The Inter Mind

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dontaskme »

SteveKlinko wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:36 pm This is why I am skeptical of infinite things in general.
Steve, infinity to me means the eternal NOW in which everything is contained to appear and disappear...including the ''thought'' (there are things)

Infinity is not a ''thing'' .. there is no such thing as an infinite thing. In other words, nothing /no thing is infinite. Infinity doesn't move or change, it's the eternal Now. The screen on which life happens...inseparable from the screen that never happened.

.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko »

wtf wrote: Tue Jul 04, 2017 6:09 am
SteveKlinko wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:36 pm Imagine a 1 inch square and then imagine the square getting larger and larger until it is a 12 inch square. Now let the square shrink back to 1 inch. The size is recoverable. Now let the square get larger and larger until it is infinitely large. This is impossible because the square will never be able to attain that size. Let's say we could get the square to be infinitely large then what would we have? When the square is infinitely large its sides will not be found in the universe anymore. It effectively disappears out of the universe. You would not be able to shrink it back because it is effectively gone. The size is not recoverable. Ironically the square becomes something less than it was when it is infinitely large. This is why I am skeptical of infinite things in general.
I just happened to read this. I haven't followed this thread to this point. But mathematically it's trivial to map an infinite length to a finite one. We teach it in high school trigonometry. It's the arctangent function. Here's its graph:

Image

As you can see, it maps any point on the infinitely long x-axis to a point in the finite interval (-pi/2, pi/2).

In general if you have some transformation that maps a finite interval to an infinite one, if the transformation is invertible then you can go back the other way.

This is trivial mathematics. It's not any kind of esoteric higher math. It's high school trig. If you can stretch a finite line segment to an infinite length, you can go back the other way by applying the inverse transformation.

I don't know what impact this has on your thesis, since I haven't followed the thread. But if your claim (that infinite lines can't be shrunk to finite ones) was material to your thesis, your thesis stands refuted.

By the way if you are "skeptical about infinite things," what do you make of the familiar counting numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...

Do you disbelieve in their existence or importance?
Infinity is a Mathematical concept. Works good in purely Mathematical discussions, but it does not apply in any actual Physical Universe. I'm talking about Physical Spaces not Mathematical Spaces. The infinitely large Square ceases to exist when it is truly Infinitely large. You can never find any of it's sides in the Universe even in an Infinite Universe, if there is such a thing. You can make the Square as large as you like and you can reduce it back to it's original size. But when you say the Square is Infinitely large you step over a threshold where the Square is no longer in the Universe. It is not reducible because it is no longer there. If you think you understand Infinity, think again. After High School many of us go on to study things in a little more depth.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko »

Dontaskme wrote: Tue Jul 04, 2017 7:18 am
SteveKlinko wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:36 pm This is why I am skeptical of infinite things in general.
Steve, infinity to me means the eternal NOW in which everything is contained to appear and disappear...including the ''thought'' (there are things)

Infinity is not a ''thing'' .. there is no such thing as an infinite thing. In other words, nothing /no thing is infinite. Infinity doesn't move or change, it's the eternal Now. The screen on which life happens...inseparable from the screen that never happened.
I'm going to have to think about the eternal NOW. I think as far as Consciousness goes you are right.

I agree. No infinitely large things.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dontaskme »

SteveKlinko wrote: Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:45 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Tue Jul 04, 2017 7:18 am
SteveKlinko wrote: Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:36 pm This is why I am skeptical of infinite things in general.
Steve, infinity to me means the eternal NOW in which everything is contained to appear and disappear...including the ''thought'' (there are things)

Infinity is not a ''thing'' .. there is no such thing as an infinite thing. In other words, nothing /no thing is infinite. Infinity doesn't move or change, it's the eternal Now. The screen on which life happens...inseparable from the screen that never happened.
I'm going to have to think about the eternal NOW. I think as far as Consciousness goes you are right.

I agree. No infinitely large things.
Alright, but can you think about the thinker? can the thinker be measured as to exist in Physical Space?
wtf
Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by wtf »

SteveKlinko wrote: Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:35 pm Infinity is a Mathematical concept.
As is a square. A square is a mathematical concept. There are no squares in the physical world. All physical measurement is approximate.
SteveKlinko wrote: Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:35 pm Works good in purely Mathematical discussions, but it does not apply in any actual Physical Universe. I'm talking about Physical Spaces not Mathematical Spaces.
You gave the example of a square (a purely abstract mathematical concept) being stretched to infinity (a purely abstract mathematical concept). You then claimed there was no inverse transformation. I showed you with a specific example that you're wrong.

You can hardly talk about stretching a square to infinity and then complain that someone took your example as mathematical. It couldn't be anything else, as there are no squares in the physical world and (as far as we know) no infinity.

SteveKlinko wrote: Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:35 pm The infinitely large Square ceases to exist when it is truly Infinitely large.
No square exists physically. Are you actually confused on this point?
SteveKlinko wrote: Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:35 pm But when you say the Square is Infinitely large you step over a threshold where the Square is no longer in the Universe.
At what point was a square in the universe? Please explain.
SteveKlinko wrote: Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:35 pm After High School many of us go on to study things in a little more depth.
The one post of yours that I read provides no evidence for that claim. Unless "many of us" refers to forum contributors in general, and not to you specifically.

ps -- I reviewed the article on your website, How to Conceptualize the
Smallest Number and Largest Number
. Your mathematical misunderstandings and confusions are extensive. This article is the work of a mathematical crank. I can't comment on the rest of your ideas since I didn't read them. I suggest you study the subject of Real Analysis to correct your misunderstandings about the real numbers.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jul 08, 2017 7:13 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:45 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Tue Jul 04, 2017 7:18 am

Steve, infinity to me means the eternal NOW in which everything is contained to appear and disappear...including the ''thought'' (there are things)

Infinity is not a ''thing'' .. there is no such thing as an infinite thing. In other words, nothing /no thing is infinite. Infinity doesn't move or change, it's the eternal Now. The screen on which life happens...inseparable from the screen that never happened.
I'm going to have to think about the eternal NOW. I think as far as Consciousness goes you are right.

I agree. No infinitely large things.
Alright, but can you think about the thinker? can the thinker be measured as to exist in Physical Space?
The thinker is the thing that experiences the Red. The Inter Mind does not say too much about the thinker, or the "Conscious I". I hope that when we understand how we experience Red then the thinker will be more readily understood.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko »

wtf wrote: Sat Jul 08, 2017 7:48 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:35 pm Infinity is a Mathematical concept.
As is a square. A square is a mathematical concept. There are no squares in the physical world. All physical measurement is approximate.
SteveKlinko wrote: Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:35 pm Works good in purely Mathematical discussions, but it does not apply in any actual Physical Universe. I'm talking about Physical Spaces not Mathematical Spaces.
You gave the example of a square (a purely abstract mathematical concept) being stretched to infinity (a purely abstract mathematical concept). You then claimed there was no inverse transformation. I showed you with a specific example that you're wrong.

You can hardly talk about stretching a square to infinity and then complain that someone took your example as mathematical. It couldn't be anything else, as there are no squares in the physical world and (as far as we know) no infinity.

SteveKlinko wrote: Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:35 pm The infinitely large Square ceases to exist when it is truly Infinitely large.
No square exists physically. Are you actually confused on this point?
SteveKlinko wrote: Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:35 pm But when you say the Square is Infinitely large you step over a threshold where the Square is no longer in the Universe.
At what point was a square in the universe? Please explain.
SteveKlinko wrote: Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:35 pm After High School many of us go on to study things in a little more depth.
The one post of yours that I read provides no evidence for that claim. Unless "many of us" refers to forum contributors in general, and not to you specifically.

ps -- I reviewed the article on your website, How to Conceptualize the
Smallest Number and Largest Number
. Your mathematical misunderstandings and confusions are extensive. This article is the work of a mathematical crank. I can't comment on the rest of your ideas since I didn't read them. I suggest you study the subject of Real Analysis to correct your misunderstandings about the real numbers.
A square can exist in a Mathematical Space or a Physical Space. You can define that there are certain points in a Physical Space that represent a Square just as you can in a Mathematical Space. In fact you can just define 4 points in Mathematical Space or Physical Space to represent the Square. Then you only have to deal with 4 points expanding out.

Your mistake is that you think that your equations can actually go to Infinity. Nothing ever actually goes to Infinity even in Mathematics. Things can only approach Infinity. You should be more careful about going to and coming from Infinity. There is no actual point that maps to pi/2 or -pi/2. There is no point that you can say is at Infinity.

We tend to make the same mistake when talking about Infinitesimals. That dx in integrals on the x-axis never actually can go to Zero it only approaches Zero. If it is Zero it makes no sense in the equation. So you have to think of the dx as the smallest interval that the mind can conceive without actually being Zero.

If a Square is allowed to get smaller and smaller it retains its property of being a Square all the way down until it is actually Zero size. When it is Zero size it disappears and can not be magnified back to its original size. The website article proposes that there is similar behavior when going to Infinity. Just as you never bring a variable to Zero you never bring a variable to Infinity. The problem is symmetrical. You can make the square as large as you like and it is still a square. But if you say it is Infinitely large you go over a threshold where the Square is no longer a Square like it was before. You can not ever find any side of the Square in even a Mathematical Space. Yes it does not have to be a Physical Space but it works there too. The website article then proposes that there is a Largest Number just as there is a Smallest Number. The Smallest Number is the Infinitesimal, or Differential, that we all know. The Largest Number is the largest number not equal to Infinity. This Largest Number will have some properties and can be related to the Smallest Number as the website article explains. I say in the article that Mathematicians might not like some of what I say. I know why they might not like it. It's not a Crank article. If you don't like it please tell me specific things that bother you and I will try to explain.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dontaskme »

SteveKlinko wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:29 pm The thinker is the thing that experiences the Red. The Inter Mind does not say too much about the thinker, or the "Conscious I". I hope that when we understand how we experience Red then the thinker will be more readily understood.
Like the laws of mathematics, consciousness has no physical presence in the world. The images and thoughts in our consciousness have no measurable dimensions.The material body is not the thinker.

''Thomas Nagel wrote in 2012 that, given the scientifically inexplicable – the “intractable” – character of human consciousness, “we will have to leave scientific materialism behind” '' and submit to the probability of the existence of a supernatural god.

God does it :wink:

.
wtf
Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by wtf »

SteveKlinko wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:27 pm I say in the article that Mathematicians might not like some of what I say.
This is my very favorite crank dodge. It means that if someone actually knows some math, their opinion is automatically dismissed ... because after all, they actually know some math. This way you never have to engage with actual mathematics.
SteveKlinko wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:27 pm It's not a Crank article.
When Richard Nixon said, "I am not a crook," everyone in the country understood him to be admitting the opposite.
SteveKlinko wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:27 pm If you don't like it please tell me specific things that bother you and I will try to explain.
That's a fair question. If you claim that x > 0 is the smallest real number then 0 < x/2 < x refutes that claim. Since the real numbers are a field, you can ALWAYS divide a real number by 2. It's an essential aspect of what it means for a number to be a real number. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)

You are mistaken that dx is the smallest real number. dx is a differential. It is not a real number. There are no infinitesimals in the real numbers. And even if there were, there could never be a smallest one for the reason already given. The vague intuitions and logically inaccurate ideas of infinitesimals from the seventeenth century have long been supplanted by more precise and sophisticated ideas.

I do suggest that you study some real analysis. That's the college class where they teach what the real numbers are with perfect logical rigor. It took 200 years for the greatest mathematicians in the world to get from Newton's vague ideas to the modern view; so it does take students some work to master the ideas. If you are interested in the reals, it's a study well worth your time.

Now by your own words, my very mathematical knowledge renders me unqualified to converse with you. It would not be worth either of our time to go back and forth.

But you did ask what my concerns are and I gave you two. One, there is no smallest positive real number because x/2 is always positive and strictly smaller. And two, whether you think of dx as an infinitesimal or a differential; whether in classical or modern terms; dx is not the smallest real number. It's not any real number at all.

But here's a question I'm curious about. When you say that mathematicians wouldn't like your ideas, why is that? Is it that they're too hidebound and reactionary with their book larnin' to appreciate your radical reformulation of the subject? That's the only way I can interpret that. It marks you as either a genius or a crank. You know my vote.

To be clear I don't expect to change your ideas. I only wanted to state my position.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko »

Dontaskme wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:23 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:29 pm The thinker is the thing that experiences the Red. The Inter Mind does not say too much about the thinker, or the "Conscious I". I hope that when we understand how we experience Red then the thinker will be more readily understood.
Like the laws of mathematics, consciousness has no physical presence in the world. The images and thoughts in our consciousness have no measurable dimensions.The material body is not the thinker.

''Thomas Nagel wrote in 2012 that, given the scientifically inexplicable – the “intractable” – character of human consciousness, “we will have to leave scientific materialism behind” '' and submit to the probability of the existence of a supernatural god.

God does it :wink:

.
Things have always seemed Supernatural until they are Understood. Then they become Scientific. Some things take longer than other things to understand.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by SteveKlinko »

wtf wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2017 9:00 am
SteveKlinko wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:27 pm I say in the article that Mathematicians might not like some of what I say.
This is my very favorite crank dodge. It means that if someone actually knows some math, their opinion is automatically dismissed ... because after all, they actually know some math. This way you never have to engage with actual mathematics.
SteveKlinko wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:27 pm It's not a Crank article.
When Richard Nixon said, "I am not a crook," everyone in the country understood him to be admitting the opposite.
SteveKlinko wrote: Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:27 pm If you don't like it please tell me specific things that bother you and I will try to explain.
That's a fair question. If you claim that x > 0 is the smallest real number then 0 < x/2 < x refutes that claim. Since the real numbers are a field, you can ALWAYS divide a real number by 2. It's an essential aspect of what it means for a number to be a real number. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)

You are mistaken that dx is the smallest real number. dx is a differential. It is not a real number. There are no infinitesimals in the real numbers. And even if there were, there could never be a smallest one for the reason already given. The vague intuitions and logically inaccurate ideas of infinitesimals from the seventeenth century have long been supplanted by more precise and sophisticated ideas.

I do suggest that you study some real analysis. That's the college class where they teach what the real numbers are with perfect logical rigor. It took 200 years for the greatest mathematicians in the world to get from Newton's vague ideas to the modern view; so it does take students some work to master the ideas. If you are interested in the reals, it's a study well worth your time.

Now by your own words, my very mathematical knowledge renders me unqualified to converse with you. It would not be worth either of our time to go back and forth.

But you did ask what my concerns are and I gave you two. One, there is no smallest positive real number because x/2 is always positive and strictly smaller. And two, whether you think of dx as an infinitesimal or a differential; whether in classical or modern terms; dx is not the smallest real number. It's not any real number at all.

But here's a question I'm curious about. When you say that mathematicians wouldn't like your ideas, why is that? Is it that they're too hidebound and reactionary with their book larnin' to appreciate your radical reformulation of the subject? That's the only way I can interpret that. It marks you as either a genius or a crank. You know my vote.

To be clear I don't expect to change your ideas. I only wanted to state my position.
You are correct about Real numbers. But I am talking about the Hyper Real numbers. Wikipedia: The system of hyperreal numbers is a way of treating infinite and infinitesimal quantities. The hyperreals, or nonstandard reals, *R, are an extension of the real numbers R... The term "hyper-real" was introduced by Edwin Hewitt in 1948.
wtf
Posts: 1178
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by wtf »

SteveKlinko wrote: Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:35 am You are correct about Real numbers. But I am talking about the Hyper Real numbers. Wikipedia: The system of hyperreal numbers is a way of treating infinite and infinitesimal quantities. The hyperreals, or nonstandard reals, *R, are an extension of the real numbers R... The term "hyper-real" was introduced by Edwin Hewitt in 1948.
FWIW can you please point me to where you said you were discussing the hyperreals and not the reals?

But no matter. Let's talk hyperreals. They are a nonstandard model of the first-order axioms of the reals. They are a field, just like the reals. You can always divide by 2. So if x is a positive infinitesimal hyperreal, then 0 < x/2 < x so that x is not the smallest infinitesimal hyperreal.

In short, the hyperreals are interesting but they don't help your argument in the least. There is no smallest positive hyperreal, infinitesimal or not.

A meta-argument for the non-usefulness of the hyperreals in understanding anything is that Keisler wrote a hyperreal-based calculus text in 1975. Since then, there haven't been any others, and there has NOT been any hyperreal revolution in the teaching of calculus. Studies of the pedagogical effectiveness of hyperreal-based calculus are inconclusive. Students come out of calculus class confused about the real numbers whether the class was traditional or based on the hyperreals.

As I say the hyperreals are an interesting mathematical object in their own right, but they don't shed much light on our understanding of real numbers nor is there a smallest positive hyperreal. And they can't be used to prove any new theorems or develop new math, because they are a model of the first-order axioms of the reals. Any first-order theorem true of the reals is true of the hyperreals and vice versa. This is the famous transfer principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_principle
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by surreptitious57 »

Dontaskme wrote:
Thomas Nagel wrote in 2012 that given the scientifically inexplicable the intractable character of human consciousness
we will have to leave scientific materialism behind and submit to the probability of the existence of a supernatural god
Consciousness may not be understood by science. But the origin of it is as a manifestation of brain function. So using God Of The Gaps to explain
it is therefore rather presumptuous. Why this urge to fill gaps in knowledge with non knowledge. Why not simply admit that at this point in time
no one knows. We have the remainder of our existence to find an answer to it and if we have not found one by then so be it. Why is it necessary
to know absolutely everything. Far better to only know some things because it stimulates our curiosity and that is all we will ever know any way
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dontaskme »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri Jul 14, 2017 7:11 pm
Dontaskme wrote:
Thomas Nagel wrote in 2012 that given the scientifically inexplicable the intractable character of human consciousness
we will have to leave scientific materialism behind and submit to the probability of the existence of a supernatural god
Consciousness may not be understood by science. But the origin of it is as a manifestation of brain function. So using God Of The Gaps to explain
it is therefore rather presumptuous. Why this urge to fill gaps in knowledge with non knowledge. Why not simply admit that at this point in time
no one knows. We have the remainder of our existence to find an answer to it and if we have not found one by then so be it. Why is it necessary
to know absolutely everything. Far better to only know some things because it stimulates our curiosity and that is all we will ever know any way
S57..it's no use just saying the origin of consciousness is a manifestation of brain function...without knowing the origin of the brain that is responsible for generating the consciousness ..if like you say, the brain is responsible for the manifestation of consciousness.. then the consciousness must have already existed for it to have become known to itself...via the brain...matter is not conscious...so all the brain is doing is transmitting / transmuting what is already there albeit in a latent non aware state...into a conscious aware state.

Also, if consciousness is a manifestation of something that is physical as in a brain, then like the brain you would be able to see it, and we all know consciousness cannot be seen.

So here, there is no gap. Nature abhors gaps.

By not-knowing - everything is known = no one knows.


“the eye in which I see God is the same eye in which God sees me. My eye and God’s eye are one eye and one seeing, one knowing and one loving.”

The intelligence of the Self knows that everything is present at each moment of time.

Life is filled with emptiness. And the emptiness is pulsating with love.

I don't know why you keep wanting to complicate what is actually very simple... S57

Everything is known but not by I ..for then I could not know anything....the knower and the known arise in conjunction with one another simultaneously instantaneously - there is no gap between knower and known, just as there is no space, between now and now....it's all now...this is not difficult to understand.

.

.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Inter Mind

Post by Dontaskme »

surreptitious57 ..Absolute truth can be known...but it's not I that knows it...for I am known...there is subtle difference, but is the same one knowing nonetheless.

Witnessing encompasses both presence and absence, for it cannot take place solely from within creation. If the witness were solely in the created world, the witnessing would be veiled by creation. It would be like the bird focused only on the sweet fruit. Rather, part of the witness remains outside of creation—the second bird that looks on.From behind the veils of creation, it can see and know the Real throughout all levels of reality.

____________

surreptitious57 I'm sure you have heard the story of the Two birds in a Tree....if no
have a read, if yes, then read it again here ...>

Upon the same tree there are two birds, one on the top, the other below. The one on the top is calm, silent, and majestic, immersed in his own glory; the one on the lower branches, eating sweet and bitter fruits by turns, hopping from branch to branch, is becoming happy and miserable by turns. After a time, the lower birds eats an exceptionally bitter fruit, and feeling miserable, he looks up and sees the other bird, that wondrous one of golden plumage who eats neither sweet nor bitter fruit, who is neither happy nor miserable, but calm and centered in the Spirit. The lower bird longs for this condition, but soon forgets it, and again begins to eat the fruit, which makes him once again feel miserable, and he again looks up, and he tries to get nearer to the upper bird. Once more he forgets, and after a time he looks up again, and so on he goes again and again, until he comes very near to the beautiful bird and sees the reflection of light from its plumage playing around his own body. He feels a change, and as he comes nearer, he seems to melt away, and everything about him melts away until as last he understands this wonderful change. The lower bird was, as it were, only the shadow, the reflection of the higher; he himself was in essence the upper bird all the time. This eating of the fruits, sweet and bitter, this lower little bird, weeping and happy by turns, was merely a vain dream: all along the real bird was there above, calm, and silent, glorious and majestic, beyond grief, beyond sorrow. The upper bird is God, the Lord of this universe; and the lower bird is the human soul, eating the sweet and bitter fruits of this world.

Now and then comes a heavy blow to the soul. For a time, he stops eating and goes toward the unknown God, and a flood of light comes. Yet again the senses drag him down, and begins to as before eat the sweet and bitter fruits of the world. Again, a hard blow comes. Again, his heart becomes open to the divine light; thus gradually he approaches God, and as he gets nearer and nearer, he finds his old self melting away. When he has come near enough, he realizes that he is no other than God, and he exclaims, “He who is the One Life of this universe, as present in the atom as in the suns and moons – He is the basis of my own life, the Soul of my soul and I Am That.

This is what Jnana Yoga (The Yoga of Knowledge/Wisdom) teaches. It teaches us that we are divine. It shows to all humanity the real unity of being, that each one of us is a manifestation on earth of the Lord God Himself. All of us, from the lowest worm to the highest being – all are manifestations of the same God.”


.
Post Reply