struck me as happy or unhappy, but he was a good cat!

Dave said, "I think that Carol's objective of loving everybody is a noble pursuit. I believe we all are capable of that, but that some of us have difficulty achieving it because of past hurts and disappointments with trying to love others (or be loved by them), only to be rebuked or shunned -- or worse."

Yes! This is a perfect example of when the past has teeth within our present. For me at least, recognizing that the past just isn't real leaves me free to love others in spite of the hurts from my past in loving others. Everyone can love, and it doesn't necessarily take the right circumstances, it just takes a realization that love and bliss is our birth right.

One thing I'm committed to is when I feel that someone misunderstands something that I have said, that I take responsibility to making it clear instead of trying to make the other person responsible for hearing me right. I feel that if we all do this, the inevitable frustrations that will occur in communication will become opportunities to grow relationships instead of an excuse to tear them down. Thank you Peggy and Dave for giving me the opportunity to practice this.

I heard a great parable from a Wayne Dyer PBS show this morning. A cat goes to cat university and learns in a cat philosophy class that the purpose to a cat's life is happiness and that happiness exists within a cats tail. So the cat spends all day chasing its tail thinking that once it finally gets it's tail into it's mouth it will be happy. Then one day this cat happens upon an old tom cat and strikes up a conversation. The young cat says that he learned that the purpose of a cat's life is to be happy and that happiness exists in a cat's tail and that someday he will be quick enough, or clever enough to catch his tail. The old tom cat says that he had heard the same thing living in the street. But instead of chasing his tail he just goes about doing what he really wants to do and his tail follows him wherever he goes. Very cute!

Enjoy the rest of your Sunday everyone!

Good deal, Carol. It's amazing how our memories play tricks on us, isn't it? Maybe Chris is right that we had best not try to live in the past?

I find myself being out of range by years in my own recollections of things. That's why mementos of when things actually happened are so hard for me to throw away! I keep almost everything that will assist my memory on stuff. Packrat!

haha! synchronicity, Dave! i was searching as you posted and it looks like you are right! i really felt that i had been posting before Diana's death but it seems that was the right time. yup, it was fun perusing around the archives, again. thanks for the memories!!! :)

Carol, GO HERE and prowl around. I have this set at 50 messages per page, so you can click the little numbers below the Refresh Page to go backward (older) or forward (newer) from the selected page.

Let me know if you find anything older than Sep/1/97.

Enjoy Memory Lane!

just to clarify, the other times i mentioned were not chat rooms. one, Lightbeing was a mailing list i and Jan was on and two, when i saw her in the AOL Live Chopra Session, i noticed her name (Terramere) there and told her we were both on Lightbeings mailing list. the Chopra session was just a 1/2 hour session with no chat, just questions to him from the interviewer, that was posted before the session. she and i talked in IM other times and e-mail and i found a good friend in her to this date.

i don't think so, Dave, i'm sure that i posted before the welcome from Jan but who knows? i don't remember exactly but your date is close enough, i'm sure. i really appreciate the effort you put out to keep the Forum Format in order, so to speak, and your searches of the Archives are great for memories, too, thanks! :)

Carol, I went back to early August 1997 searching for "NEVNO" and didn't find anything. The August gathering was within the period I searched, and would only have been a couple of weeks before Diana's death. Is it possible that those other chat rooms may be fusing with your memories of this forum?

Within a few posts of that one I reposted, Jan welcomes you to the forum as if it were your first appearance.

guess, i'll sign off for awhile, Dave. i'll check in later to see what you come up with. have fun!! :)

oops! Silvia, i mean, heh!

i remember that you had already attended the August meeting. it seems that it was right afte that August Meeting that i came in. Hadi was having a discussion with Yasmine, i believe, shortly after i posted. Franko was here a lot then and he and Hadi chatted, then, too. Sylvia was having discussions with David and her sister, Josie, shortly after i first posted, too.

Okay, Carol, I guess I'd best revisit that period for your earlier posts. Do you remember being on hand for the AUGUST planning? Anything else of significance that you can recall when you first arrived?

wow! that brings back many memories, Dave!

Dave, that post was when Princess Diana died. i was here long before that. i just don't remember the date, tho.

i'll post another excerpt from Minding Mind while i wait then. i hope you don't mind. i found these to be terrific:

The second type of meditation is quite different from the first, focusing on transcending the world rather than dealing with the world in conventional terms. The desired result is quiescent nirvana, a profound peace of mind charactized by extinction of psychological afflictions. Exceptional psychic capacities are also commonly associated with people who attain quiescent nirvana in this way, but because they habitually remain in the quiescence of individual nirvana they do not ordinarily exercise these capacities in a concerted manner.

Minding Mind
Translated by
Thomas Cleary

Carol, does this look familiar?

On Monday, September 1, 1997, Carol (NEVNO96@aol.com) said:

Diana, you have left your earthly abode to be in your spiritual abode. We have not lost you, as we are always here now. I celebrate your departure with joy. Namasté

Don't mind a bit, Carol. It may take a little bit, but I'll go get it!

Thanks for the verification of my notes and memory, Carol (Sylvia)! :-)

My notes have Jan arriving (posting) on Sep/18/96.

would you mind bringing my first post up or would you rather i attempted the labor, heh?

and another ut oh! yes, Silvia and i played the Sylvia/Silvia game some. my first name is Sylvia but i have always been called Carol.

Sure thing, Carol. The index has been mostly just post count oriented with the 1,000's and 500's and the first post of each month and the first post on the 15th of the month, just to assist in locating specific timeframes. I was wanting to add "first posts" of the "regulars" (however we can define "regulars") so that we'd have that info as well.

Any ideas for the index that aren't too involved or time-consuming would be fun to try to use. Since we only have our own efforts to produce such a thing (Random House hasn't), I would like it to be useful to as many who would use it.

You can look on the Forum Friends page for the latest update (Jul/22/99) for the format I had at that time. But there's been a lot of water over the dam since then, and it's time to include more recent stuff.

i always posted as Carol, now carol. different e-mail addresses tho.

ut oh! yep, you are probably right, Dave. late 97 instead of late 96, thanks.

Thanks, Carol. I have your first post as Sep/1/97 which is way later than you're saying. Did you always use "Carol" as your name? I seem to remember some difficulties in the many variations of "Carol" and "Sylvia" who were posting before the IP numbers went into effect. After that it's easy enough to square up names, but before that it's just raw guesswork!

Chris, i loved your post and yes, it made a lot of sense, to me! it can be BS or a Blessing, it is ALL a matter of individual perspective.

as for the "Forum Archives Index" and "Forum Friends" question, could you give me some idea what you are looking for?

Dave, it was at the end of 96 or the very first of 97 that i first posted here. i was invited here by Jan. Jan and i had met thru another Light Being and also met again at a Chopra AOL Online Session.

i never lurked, i posted right off and have posted often, since, heh! 2nd place, remember? :)

wow! there have been so many favorites for me. posting anything of Chopra's, the ones that Lars posted, i wish i could remember the names of the particular ones he posted, that i liked so much. but it was the man asking questions, ones, and the answers made my heart sing, some of Hadi's posts, YooHoo's posts, Kate's 50,000 post, some of your posts, there was a period of Peggy's postings that i particularly liked. i felt she was singing her words. writing the story, posting my own experiences here to recall later, any of D2's Holland posts. wow!! so many! i could go on, but will spare you. ;)

the most memorable was during the CFP & Hadi times that they sparred so eloquently, here.

as for any input about the way The Forum has proceded or will procede, not much. i enjoy the suprises too much to want to speculate or make any changes.

Chris, for what it's worth, of the people I have had any interaction with at the forum, only Silvia (Apr/2/96), Kate (Apr/3/96), and Colette (May/3/96), were here before you. There were others, of course, but they were no longer active when I first started posting. Kitty arrived (or began posting) on Jun/26/96.

Chris, just to expand a bit more on the "tyranny of words" Terry mentioned, and that you have alluded to, I think that Carol's objective of loving everybody is a noble pursuit. I believe we all are capable of that, but that some of us have difficulty achieving it because of past hurts and disappointments with trying to love others (or be loved by them), only to be rebuked or shunned -- or worse.

One of my beliefs is that anybody can love -- and be loved -- in the right circumstances. Some just make it very hard to do that, and much of the time it boils down to communication problems.

Either people are so bogged down in their own needs or agendas that they can't allow others to get close to them, or they are afraid of rejection to the point they don't even try to be open and receptive.

Is that pushing the envelope on this idea too far?

Thanks Dave, yes it was the 22nd.

On Wednesday, May 22, 1996, cvedeler @ egghead.com (Chris Vedeler) said:

Chopra is certainly a great teacher. I look forward to reading more from him soon! I'd be interested in starting a correspondence with anyone on the Internet who enjoys discussing these things.

Thanks Dave. I know it can be frustrating for everyone concerned. Language can be such a bug-a-boo. Practice, practice, practice. What may sound totally strange in one context, makes a lot more sense if the context it is made can be made clearer. I enjoy to's approach sometimes. Simple, to the point (kind of) and out there. :-)

Chris, I have May/22/96 for yours. Should I go back and repost your first?

Whoops, got my paste's wrong

"…not denying that things didn't happen." Sorry Peggy for the double (or is it triple) negative. (big grin!)

not denying that things didn't happen

Excellent post, Chris! You have swept away the dust that was on earlier efforts to explain your views, and I will say I can agree with you almost 100%. We see that the same way, in all variations.

You see: all it takes is a little Q&A to find that we aren't really all that far apart in our perceptions and how we process them. That makes for more similarity than difference between us, and, as such, a way to find even more of that "common ground" I keep harping on.

Thanks for getting your arms around the issues so well!

Dave great questions!

The first time I posted: May 23, 1996. I was at work, when a coworker showed me this site.

How long was I a "lurker" before my first post: I wasn't. I jumped right in.

What has been my most favorite topic?: There are just too many to list.

What period of the forum's history has been most memorable for me?: Probably the first year. I met so many neat and interesting people, many of whom I am still in close contact with.

Other points: I've been a regular here for about as long as anyone. There was a point in time where I would read every post every day. Then priorities would change and I would just pop in now and again. Then I would get sucked up into the drama and be back reading and posting everyday. This cycle has happened several times for me over the years. I've grown tons over the past 4 ½ years here and I have watched many of my friends grow tons too. This place and the people that frequent here are definitely a piece of my world.

Terry, I'm just now seeing your question about the post number of your first one. To narrow it down as best I can from my notes, Post #792 was on Aug/15/96 and Post #1,000 was on Aug/28/96. I'd guess somewhere around #850 would get you close.

Of course you have to subtract that number from the latest post count to get the place to go back to. As I type this, the latest count is 55,873, so you would want to start at 55,023 and poke around from there. Be sure to divide that by whatever "messages per page" you want to use.

It's a complicated system, but once you play with it a little, it's not too hard to use.

Carol thanks for the comments about BS vs. blessings. It got me thinking (watch out, there is a first time for everything! :-)). Perhaps this will clarify for Peggy a bit as well about my beliefs regarding the illusions and who is having them. When I told Peggy that "It's all BS if you ask me." I wasn't referring to the illusion / reality but to our mental constructs about the illusion / reality. It is what it is, and you are right that it could be BS to some people and a blessing to others. You make an excellent point actually. It is what it is, and then we take that "isness" and interpret it into mental constructs (among other things). The "isness" can't be a blessing, BS or anything else but isness. It is our interpretation that turns it into a blessing or BS and that interpretation is really a choice in my opinion. What was BS to me you choose to see as a blessing. Very powerful stuff! Most of us are unaware that it is a choice since most of us (including myself) are on auto pilot 99.999% of the time. So when I say it is all BS, what I'm trying to convey is that it is interpretation and has no meaning in the world outside of our minds. I hope that makes sense.

Another clarification I want to try and make. When I say that the past isn't real, I'm not suggesting that things didn't happen. I'm not denying the past. The past happened. What I am suggesting is that all the past now is memories, echoes, pictures etc. all of which exist in the present. If the past were real, it would be here now. We would be running into ourselves and it would be a big mess. :-) If you really think that the past is real, show me the evidence. For example, if you showed me a picture taken from 1850 as proof that the past is real I would say that the picture exists in the present. The people in the picture don't exist, the buildings in the picture may exist in the present, but the picture isn't the buildings. The picture is an echo from the past which only exists in the present. Saying that the past isn't real doesn't mean that it didn't happen it just means that it isn't happening now. Does that make sense? It's just a different way to look at it and I would argue is a more empowering way as well. We create our reality (or more accurately said, our experience of reality) in our language (to some degree). The problem with thinking that the past is real is that many people go around a slave to their past. Thinking that the past is real MAKES it real in the present, which can keep people stuck in the same old patterns they have always been in. If we can shift our perspective and recognize that the present is the only reality it empowers us to become free of our past (if we choose to). In AA they talk about being sober one moment at a time. I didn't take a drink now, and now, and now and so on for as long as they live. That is the kind of thing I'm talking about and not denying that things didn't happen. I hope that makes sense.

Thanks, Lennie. I have your first post as Jaz-Hunter on Oct/17/98. Could it be as late as that that you posted your first time?

I remember it well because we had been out on a boat ride with a mutual acquaintance who had mentioned "jaz-hunter" that very same day!

Do I need to look further back for your first one?

Dave I first started posting as Jaz-Hunter,because i did not have my own address as yet,I think I first started viewing the forum in Dec. of 97 ,my first post was around the spring or maybe a little later in 98.

Pegasus......sorry to answer that particular question here, and I'll write more later.

Like right NOW, I must be about my Father's business.

Hope you all have a VERY blest day.

Namaste'

Terry, it's good to hear that you weren't being critical. Sometimes it sounds like you're expecting me to understand or realize something that I think I already do realize or understand.

I was mostly just checking things out with you before making too many of the wrong assumptions about what you meant. Sometimes you are a little cryptic about what you mean or feel. :-)

Thanks again Dave. Fantastic........and those sentiments (grateful finding you all) certainly haven't changed.

NOW, what number of post was it. Sorry.....should have asked sooner.

I hope you don't think I was being critical Dave.......to the contrary. Your expertise and knowledge of so much has always impressed me.

BTW Pegasus, hopefully I'll be able to respond this afternoon. Heck, I'll do it right now.

"Satori" is the initial awakening experience that is so profound, and discontinuous from our normal way of thinking, that in many cases it scares the hell out of people. I think it has a lot to do with how "old" we are as to it's affect.

That state of "consciousness" is always within us, but the magnitude (power(?)) of it less-ons as we again enter into the world of form/life.

Terry, does this sound familiar?

On Monday, August 19, 1996, plane@fn.net (Terry O) said:

What a bummer! I sent (ha) an earlier e-mail via this web site but I don't see it! I'm new to this, but glad I found it finally. Anyway, if I can reconstitute my previous message, it went something like this: Hey, lighten up everybody! From the writings of the Third Chinese Patriarch (Hsin Hsin Ming), " the Great Way (underlined) is not difficult for those who have no PREFERENCES" I would guess that this is sort of an "elongated" chat room, and I thank those who are discussing getting a regular "chat room" going. Apparently there are some cyber "guru's" avail-able here, and I would appreciate knowing how to "download" what- ever you guys decide to use. Obviously, we don't all have the same "server", so how do we get around that? Now, I hope this "shows up", as I will. Namaste'

Terry, you're right about Ravi. He and I have not been active here at the same times, in spite of the fact that I met him at the AUGUST shindig. He's an interesting man, and his wife is also a fun person. I meant no slight by leaving him out, but that list was just of people I have come to know by way of the forum.

I would like to include ALL who have contributed here, especially those active "these days" -- whatever that means.

Your ideas, Terry, are great to have since you've been one of the most regular members the forum has had. In fact, except for Carol, I can't think of anybody who has been around through thick and thin for as long as you two. I have come and gone several times. So have most of us.

YES!!!!!!!.......and thank you. I hope I can remember it too (the date).

BTW Dave, my memory(?) may be wrong, but I believe you left out Ravi in youR list of past posters.

I'll always remember him for his most profound statement of "BEWARE THE TYRANNY OF WORDS".

Terry! Thanks for your thoughts on this "questionnaire."

If my list is accurate -- and that's what I'm trying to verify -- your first post was on August 19, 1996, roughly six months after the forum's start date of Feb/27/96. Would you like me to repost your first one here?

It is a REAL "PRESENT" to be(?) with you all.

About when I first posted, I honestly haven't a clue, but I'd sure like to know, so I can bring it into my now.

Namaste'

I guess/think/? I'll spend my time(?) doing some-thing.

Having some fun with Descartes method again. I've summed it up (again) with "what is REAL about this/my existence".

You'd think(?) he'd read Nargajuna.

Repeat....... repeat....... repeat.

Dave........love it. (last post addressing me).

My most memorable time here is RIGHT NOW.

Believe it or not, people, I have spent the past week or better reviewing the archives here from the time I started posting regularly as "DaveR" (back on Feb/24/98 to be precise), something like 27,000 posts!

Blitzing through that many in that short a time may have caused me to miss some details that I was looking for, so I want to ask for your help.

--- When was the first time, day if possible, month if you know, or roughly what period if you can't narrow it down any better than that, when you first posted here?

--- How long had you been a "lurker" before your first post?

--- What has been your most favorite post or topic of discussion, either one you made yourself or one that you have read by someone else?

--- What period of the forum's history has been most memorable for you?

--- If you have any other points you'd like to make about the way the forum has proceeded in the about-to-be-five-years of its existence, please take the time to give your views.

I'd like to update the "Forum Archives Index" that Kitty has on her "Forum Friends" page, with any significant milestones we want to identify, and your input would be most helpful in determining those things.

with time on my hands and a wish to share some of a wonderful book i am reading i thought i would post the 5 meditation categories according to Buddhist lore. i'll post one at a time so that i won't take up so much space at once. i hope you enjoy reading it as much as i have. i'll start with the paragraph preceding the 5 categories:

According to Buddhist lore, there are five general categories of practice by which the relations and differences among orientations and mehods of meditation can be distinguished.

The first type is called the meditation of the ordinary mortal. The intention and purpose of this type of meditation is to enhance the ordinary perceptions and faculties of the individual. The desired result is greater efficacy and effciency in the ordinary activities of life, leading to a sense of confidence and well-being.

Minding Mind
Translated by
Thomas Cleary

good reading, Brad!

my room was NOT finished, yesterday. :( disappointment abounds. don't know when it will be, i'm sure there will be no work today.

no, Cathy, i did not feel you were offended and saying others might have been is just an assumption that i drew from some of the posts. i could be wrong about that. i'm mostly an airhead and make many misses in deciphering the meaning of these posts. at any rate, it was a joke and hopefully it will be accepted as one.

That's nice. I'm away for a few days and now i've got a hard drive full of posts to catch up on. This is like having a job.

I'll try to catch up.

Brad

Why semantics are relevant:

"The focus of general semantics is how people evaluate words and how that evaluation influences their behavior...General semantics has been used in efforts to make people aware of dangers inherent in treating words as more than symbols. It has been extremely popular with writers who use language to influence people's ideas. In their work, these writers use general-semantics guidelines for avoiding loose generalizations, rigid attitudes, inappropriate finality, and imprecision." (Bold type and italics added.)

-- Carol M. Eastman, Ph.D Professor of Anthropology and Adjunct Professor of Linguistics and Women Studies at the University of Washington

Cathy, I can't remember a time in my life when I wasn't interested in linguistics and semantics. I still have my first book about words -- circa 1949! It's a fifty year obsession. That's why it matters in this instance. (There is rarely a time when it doesn't matter to me. Spelling is an exception.) It also illustrated a point that I made within the last day or so about what I don't like.

But I do like your suggestion on how to make the quotation a little more accurate while still keeping the play on words.

Chris, I'm glad you don't want to argue. I wouldn't argue with you about your planetarium. :-)

Peggy more power to you! However you get "there" is OK by me. I'm not looking to convince you, or to argue with you. I'm just enjoying expressing myself. :-) I'm also not suggesting that you aren't free, unlimited etc. Of course you are and I am glad to read you expressing yourself too! (big grin)

Regarding the "present" quote, it is all part of the beauty of the English language in my opinion. Intended meanings can be subtle and obliquely achieved. Fantastic!

Dave--thanks! It's nice when people take the time to tell you when they think you're doing something right :-) You are always one to compliment people--a nice trait...I appreciated it...Cathy

Cathy -- Nicely said. I think this clarification effort has been good for both our points of view. Sometimes we can assume one idea is clearly stated and completely so, only to have much confusion and difference of opinion to spring from the words themselves. It's a theme that tends to recur all too often.

I see it as a very good thing. Questioning is perhaps one of the best -- not necessarily the best -- ways to remove doubts and difficulties between us here. The confrontational aspects of questioning have their own difficulties, too.

Cathy, for what it's worth to you, I sense your approach of stating your own position, perhaps restating it when issues of misunderstanding crop up, and sticking to the issues involved without "getting personal," can serve as a working model for some who may be having difficulty making their communication efforts work as they may have hoped.

Some of us manage to teach by example, and you're doing a great job with it. Just letting you know it's not going unnoticed.

Carol--I don't know if you thought I was offended by your kidding about the rubber room? You mentioned I helped you see some were offended...? Anyway, I was not, by any means, rest assured :-) I mentioned the questioning to point out that it wasn't my singular perspective that noticed only a few had been mentioned--and I doubt those who asked really cared--just kidding, like you :-) I am in agreement with what you and others have said about not going off by one's self when enlightened. I think there was a discussion of this awhile back. Polly Berends calls going out into the world living prayer (i think!) and says that to do contemplative prayer only is like only thinking about exercise and activity, and can lead to being a fat-head as the latter can lead to having a fat body ;-)

Chris-Glad you took my post as intended. Nice when that happens :-)

Peggy, I have to say that I thought the gift/present quote was nice as well. Perhaps if it had said "the now is a gift and so we do well to see it as a present" vs "that's why it's called the present"?? But, like Chris, I simply see it as a nice play on words, something to remind us that our nows are presents/gifts...I appreciate your devotion to clarity of thought and speech, however :-) Though not sure why this even matters in this specific instance? Seems more worthwhile to pursue in "big" ideas.

Dave--I see what you're saying--and I think you are right that probably all of us here are not like yogis who can transcend the everyday stuff :-) But who knows? :-) And perhaps some have gotten to a point where nothing seems "mundane"? Though I think that wasn't your point? I didn't read all the "mental construct" discussion too carefully--too heady for me at the time (I have to be in the mood for certain kinds of thinking ;-))I do suspect that some people here enjoy high levels of sustained joy and understanding--I don't know if that means they use less gas for their cars etc...like in Illusions...if that's what you're talking about? I think at some point it's a matter of choice, however--I'm imagining Jesus, driving a car ;-) I bet he'd just get gas like the rest of us, though he could manifest some if needed...the point of being able to transcend things isn't to do so all the time, but to encourage others to reach the level of understanding which would allow that...this level of understanding has more to do with Love than with not having to scrape the ice from your windshield ;-) All my speculations, of course. Btw, the yogi's I've read about were not all recluses--maybe they weren't all actual yogi's? I do think that there is some value in people who are recluses who simply pray for the world--but not for the majority :-)

Happy belated birthday Richard!! I have no doubt you enjoyed it :-) Good for you!

Good night!

Cathy

hey, Richard! what did you do today?

That's one of my favorites, Kate!

Does anybody remember the whole setup for these:

The Bee Wares of the Isdom Arch Seizer.

Yeast is yeast, and jest is jest, but never the Main shall tweet.

Oppor Nockity Tunes But Once.

Do any of you have a link to a good website devoted to dreadful puns?

There was a king on a tropic island who ordered a very special bejewelled throne and had it moved into his grass-covered hut so he could reign in splendor. Somehow, the throne didn't please him, though, so he ordered another. This one was even larger and more ornate, but it didn't please him either. So he ordered a third, then a fourth and fifth in his search for the perfect throne from which to rule. About the time the sixth or seventh throne was delivered, a violent tropical storm hit the island and the entire hut and all the thrones collapsed on the poor man.

Moral: People who live in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones.

Wow! Peggy! i'm glad you posted that comment. i was totally confused by the interchange. i thought that i had pissed Lennie off and was bewildered that my post had upset her. as for the airy fairy label it's not that i refuse to be hurt by it, its that i don't see it as a negative label and that was what i was trying to explain in my post. that even tho you mentioned that you hate it and that Lennie feels that she can't respect an airy fairy person, i feel that i am an airy fairy person to some degree (sometimes a lot) and don't mind the label at all. but since you both seemed to see it as a negative label then it surely must be because my definition of the word must be different from the way you and she was defining it.

Carol, I'm glad that you were not offended by the use of "airy-fairy." And I'm also glad that Lennie was kind enough to apologize just in case she had said something that was hurtful. I understand your refusal to let such a label hurt you. I also understand why Lennie thought that she had pissed you off.

Peace to all!

Chris said: "I like the saying about the present being both a gift and now." I said that I thought the idea was lovely myself. "It is a clever play on words and certainly isn't meant to be analyzed for it's linguistic coherence to strict rules and literal interpretation of words."

The very claim that the statement makes is in error. Poetry is about truth -- not about twisting falsehoods to make them palatable. But this isn't poetry anyway.

I can understand your reluctance to analyze something linguistically but on what basis do you determine what was and wasn't meant to be analyzed by linguists? Aren't you interested in more than just pretty words? What is so unreasonable about desiring coherence in our thoughts and quotes?

I would make a little more room perhaps if this really were poetry. But I hate seeing a beautiful idea cluttered with untruths in order to make it catchy.

Chris said:

"If (now this is a very BIG if) it is all illusion, and the our present is the only reality, then we are free."

Chris, I am free anyway.

"We don't have a past (at least one with any teeth) to limit who we are."

I don't have to be free of my past to be unlimited.

"We can be anything and do anything."

I am and do what I choose.

We can invent a future for ourselves that is empowering, enriching and loving. We land at a source of personal power to transform our lives and the lives of those we interact with.

I did and will and do -- all without the need to deny a past or to think that this is all an illusion or bullshit.

Cathy -- just a few follow-up ideas to go along with some of your points you made in your responses to my words earlier.

Not having known personally any of the yogis you mentioned, nor any others whose ability to live "immune to physical law" is visible to me, I was directing my comments about the ability of people here at this forum to carry on the types of lives that people here at this forum have described as their own without at least some dependence on the "mental constructs" that Chris has alluded to.

There may be some who would like to become yogis, to spend a long period in a retreat from the everyday reality, to escape. They may even achieve some of that detachment from "reality" in meditation, on vacation, just sitting quietly doing nothing, or things like that. But my observations and deductions of what people here do for a significant portion of their lives are that they are not drastically different in that respect from me. I'm prepared to accept that some have a much greater amount of their time devoted to those pursuits, but I cannot buy that they are removed altogether from having to cope with the mundane. That was the main point I was trying to make.

Perhaps the emphasis on the "ward of the state" aspect was too heavy. But I would really like to hear from someone who posts here on a regular basis just how they manage to avoid those "mental constructs" altogether. That's a genuine curiosity on my part.

My perception is that there is a tendency to belittle that aspect of reality where people spend most of their time, and to rely on the wonders of the escape period as if they are all that is truly real. That just strikes me as making the point too strongly.

Thanks all for the B-day wishs.

Love Richard

How to Know Jeff Probst

Having already tackled the subject of “Knowing God,” poet-prophet Deepak Chopra turns his learned eye to another omnipotent, divine being: Survivor host Jeff Probst. Chopra teaches us how the human brain is “hardwired” to truly know Probst and how, in our eternal quest for spiritual enlightenment, we are drawn towards Probst and all that His blow-dried goodness represents. Also available in Dr. Chopra’s Survivor series: How to Know Colleen (In the Biblical Sense).

Hey, who posted those limits? Take 'em down right now, dammit! :-)

hi Chris, me again. :) i have heard it said here, many times, that it's all BS. i prefer to say it is ALL a blessing, even if it is illusion? how does that sound? some say damned if you do and damned if you don't. i prefer blessed if you do and blessed if you don't. it is all a matter of changing a few words around, for me. of course, what may work for me may not work for someone else.

ok, Peggy, change the word dismiss to doubt. good enough for me. and thanks for info about e-bay. i will e-mail a list to you when i get it ready, too. mostly it is pictures, books, easy chairs, etc. nice stuff but i no longer have the space for it all.

Peggy the short answer to your question about who is having the illusion is I don't know. It's all BS if you ask me. Both the idea that it is all just an illusion and the idea that these are real concrete things and discrete events taking place in life. It doesn't really matter when you get right down to it. Either way we are living our lives, doing what we do. If (now this is a very BIG if) it is all illusion, and the our present is the only reality, then we are free. We don't have a past (at least one with any teeth) to limit who we are. We can be anything and do anything. We can invent a future for ourselves that is empowering, enriching and loving. We land at a source of personal power to transform our lives and the lives of those we interact with. It is an operational paradigm that isn't concerned so much with true or false as in transformation and bliss.

I like the saying about the present being both a gift and now. It is a clever play on words and certainly isn't meant to be analyzed for it's linguistic coherence to strict rules and literal interpretation of words. It's like 90% of poetry, it's not meant to be substantiated but enjoyed. It is a play on words to express an appreciation and a being present (sorry :-)) to the eternal now.

Carol, in my own thinking skeptics are not dismissive. They just doubt or withhold judgment.. I've had entirely too much experience in buy at e-Bay and have broken the habit. Most of my experiences there have been positive. I always paid close attention to the feedback that is available for each buyer and seller.

I agree with Tom that Paypal is an excellent way, especially for the seller, for not getting ripped off.

I have read that selling can be as addictive as buying though!

Which reminds me...uh, want to describe what you are selling? (You never know!) ;-)

Lennie, i clearly said the label DIDN'T offend me, dearOne. i'm not sure if you were the first but i'll take your word for it. i didn't mean for my post to you to look like useless verbage or battle, either? why does it? anymore so than any other post here? just curious? i hope you have a lovely day, too.

Chris, when you or I go to a movie, we participate in the willing suspension of disbelief. I think that is a little different from the "life is but a dream" point of view.

I still would appreciate an answer, if you care to share it, about your own beliefs concerning who is having the illusion.

HI CAROL,I dont ever remember calling you personally, airy fairy,and I didn't say I coined the phrase, I just know I think I am the only one to ever use it at the forum ,I dont have any oppinions about your beliefs as being any thing particular,

I do think Peggy described the term, the way I use it pretty good. I apologize if the term has ever offended you.I dont come here to offend anyone or do battle,I have my own sense of humor and reasoning about my beliefs as do others here. That is why I come here for the diversity.

I see the term useless verbage right up there with airy fairy.So love to you too Carol and have a wonderful day!

Paraphrased Quote, the fact that "present" meaning gift and "present" meaning now are spelled the same way and pronounced the same way doesn't mean that there meanings are interrelated. They are two separate words and are called homonyms.

The thought of the now being a gift is lovely and I don't disagree with it. But saying that "that's why they call it the present" is erroneous. It's just a fluke of the English language and perhaps other romance languages.

That is an example of the catchy sayings that are so easy to repeat but that are without substantiation --the ones that make me cringe, i.e., airy-fairy thinking.

If the premise were true, then it would be true in all languages, wouldn't it?

Peggy nicely said. I guess what I was trying to say was that from within the context of the "mundane" level the "unity experience" level can't be reconciled. Accepting that there are different levels changes the context. I agree with you completely. I also agree 100% that it would be a travesty to waste this life (illusion or no illusion). People that have had near death experiences often report how utterly blissful they where. Tough they often no longer fear death, they usually start really living their lives here. Awareness of this "higher" level doesn't imply that this level is a waste. On the contrary, I believe it helps one fully live and express and be joyful in this story. Why would it make any difference if this was a personal illusion. Why not make it the best illusion possible? I prefer to go to movies that really touch and inspire me. Just because a movie isn't real, doesn't mean that I'm satisfied sitting through a bad one. :-)

Dave Ah! Now I am getting somewhere in understanding your objection to removing time from the TOE. In no way does this imply that we would have to remove the idea of time from _ALL_ of our observations. Just like how Engineers still use Newton's laws when building a bridge and not Einstein's laws, the notion of time still has it's place in science. It's just that when talking about a Theory Of Everything the notion is dropped (assuming they can actually make all the math work out in the theory). Of course it has profound implications as to the true nature of reality, it still must take into account our PRECEPTION of time since that is certainly an observation too. I don't think these physist's are suggesting that once they work out all the details (assuming they can) that time will come to a screeching halt.

Chris, you said:

"Even if we have a brief experience like Peggys where "we" perceive things quite differently for a moment doesn't really change the way we continue to perceive them in our day to day lives. Peggy's post is a perfect example of this I think. How can she reconcile her unity experience with every other experience she has ever had? The answer is simple, you can't.

It is the part in bold type that I disagree with. These realities are reconciled easily in my mind because I accept more than one level of reality. I'm posting on one level and aware that we all also exist in another level. (I will have to admit that the "unity" level seemed much more real to me at the time and didn't have the quality of dreaminess that my regular level has.

But I believe that my day-to-day awareness is mostly located on a mundane level of reality for a good reason. That's why I take it seriously. And to me it would be a travesty and a waste not to live out this level fully. And this is where most of the books are written and the gurus teach. :-)

This is not meant as a personal criticism, Chris. But I can't think of anything more egocentric than believing that everything is a figment of your imagination -- your own personal illusion.

Or am I misstating your thinking? Do you believe that I am an illusion that you are having and that you are an illusion that I am having? Can illusions have illusions?

Cathy thanks for catching me on my own inadvertent way of separating people. I didn't even see that and it is nice to be shown the inconsistency in my thinking. The rubber room thing was and is a joke and isn't meant to exclude or include anyone for any particular reason. I picked Bob, Hadi and Geoff because they where the first ones to pop into my head that appear to me to be as, or perhaps more "crazy" than I am. I didn't think to spend the time going through everyone that posts here to make up a complete list. The separation I implied isn't consistent with the way I feel anyway so it really is a mute point. I really like Carol's idea that everyone is (though some more fully than others) enlightened. Everyone is just perfect exactly the way they are at this moment. How could it be otherwise? "Enlightenment" is just another state of the same perfection. I like that because it makes it OK to be exactly who I am even though I don't have a clue… :-)

Cathy -- I like what you had in response to some of the issues I mentioned. Thanks.

Chris -- The thing with epicycles is definitely a good example to steer clear of in the effort to keep the notion of time in those equations. I would hope the theorists wouldn't keep time in if it had to be removed. But the notion that our views of the universe would have to remove Time from all our observations just strikes me as extreme.

The views of the earth-centered universe being shifted to a sun-centered solar system didn't remove the notion altogether that there was some rotation/revolution going on, but that a shift of focus was needed. By the same token, unless we have some way of restating what we have come to think of (and rely on) as "Time" we will need some heavy-duty restating of all the laws and formulas where Time has been a component.

I'm prepared to admit that we may need a major paradigm shift. It would seem in order for that to happen. I just can't buy that Time, as a concept, is totally false. We need it too much just to deny its existence.

Dave good questions. I don't know enough about what scientists have been working on to create a Theory Of Everything to really answer it. In general the trend in science is to avoid adding things to a theory in order to explain anomalies unless doing so is still the simplest way to explain phenomenon. A classic example was how astronomers before Copernicus created the "epicycle" to explain the motion of the planets in the sky. In an Earth centered universe the only way to explain how the planets could appear to stop and then backup (retrograde motion) in the sky was if they went around in little sub-circles within their circular orbit of the Earth. More careful observation required epicycles within epicycles to explain their motions. After Copernicus put the Sun in the center instead of the Earth the need for epicycles disappeared and all the planets motion could be accounted for with a much simpler model. I'm sure it was really hard for people to give up the cherished and perfectly obvious idea that the Earth was in the center of the universe. People where killed over this idea. Of course down the road Kepler had to come along and add that the planets move in elliptical orbits and not circular ones to really match the observations, so the model did get a bit more complex that Copernicus. But Kepler's laws where the simplest that still explained the observed motion.

From my understanding of the problem with uniting general relativity and quantum mechanics time is a big bug-a-boo. I don't know if adding a mystery X phenomenon (kind of like the epicycle) could make the math work out. If the math can work out by removing time, then as counter intuitive as it may be (kind of like letting go of the idea the Earth is in the center of the universe), if it accurately describes what we observe and can predict quantum and relativistic phenomenon then it must be accepted until a better theory (either more simple or more accurate) comes along.

The link about time that Dick posted was great and goes along with the Discover article quite nicely.

hey, Kate, i am so excited about the room thingie being finished today (well, the room is but the bath and other work goes on) that i am having trouble staying on my seat. is that levitation, heh?

anyway, one other thing about that levitation thingie is, i wonder if anyone would consider Jesus walking on water as a documentation of levitation? just curious as to what info that consideration would bring out?

thanks, Tom, for the e-bay and other info you have posted, this am. i will cut & paste it, too, :) for future reference.

Chris & Cathy, if you see EveryOne (just some more fully than others)as enlightened that separation thingie ends quickly. as for the rubber room thing, just in case you don't know it, i was kidding. i like the way Dave says that one can be enlightened and not want to run away to a rubber room. actually, Deepak says that it is one of the attractive things to many that are seekers (solitude/Himalayas, etc) but we should resist it. therefore, rubber rooms are better if avoided and staying in the main stream, highly recommended by most fully enlightened beings.

thanks, Cathy, i am "seeing" now that some were offended by the kidding, i apologize if i am guilty of being insensitive to that and appreciate that you helped me to "see" it.

hi again, Cathy, there is a lot of cutting and pasting going on this last couple of days, great posts, your last one not being the least of them.

Chris--you said "I've struggled with the word enlightenment for some time. I see it as a way to separate people instead of describe a state of being (or is it becoming?). I guess that's just my past talking. I can let that go and just accept that some people are enlightened and some people aren't, but both are perfectly OK." I agree with you on the separatism thing, though I think that levels of achievement are somewhat inherent to this realm of duality, and don't have to be a divisive thing tho they often are...but also wanted to mention that your suggestion of a rubber room and specific people who could occupy it was akin to saying that only a select few had the qualifications--which is very similar to separating us into enlightened and unenlightened participants :-) However, you also said that regardless of our "status" you see that we are all perfectly "ok"--so I know you had no judgments...but better yet to not even suggest that we go to separate rooms? Just a thought :-) I also noticed that several people asked--albeit kiddingly--why they weren't included...

Dave--you talked about people having to live in a world much like your own whatever their level of enlightenment...(I tried to cut and paste, but somehow I then lost my post to Chris?) I know what you're saying, but I think that it's not necessarily true :-) I mean, look at the yogis who do bizarre things like being buried for 40 days and coming out of it fit as a fiddle (vs dead, like I would be ;-)) I grant you that there is a minimum required amount of involvement in "daily" affairs that anyone who inhabits the earth must do--like breathe, eat and drink, and have their bodies process all this--but even these basic things can be done in a manner completely different than how I do it, and by which, as I am, I could not do (like the yogi mentioned above). And I also think there can be a world of difference in the internal goings on of people doing the same thing. You could have two people with completely similar externals but with divergent internal processing or understanding of those externals...know what I mean? So the worlds they inhabit may look the same, but are not. I know that even mystics die and get disease--but, taken into consideration with the yogis I mentioned, I think that they could probably heal themselves, but they are not that concerned with dying and are not compelled to do so--akin to the discussion awhile back about miracles etc..and how they are not the essence or the point of getting "IT"...once we get to a point that we can be immune to physical law, we probably also understand that it's not so important to be so. Anyway, I'm not trying to be argumentative--just suggesting that appearances (that is whether or not someone lives in accord with the rules of materialism that I still operate by) can be decieving, and not necessarily an indicator of what is within or what they might be capable of. Somewhere--perhaps on this list? I read a neat quote to the effect that the everday man looks to miraculous events as evidence of the spiritual but the spiritual man looks to everyday events as evidence of the miraculous--I'm messing it up, but I think the gist of it is still there...

You know, it occurs to me that I'm in a similar situation to where I was in college. In those days I was searching all the major philosophical thoughts for a religion to which I could fully commit--which is when I decided that there wasn't one. :-) But even in getting a inkling of the truths that are common to the various traditions, the perrenial philosophy as it were, it still seems there are paths to choose from and that need commitment to be fully traveled. Damn! ;-) I had sorta hoped that figuring out or understanding that there was something beyond the traditional religious view, some of which I think I know, and some of which I think is too big to know, was gonna be enough. Reading the differnt wisdom you all present here reminds me that the world beyond religion still has many different approaches and I would best be served to figure out what works for me--I guess I would like to come to a place in which I feel like I "know" enough and then live my life in that knowledge. I recognize that Life is process and that maybe I shouldn't concern myself with some arbitrary end point...but I think of people like Buddha and Jesus and that's what I mean. I kinda see them--their level of consciousness as an end point--at least for consciousness on earth ;-) Oh well, plenty to keep me seeking! :-)

Blessings! Cathy

Carol: Click here for an article on the dangers of fraud on eBay. It's from the 11/27/00 issue of Forbes ASAP.

I've bought several items through eBay and never had any problems until my most recent purchase. A Win modem that quit working after three days. The seller told me to "contact a technician" when I told him it broke. Well I was modem ignorant when I made the bid, thought they had really come down in price (got it for under $20). Reading on the Web later, I learned that Win modems are mostly junk and they are cheap because they use software to do the job the missing chips are suppose to do, thus loading down your CPU. I got several components for a new computer I just built off of eBay and this was the only one I'm not happy with. For now I'll stick with the 28.8 modem until I can afford another good one.

As for seller advice, I can't give much. But you might look into signing up with paypal.com. This service allows you to accept credit cards. The money gets put into your account by the buyer, so the waiting time for a check to clear is bypassed. I think the service is great, payments can also be made through a savings or checking account. For sellers, as long as you stay under a certain dollar amount per year in your transactions,there is no charge for the service. After that, there is a small fee charged. As for the escrow services, I know that they charge a percentage of the sale price. According to the article mentioned above, because of that, many sellers don't like to use them. But if I were to purchase a high dollar item, I would insist of using one.

All of my eBay transactions have been under $100 and I've felt pretty secure about most of them. Even with the modem burn, I would buy again there in the future. I know there are others here that have sold on eBay, so maybe they can volunteer more info.

Chris -- if you are still around today (or later -- somewhere out in my future) I was wondering if the idea of removing time from the equations might just as easily be offset by adding some variables that had not been in those equations before to explain the universe in the Theory of Everything. My understanding of Occam's Razor is just that theories oughtn't include unnecessary variables. That doesn't imply that everything has to be as simple as E=mc2 or F=ma, does it?

What I'm thinking is that instead of removing "time" it may work out that adding something like a new dimension of "whatever" might make the theory work just as convincingly. I guess my question, Chris, is: have you run across other attempts at the TOE that do include additional variables? I have lagged some in my readings of these issues, and probably need some refreshers on it all.

Dick, if you know of some links on this issue (and related ones), I'd like that help, too.

For my own tastes, we have just begun to probe the oddities of Time. More would be great!

~~~~~~~~head spinning, again!~~~~~~~~

scientist speak about looking back into the past, like it can be seen, even millions of years ago. i wonder if that is true of the future, too? like it is all here, now. all laid out and all we are doing is repeating it over and over again? it is just where we happen to be in the expansion called time? that decides our levels? hmmm? can't even write what i am trying to say, heh!

The past is behind us, the future is yet to arrive. But the now is a gift, that's why they call it the "present."

Birthday Greetings to a fellow Sagittarian!

Happy Birthday, Richard!

Terry, why are you so sure "IT" hasn't "clicked" for me yet? Are there some magic words I have to use to convince you? Do I have to say that it came to me in some meditation session? What specifics do I have to bring forward to convince you that a person can have some level of understanding of these issues and not want to go running off to a rubber room for it?

It's as if every time you address me it's to urge me to "get" something that you appear to be the only one to understand. Does it give some sense of power to hold the secrets? Do you enjoy making others seek what you have found? There are so many things we seem to share, Terry, that I would think you could see past the stereotypes: not everybody who thinks is disqualified from having some spiritual needs and questions.

oh good! thanks for the tips on e-bay, Chris!

Happy Birthday Richard!!!!!!

I really like to hear those that have the word power to express in form their journey's. What a fantastic gift.

My "NOW" was bringing that quote of Dave's forward to NOW. I see there's been more discussion and it's great.

Richard.......I second the Birthday greetings......MAKE HAPPY! (pun intended)

I'm also so very grateful for all the "Rising Suns (and moons)".

If it wasn't the Tao, it wouldn't be laughable.

Good for you, Carol! Happy moving!

Richard, I found TIMELINE fast entertainment. Kept having the feeling Crichton was writing for a movie starring Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor, and Natalie Portman.

to I haven't "seen" you in a while. You not only qualify you're the chief resident!

"So the term is an insult only if you mind what other people think of what you believe." Isn't that the truth! I thought the term "airy-fairy" was funny not that it was an insult, otherwise I wouldn't have used it in my post to Dave. It is kind of like "bliss-ninny" for me. I wouldn't be insulted if either one was used by someone to describe me. :-) My buttons don't push that easy (at least right now).

Happy Birthday Richard!!!
I'm glad my rubber room has an open door too. I'd not be too happy to be trapped in a state of "non-mental-constructs" forever, but it is nice to take a vacation from your "mind" once in a while. :-) I'm glad this is now too Richard. My then, though certainly not as traumatic as yours by the sounds of it, wasn't as fun and free. My now is becoming free from the past, since I'm coming to realize that the past doesn't really exist. The past is just memories (that exist in the present) that are actually placed into my potential future. Many of these memories I quite like and am happy that they are there. Some of them however where limiting me from the full potential of my future, so I'm learning to take them out of my future and put them into the past where they belong (neither of which really exist anyway). This is done by becoming complete with the memories, forgiving myself and anyone else involved and realizing that life is just a game, it is meant to be fun and I don't have to take it so seriously.

Carol I like that definition of enlightenment. I've struggled with the word enlightenment for some time. I see it as a way to separate people instead of describe a state of being (or is it becoming?). I guess that's just my past talking. I can let that go and just accept that some people are enlightened and some people aren't, but both are perfectly OK. I bought a camera on e-bay. I wouldn't do it the same way again since I got burned. It could have been worse, but the camera was not even close to the condition the guy selling it said. The check had already cleared and so I didn't have any recourse but to hurt the guys rating. Luckily the camera works fine, it's just not in the condition I was expecting. It could have been a lot worse. I shy away from ebay now. If there is a awesome bargain on something I really want (like telescope toys) I will go through an e-escrow company instead of just sending the guy a check.

Namaste'

Laughing my ass off Dave!!!!!!!!

Quote:
" That may have even been in the archives I've been re-reading lately. It hardly matters who said it, but the idea I'd like to restate before we go off on the tangent of who all is eligible for the rubber room, is that if you can demonstate that you have no "mental constructs" guiding your day-to-day existence then you either are already in that rubber room -- or need to be."

I'm really hurt Chris. I was SURE I qualified. Ahhhhhhhhhh Sooooooooooooooo!

Just catching up.

BTW Dave, your so damn astute at HOW THINGS ARE, I'm surprised "IT" hasn't clicked yet.

Future moving into the past, RIGHT NOW.

Love ya

haere??

was hanging round a bit to see if anyone was haere? my room is coming along and i might be able to move my stuff out of the living room today!!!!! yeaaaaaa!!!! i'm very excited about the prospect of being able to get to my stuff, again. some of it i intend to give away and some of it i might try to sell on e-bay. anyone have any tips on how that site works? anyone sold or bought anything from them?

his definition for enlightenment is beautiful & simple, imo. wonder why we feel it is so hard to achieve? i remember reading Pantajali's Yoga Sutras and how he explained the mind as a body of water and the sandy surface underneath. while it is easy to calm the surface it is harder to redirect those ridges underneath, that form from the disturbance of the rippling surface waters.

i especially enjoyed reading Deepak's interview with the author of The Celestial Gallery, this am. he is an ordained Buddhist Monk. here is one of the questions he was asked, and his answer:

What is Enlightenment for you?

Romio Shrestha: Pure mind, pure speech, and pure heart.

hi Dave! yup, got that old site closed down warning, this am. :( whenever it happens i go to Deepak's other sites and find the most Onederful words, that way i'm not too disappointed, whenever it happens.

hi Peggy & Lennie, well, label me airy fairy if you wish, i don't mind. i can be, as you know.

what i meant by saying HH can be labeled as such, is his words are all the things that the sceptics seem to dismiss, here. he speaks of unconditional love and expresses himself by smiling, laughing, even giggling, when he is speaking of the most serious topics. he doesn't keep up on current events, he just IS!

anyway, i see we have a difference of definition here and it is ok by me, i still love you both. ut oh! being airy fairy again, heh! ;)

The author of Celestial Gallery, Romio Shrestha says:

All you need is love, unconditional love. All the faiths teach that. Love is free. It's abundant. The more love you give, the more you have. Once we learn to love unconditionally, every doorway to the human heart is opened.

Looked for a while there that the forum was on retreat again. Remember the time it was away (some thought for good) for a few weeks? Withdrawal from this place can be quite intense.

I don't know who originated the term "airy-fairy" but in Austrailian slang it means insubstantial or hare-brained. Lennie was the first that I noticed using it here. I was told by a little bird in Nashville that it is one of her favorite phrases and has been for a while.:-) I know that it certainly "clicked" with me!

For me "airy-fairy" has come to mean anything that the latest New Age exploiter has developed into a philosophy that is shallow, easy to repeat and uncorroborated. In other words, philosophical or pseudo-scientific bubblegum.

I think that each of us would probably have different ideas of what is actually unsubstantiated. I found "Heaven's Gate" to be airy-fairy, for example. But some of the people who believed in it were intelligent and pleasant people. I have no doubt that they were sincere.

I think that it would take a really cold-blooded person to think of the Dalai Lama as airy-fairy. But that's just my opinion. I've never seen a word of disrespect for him here yet.

I don't equate airy-fairy with mystical, metaphysical or spiritual. And my perception may change at any moment. Twenty years ago, I would have thought of "the Unity experience" as airy-fairy.

So the term is an insult only if you mind what other people think of what you believe.

Hi gang,

"Time", what an appropriate subject. Today is my birthday (or not?). And it appears that I have not been shamelessly lying about my age, but gradually deleting it. On "Quantum Mechanics" I've been following the writings (S.F.) of Stephan Baxter, he's a Cambridge trained mathematician and doctorate in aeroengineering. Great story teller, with Quantum Mechanic/Hard scifi. "Ring", takes you to the heat death of the universe and beyond. "Time Ships", to the Big Bang and before. He has also co-authored with Arthur C. Clarke. I just bought "Manifold Time", should be a fun read. Kate! I am reading "Timeline", right now...I am at the point when "Kate" collapses the chapel ceiling.

FYI, I will be happy to just be known as Richard.

"Our limited perspective, our hopes and fears become our measure of life, and when circumstances don't fit our ideas, they become our difficulties"--Benjamin Franklin. Short form=="Expectations are premeditated resentments".

"Airy Fairy", I just started hearing that recently, in the community...I like the old long form ---"Cosmic Astral Weirdo". No telling for some peoples taste.

As for this "Rubber Room" business. The company mentioned, is certainly more pleasant (safer)than the folks I was therapeutically detained with (mass murderers, patricide, cop killers, and stuff best left unsaid). Now when I am locked in. I have the keys and get a nice paycheck for it. I always chose solitary "the quiet room", so I didn't have to sleep with one eye open. Glad that was then and this is now.

Namaste' Merriment and Mirth to everyone.

haha! Cathy, makes my head spin, too! i agree it has been a great discussion, tho.

Couldn't find the book you mentioned, Bob on Amazon--was looking for an editorial...I looked under Itzack Bentov, but the title you mentioned wasn't there--any ideas? The Barbour book looks very good! One day...

Cathy

Enjoying the time discussion! Have nothing to add, but it's fun thinking about it :-) Makes my head spin ;-) Dick--I enjoyed the link to the Barbour interview--sounds like a good read.

Enjoy the evening--or each new now or whatever! Cathy

hi Lennie, :) do you think you are the first to ever have used that label on another person? i give you the credit if you wish to have it but i feel it has been used by many others before you, right? i won't question your statement about HH but i would like to know if you have seen him speak recently? i have observed him and know others that have seen him in person and his airy fairy ways are quite enchanting, imo. of course, this is just my point of view. i certainly do not mean to sway you or any one else in seeing him in this light. another point might be my definition of airy fairy as opposed to yours. somehow i feel you might mean it as a put down, a person not deserving your respect, while i see it as a compliment, in his case. there are others i might describe as airy fairy, too, and always feel like smiling in their presense. i do remember now, someone labeling me that way, too, here. was it you? i wasn't offended then, either. so i'm sure our difference might be just in definition.

Trying to order Deepok Chopra's 2000 calendar(tear off page per day) Anyone have a phone number?

Does Time Exist? Interview with Julian Barbour

Thanks for the link, Dick! I went looking again after posting that I had tried before with no luck, and did find a few (including the one you found) but they were either way too complex and chock full of all sorts of formulas and symbols that I couldn't relate to, or just bare bones definitions.

No matter. Just the idea that there might be particles of time is amusing to me. Just like the concept of a "cubic light year" to express a great big chunk of space.

Have you ever run across those crazy units of measure that put stuff into way too hard to relate to terms? Things like furlongs per fortnight, or teaspoons per century, or even the ones like "millihelens" which are the amount of beauty necessary to launch one ship.

Is there such a particle as the Chronon?

Carol I think I used the phrase airy fairy ,but I can assure you I see none of these traits in the Dali Lama.I have much respect for him,and others like him.

Chris, or anybody, have you heard of the concept of "chronons"?

The only real exposure I have had (and I have tried to locate web references only to draw blanks) to the idea was by way of the Dudley Moore NOVA show that I mentioned a few posts back.

The controversial idea was/is that time is "particulate" and comes in much the same form as "quanta" of energy. As I recall (it has been 20 years) the derivation of the idea came from extending the quanta of light and energy down to its lowest point of resolution, in much the same way that the Planck constant (or Planck length) is the ultimate lowest resolution matter can take. Sort of the lowest level of material existence.

If there's anything to the idea, and I gather there must not be or we would have heard much more about it by now, time comes in spurts (little bitty ones, but spurts all the same). I'm just curious if anyone else has any details on this weird idea.

The Biography channel had a thing on the Wright Brothers last night. We visited their museum at Kitty Hawk (Kill Devil Hills, actually) this past September when we were on the Outer Banks. There's a photo there of the first flight. It is a frozen moment whenever you look at it. It's a record of the moment when the past (the time before man could fly in a controlled aircraft) moved into the past (after man had successfully flown a controlled aircraft). The picture is a frozen NOW for all to see and get goose bumps over. All photographs are that way. The past that they show has tangibility. We can see it. Same goes for tapes, CD's, records, movies, newspapers, books, the list could take up a while screen and then some.

To deny the existence of the past is to deny your own existence, as I see it.

There was a chilling show on NOVA (great series) about a case of a man who had lost all his memory due to some simple ailment like a cold. No real explanations were available as to why he was so affected by such a simple thing. He kept saying over and over "Now, for the first time, I am totally aware!" and writing the same sort of thing in a notebook that had page after page of that same set of words.

However! He was able to perform complicated musical feats: long piano pieces, choral arrangements (he had been a choir director), and other such things. The conclusion the show asked the viewer to accept was that memory is a strange critter. We have many types of memories of different types of experiences, and they are stored in various places in our brains (the portion of "The Holographic Universe" that I have read so far suggests they're all over our brains). But they are not one and the same thing for all things we do remember.

Sure, they're subject to distortion over time, they fade, they get mixed with other memories from other points in time, so they aren't trustworthy as accurate measures of the past in many cases. But to deny their existence is to miss out on one of the treasures of life, as I see it.

As a fun discussion, considering how things might be if time wasn't something we all relate to in one way or another, and even how we might consider a timeless universe, these last few posts (they are in the past) serve their purpose. But as a statement of reality (as I relate to it) they're just a bunch of words. Time is as real as light and sound and The Deepak Chopra Forum.

What about echoes, Chris? Past, present, future?

Good stuff Kate! Maybe every moment that ever was and will be all exist "someplace". Maybe its like a movie. Each moment is like a frame on the movie and our awareness of the present is simply limited to one frame at a time. I like that. The future just isn't what it used to be.

Eureka! (almost). The paradox is that the moment you hit a key to make a letter all the previous letters are now in the present along with the new one, there really isn't a past for them to exist. They exist only in the present. All I see is the present. Nothing else exists without projecting ghosts of past and future which both have every defining characteristic of non-existence I can think of. :-) (isn't this fun?!)

Read Michael Crichton's latest, novel, TIMELINE. The past may be real. It's to be considered if you keep an open mind!

And since it was real--as the NOW of then--it must be considered in the NOW-now so that the NOW-future is better than the NOW-now in which we see problems and find so few solutions.

Thanks, Chris, for what sounds a little like an endorsement of that view. I'll leave you and others to label it as you choose.

I disagree on the lack of reality to the past. I do so for one very simple reason. As I write this post, every letter that goes up is an "in the present" action. The idea that I am expressing started in the past (way back yonder where I said "Thanks, Chris, for what sounds...") and is continuing into my future until I get it all written and then hit "post" by which time it will have moved into all our pasts. It is a real thing. I am typing it in that moment I call NOW and you are reading in what you call NOW, but it is a real past thing for both of us by the time you get to here.

it's for sure, that whoever coined the airy fairy label, hasn't observed the Dalai Lama.

If any of you happen to see a videotape version of this NOVA presentation, or a rebroadcast, please watch it and please let me know where you run across it. It is the most graphic discussion of these issues I have ever seen.

It's About Time

Time--a concept which has baffled scientists and philosophers since time immemorial. Actor Dudley Moore hosts a funny, sobering and visually stunning quest for answers to riddles, as NOVA spends an hour on time.

Original broadcast date: 12/30/80

Topic: physics

Dave I like what you said. That's about the best "airy-fairy" stuff I think I've read from you. (big grin) The present is the only place we can operate. I agree. I also believe that the present is the only thing that is real. The past just isn't real. Even our memories of the past are phenomenon that exist in the present. Our dreams about the future are equally unreal as they too only exist in the present. The present is all we really have.

haha! Kate, i feel if they ad Richard to the roster i would be in the company of a few good men! :)

Chris! :)

Dave great thought experiment! I like how you put reality in quotes… :-) Everything you listed with the possible exception of energy is based on an ego (being separate from other things) frame of reference. That frame of reference doesn't suddenly disappear when you realize that it's just a frame of reference. Part of the human condition is to perceive space and time. We experience being separate from our environment. Even if we have a brief experience like Peggys where "we" perceive things quite differently for a moment doesn't really change the way we continue to perceive them in our day to day lives. Peggy's post is a perfect example of this I think. How can she reconcile her unity experience with every other experience she has ever had? The answer is simple, you can't. At least not without letting go of some of our most precious "mental constructs" like time, space etc. What is neat for me is how some theoretical physicists are going down the same road to resolve some of the most fundamental problems in physics today.

My own personal view of time as it relates to me and my life.

There are three places where time comes into play: the past, now, the future. They are distinct places. Whatever happened in the past is all that could have happened in the past. Other things might have happened in the past IF situations had been different before those things, but since they weren't different, they didn't happen in any way but that one way.

If we extend the cause-and-effect nature of the past into the future, by the time the future moves into the past, the same situation will apply. Whatever will have happened will be all that could have happened.

BUT the future moves into the past through NOW -- The Present which is the only place where we operate (or can operate) to have any influence. By processing what we can learn from the past along with our own control over our own present, we can fix the events of the future to include some things that the past (before NOW) only suggests as probabilities until NOW comes into play.

Things are not as they should be. They are in the process of being all they could have been. We can make things happen. We must make things happen if we want any more than what has been to continue being.

Carol as best I can tell you have been saving me a space in the rubber room for some time now. :-)

Just to explore a little -- by way of "thought experiments" we all can contribute to -- Chris's original post on this "time" issue, let's just list all the things in our "reality" that would vanish if we suddenly removed time and its offshoots from it.

First things to go would be clocks, calendars, references to days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, millennia, ages, eons, eras, etc.

Next would be those things that depend on time in a co-factor way like speed and work and energy and such. Those things that depend on "timing" like cars and other engines, radio, television, VCR's, music, drama, history, literature, etc., would also lose their reference points.

What else can you think of that we would have to abandon if "time" goes away?

Who was it who said recently that if you were put in a cell with somebody you didn't get along with that you'd have to find some way to get along?

That may have even been in the archives I've been re-reading lately. It hardly matters who said it, but the idea I'd like to restate before we go off on the tangent of who all is eligible for the rubber room, is that if you can demonstate that you have no "mental constructs" guiding your day-to-day existence then you either are already in that rubber room -- or need to be.

That's just my way of saying how convinced I am that none of the people who post here -- regardless of how many words they use to say things to the contrary -- are immune from day-to-day realities. I just can't accept that the world these people claim to be surrounding them is all that different from the one I operate in.

Every one of these advocates, at one time or another, has spoken of the little trivia that occupy at least some of their time. They eat, they have societal demands made on their time, they have income concerns, they have sicknesses and periods of despondency, they lose loved ones, they have moments of intense satisfaction with their situations, and on and on. So pretending that everything everyday is hunky-dory just isn't washing with those other statements. Just plain isn't.

Of course you have the intellectual abilities to understand it, just not the education/training in science. (Carol, you're saying you'd want to be in a rubber room with those four??? :-0)

I guess I have at least one foot in the padded cell myself. Although I don't buy into the idea that everything is an illusion, I don't think that my day-to-day life is all there is either.

In my Unity experience, there was no awareness of time until the experience was over. I noticed things in a certain order but it was as if all of it already existed on a point -- having no demension in time or even in space.

Oh, hell. Now I'm sounding airy-fairy and I hate that. But because of that one experience, I have some grasp of the concept of reality without time. That makes it a lot easier to contemplate.

Dave tried to find me a copy of Discover but I suppose they were sold out.

Meanwhile, I live in a world where measurement of time is still important to day-to-day functioning. Nobel-winning scientists still live in that world too. I think that it is exciting that they would try to bridge the gap between two views of reality.

One thing is for sure, I really have very little intellectual ability to understand the implications.

hmmm? i guess there wouldn't be any females allowed in that rubber room, eh? ;)

I _AM_ a mental construct of yours Kate! :-) (That probably explains a lot!) big grin.

Kate's right, I am being quite generalizing. I'm not quite sure how else to discuss this though. I happen to believe that time is relative to velocity and proximity to large masses because that's what scientists tell me is the case. I happen to trust that they are telling me what they believe, and I trust that they have a great deal of justification for that belief. At one point in my life I understood "why" time is relative (within the context of science), but it has been a while since college and so all I remember is that it did make sense then and so I trust it still would if I went through the steps of understanding again. Of course I don't KNOW that this is the case. In fact there is very little I feel comfortable saying I do KNOW. It's all sophistry. It's a game we are playing. None of this makes a hoot of difference on how I spend my day to day life. Well, maybe it does a little, but I wouldn't want let you in on how much for fear of becoming a ward of the state. :-) Bob, Hadi, Geoff and I could share a nice rubber room together. :-)

I have some mental "contruct" that keeps me from being able to spell "construct."

Chris, I want you to know that I have done a fair amount of reading on these subjects of time and light speed and Quantum Mechanics, without gaining the insights it would take to "believe" these things. I enjoy the challenge of trying to be comfortable with these seemingly outlandish explanations of the nature of things. Some are more intutively obvious than others and with them I have more comfort. But I have difficulty getting my head around a lot of it.

If you can accept my ignorance as just what it is -- ignorance -- and not as rank stupidity or greater than "normal" density, I would appreciate a layman's view of some of these things in "street language."

Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov (and others I have read and enjoyed) had a way of doing such things convincingly. They picked ideas that I could relate to and helped to form (usually with an analogy) a picture that made more sense than cold words on the printed page loaded with abstruse math and physics.

I fully understand that we are not overloaded with such "explainers" as those guys, and at one time I even thought Deepak had that same gift. However, in Deepak's case, I find it increasingly easy just to laugh at his examples because many of them are nonsense my grandchildren would laugh at. Somewhere between the clarity and persuasive aspects of Sagan and Asimov, and the over-simplified and unrealistic aspects of Chopra, there's plenty of room for an "explainer" to do some good work for the scientifically challenged in our society.

Counter to whose intuition? Whose mental constructs? I'm only pointing out that generalizations will not assist in the discussion. For all I know, you're a mental construct of mine, Chris, but I don't want to generalize from me to Dave to everyone else. :-)

Chris -- I'm not sure I "believe" that "time is relative to velocity and proximity to large masses" although I have tried to understand it. The situations described are, as best I can tell, "thought experiments" and require a lot of imagination. I'm aware (not of the specifics, by the way) that some of these "thought experiments" seem to have actual counterparts in the study of the fast-moving subatomic world. But, I'm not presenting myself as "believing" that any more than I believe this is a democratic society.

As for why we cling to "mental constructs," I contend that some of us don't -- when those constructs can be seen to be inadequate. I think that each one here, to some degree or another, has probably "let go" of any number of those things over the course of their lives. It's also true, I would sincerely hope, that nobody here has dumped them all. If so, they're likely to be wards of the state with some periodic access to a computer, or else they need to be!

None of us can operate for any great length of time without some mental constructs on which to base our actions and plans. This notion of the mindless child managing to make it all the way through a day or a week by just zoning out and "being in the now" is as preposterous as being invisible.

And for those who wish to claim that they are in such a state, I would ask that you describe the events that have transpired today before you logged in here to read this post. If you can convince me that you're not operating under some fundamental "day-to-day" mental contructs in order to brush your teeth, get dressed, drink your favorite beverage, consume some form of nourishment, take an occasional break to remove the waste products in your body, remember the sequence of steps it takes to get into this forum, and other such trivial things, but somehow just manifested your appearance here with no physical actions, I will gladly listen to your views on how we all can achieve such states of existence.

But if you had to get out of your home place and make it across your community to some other place before you got into this place, I just plain won't believe you!

Dave do you believe that time is relative to velocity and proximity to large masses? If so, why? It sure is counter intuitive and if you spend some time pondering it it kind of throws a monkey wrench into "life as we know it" as well. Why do we cling so tightly to mental constructs? (myself included by the way).

Chris -- I'd be willing to buy into some of these ideas -- that "spiritual traditions" suggest may be unreal -- if you could provide a few specific instances to consider. I hesitate to jump from one specific in one context to a generalization about "life as we know it."

I think there are quite a few participants here who have similar difficulties -- on both sides of the aisle, or table, or wherever it is we are.

There's yet another "mental construct" to explore: just where are we in this forum? Not our locations at the time we type or read, but that other "somewhere" where this all comes into some semi-consistent place to be. Just where is that? Is it unreal? I will stand on the side that says, "No. It is real."

Dave I'm not suggesting removing time from your life (unless you choose to do that). I agree that it is a fascinating topic to explore. Quite mind bending to try and think your way out of a-priori concepts. I am suggesting however, that maybe, just maybe our perception of time is illusion. It's not really real. Many spiritual traditions suggest this, and now the same concept may unite quantum mechanics and general relativity (can you say Nobel prize in physics?) :-)

I'm not sure I understand your question Kate, and I'm no expert in this stuff. But, I'll take a stab at what I think you are saying.

It's all the same thing regardless of the theories about it. Scientists are masters of shifting ideas around to make them fit more closely to what we can observe. In fact one could argue that that is what science IS. If the removal of time makes the equations work and work more simply (occums razor) than isn't that what science does? It wasn't until Einstein shifted the Newtonian paradigm around into something quite counter intuitive was he able to more accurately describe the phenomenon of light, time, space and gravity. I agree, it is all sophistry. None of this is True really. :-)

Chris -- To me, there's a vast difference between removing "time" from some equations, and removing "time" from our lives. I think your extrapolation is outside the context of your quoted material.

Time is a great topic to explore, like so many of these other "mental contructs" you point to, but the realistic approach is not just to jettison the underpinnings of life willy-nilly without having a replacement concept, unless you're headed toward Nihilism and Dada. Great place to go if there's nothing happening in your life already! :-)

If time is deleted, is that simply shifting the a priori thoughts (QED change) and wouldn't that lead back to the same thing? In other words, just exchanging one paradigm for another doesn't make either the first or the second one correct (or true) except in the minds of those who want their "side" in the lead. Sophistry.

Crown/Harmony Books

Comments by users are not endorsed by Random House. The Deepak Chopra Forum is intended to provide a place for the exchange of information, opinions, and comments. Random House does not necessarily endorse, support, sanction, encourage, verify, or agree with the comments, opinions, or statements posted in the Forum. Any information or material placed online, including advice and opinions, are the views of those who post the statements, and does not necessarily represent the views of Random House. Privacy Policy