Change is subatomic. I break your nucleic bond and smile. Change is minute. There are no big changes. Never anything big. Just a bunch of small things we eventually notice.
I’m discussing the “now”, or my view of it such as it is. I don’t agree fully with much of the material that’s popular on the subject of the now, but I do believe it’s a valuable understanding. Where I don’t agree is that it’s my opinion that many of the popular spiritual beliefs seem to embrace what is a form of nihilism. They look at the external now, and its mutability, and declare that they have seen the now, and that the internal now is the same as the external. As mutable, and to be ignored or dismissed as unreal, as a mere reflection of the external circumstances. Somehow if you can achieve neutrality with the mutable external now you have achieved enlightenment? In my view the universe is whole, but is there any evidence of a homogenous unity that obviates the significance of the self?
No, and we seem to strive for it just to get out of frustration. Yes. It seems to me that the universe operates in terms of identities and differentiation, not some nebulous homogeny of heat death. If a great lending were the way of things, why would any cycle arise at all? Why not one single field of burned out static? Science doesn’t see reality this way, and yet spiritual types seem to be seeking this. Why is it virtuous? I see two levels of the now, and they do have a priority.
Entropy? Yes, basically. The “unity” with God, when supposedly our differentiation is bad, and we only exist because of some failure of ours.
Two levels of now makes it even harder to be in the now? You have to choose in which now you want to be? Not necessarily. Because the now has phases doesn’t mean you have to pick. Every identity, and I use the term identity in the metaphysical sense. I am not referring to ego. Every identity is an even in an immeasurable field, but it’s one event among countless others. Each identity is a “now” and you could try to track each individual now in the context of a hypothetical now outside of the event/person.
Therefore it is the choice of our egos that determines our now? It goes deeper than ego. Ego arises as a rejection of the spectrum, not at the arising of identity itself.
However isn’t rejection a choice itself? The now isn’t about choice. All choices are two sided, and can be argued to death in an endless stream of semantics. Is this not so?
What do you mean by each identity? Each person? Yes. Person as a substantial existence, not person as an idea, or a name, or role, or any such nonsense. The event horizons created by the actuating of the infinite. The Atmans arising from the universal Brahman. There is an internal now that is always your now despite circumstances. This now was the “exhalation” of the infinite, and is its will if we must go there. But your now is as much a meaningful manifestation as any passing moment. It’s in actuality more so. Are you truly just an observer of circumstance? Is every moment just for you to reflect until you are reabsorbed in the all?
I think it is a meeting of the individual with God. Do you exist as an individual because you defied Gods will somehow? Are you somehow a deviate creation and God erred, or you erred? Where would the blame be rightfully lain? Is it possible there was no error?
There is no deviation. That is what people are missing? Yes. Perhaps we are too busy putting ourselves aside. Seeking transcendence, where our actualization itself is the “transcendence.” Ego is not saying I am, or even in moments acknowledging that I am the father, or I am the lover, or I am the worker. Ego arises from saying “I’m this, and that’s all I am.”
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.