--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote:
> >
> > According to MMY, everything is based in consciousness.  If there wasn't 
> > any consciousness, there wouldn't be any existence or creativity.  So, for 
> > any universe to manifest, IMO there would have to be a consciousness to 
> > create width, length, and height, at the very least.  The dimension of time 
> > could be optional.  IOW, this universe would be similar to an empty box and 
> > nothing else.
> 
> But why would there need to be a consciousness? There are simpler 
> ways to get the universe going without recourse to anything mystical.

We've discussed this idea in this forum before.  We've argued about the use of 
the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and those made by Aquinas to prove the 
existence of a Being that created this universe.

Without going through these arguments, you can use your own logic and reason to 
answer what is needed to create a universe.  At the very least you need to have 
length, width, and height to manifest a universe.  But these dimensions need 
consciousness to define, understand and manifest a universe.  Without 
consciousness, it's impossible to create a universe.  There is only NOTHING.


> 
> I also don't think time could be optional as it is simply what
> happens when there is matter present, interactions will take
> time to happen, so unless everything stays perfectly still which
> is exactly what *didn't* happen with creation there will be time.


That's why I mentioned an empty box as the example for a universe.  If there is 
matter involved, then time may be needed for a physical universe to exist in 
scientific terms.



> 
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shainm307" <shainm307@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Interesting thing for all the Fairfielders: In a channeling of pleiadians 
> > > I heard "the difference between consciousness and existence is 
> > > creativity" kind of goes against Maharishi, unless Maharishi was just 
> > > going very broad.
> > >
> >
>


Reply via email to