Posts by Brian Young76

Paul Ross2 said:If anyone finds this interesting, feel free to read—if not, just skip it; it might be a bit tedious:

An arithmetic ratio—which is essentially comparing two measurable quantities—is a specific instance of a standard logical operation. That operation involves:
1° Perceiving the functional relationship or the hierarchy of values between two objects.
2° Distinguishing or comparing those values, whether qualitatively or quantitatively.

If the ratio serves as a quantitative measure, it takes the form and properties of an arithmetic or algebraic fraction, $a/b$.
A proportion is simply the equivalence of two ratios—an analogous relationship between two comparisons, namely $a/b = c/d$.
A geometric proportion can consist of any number of terms:
a) A discontinuous proportion where $a/b = c/d = e/f = \dots$
b) A continuous proportion where $a/b = b/c = c/d \dots$

The ratio $a/b$ could be compound $(a+b)/b$, divided $(a-b)/b$, or inverted $a/(a-b)$.
From these, one can construct ten distinct types of proportions:
1° Multiple proportions.
2° Superparticular (the whole plus a part of the whole, divided by the whole), for example:
- Sesquialtera $(x + 1/2x)/x$ (a fifth)
- Sesquitertial $(x + 1/3x)/x$ (a fourth)
3° Superbipartite (the whole plus two parts of the whole, divided by the whole)—$5/3$.
Supertripartite (the whole plus three parts of the whole, divided by the whole)—$7/4$.
4° Multiple superparticular, such as:
Double sesquialtera $(2x+1/2x)/x$
Triple sesquialtera $(3x+1/2x)/x$
5° Multiple superbipartite.
6° - 10° Their respective inversions, such as submultiple...
The Pythagoreans back in Sicily had already established the three most significant types of proportions that can be expressed algebraically as:
$b-a = d-c$ — arithmetic proportion ($1, 2, 3$)
$a/b = c/d$ — continuous geometric ($1, 2, 4$)
$1/b - 1/a = 1/d - 1/c$ — harmonic ($2, 3, 6$)
These three proportions can be represented as:
$(c-b)/(b-a) = c/c = 1$
$(c-b)/(b-a) = c/b$
$(c-b)/(b-a) = c/a$
Alongside these, there remain seven others:
$(b-a)/(c-b) = c/a$ ($3, 5, 6$)
$(c-a)/(c-b) = c/a$ ($6, 7, 9$)
$(b-a)/(c-b) = b/a$ ($2, 4, 5$)
$(c-a)/(b-a) = b/a$ ($4, 6, 7$)
$(b-a)/(c-b) = c/b$ ($1, 4, 6$)
$(c-a)/(c-b) = b/a$ ($3, 5, 8$) — Fibonacci
$(c-a)/(b-a) = c/a$
---
The relationship between the means and the extremes:
Arithmetic mean: $(a+b)/2$
Geometric mean: $\sqrt{a \cdot b}$
Harmonic mean: $2ab / (a+b) = 2 / (1/a + 1/b)$

Up until this point, I suppose everything I’ve read from you regarding the intersection of music and mathematics has been focused on the numerical side of things. You know, numbers, ratios, quantitative data... you’ve mentioned before that math is a spiritual discipline just as much as music is, and that viewing mathematics through an exclusively numerical lens is quite limiting, which I think is a very fair point. I wonder, though, if you could perhaps elaborate on that more? Could you try to bridge that spiritual dimension of mathematics with the spiritual essence found in music?

Or maybe looking at it this way: take a solo by Charlie Parker, let's say this one again:



Is there a way to analyze this using mathematics? I mean, why does it resonate so deeply? To my ears, I hear these completely unpredictable rhythms; in those faster passages, he seems to be playing slightly ahead of the beat, then lagging behind, or sometimes he just 'swallows' a note, implying it without actually playing it. He finds this rhythmic unpredictability by varying his dynamics and accents, yet somehow, the whole thing remains perfectly in pocket... it feels more like a language to me. Parker isn't just playing notes; he’s speaking and singing. He’s conveying a message, a spiritual message, and I guess that’s why it sounds so incredible. What kind of mathematics would you even use to analyze something like that?

I'm genuinely curious, so I figured I'd ask. 🙂

And yeah, I realize this is a bit off-topic, but if we allow ourselves a slightly broader interpretation, I really believe it ties back into spirituality, and perhaps even into Theosophy.

Paul Rogers94 said:Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, Sogyal Rinpoche

I was just sitting here reading this, and man, it hits you right in the gut from the very first page. It basically argues that death is the most significant spiritual milestone we'll ever face, and because of that, we really ought to spend our entire lives preparing for it... which, I suppose, is actually quite logical when you think about it. 🙂

Paul Ross2 said:Even within mathematics, not everything can be expressed numerically. What can be quantified is merely "numerical mathematics"—which is really just one subset of the field.
Mathematics itself is also a form of spirituality.

It seems like there was a bit of a misunderstanding regarding how we define 'mathematics.' Honestly, now that you’ve provided that extra clarification, I think we’re on the same page.

However, I suspect that if you asked most people what they mean when they say 'math,' they probably wouldn't have anything in mind regarding those non-numerical elements that touch upon the spiritual realm. Perhaps, just to prevent any future confusion, it might be helpful to use a term like 'pure mathematics' or even 'spiritual mathematics.'

Paul Ross2 said:So what’s the actual issue?

Musical consonance usually boils down to ratios of small integers. Now, 4.056879877? That isn't a ratio of small integers.
A minor second is 16:15, a major second is 9:8, a major seventh is 16:9, and a minor seventh is 15:8. Then there’s the tritone—a staple in American jazz—which is 45/32, supposedly forbidden by the Church during the Middle Ages, who went as far as labeling it the "DEMONIC INTERVAL."

Here is another video regarding that notorious tritone (which some people claim is the soul of jazz, if not blues itself):

(At the 5:50 mark, the guy explains why it sounds dissonant, essentially describing the concept of SMALL INTEGER ratios in his own way—for instance, how 3:2 (a fifth) sounds consonant compared to something like sqrt(2)/1. Since sqrt(2) isn't an integer, you might approximate that ratio as 14:10 or 7:5, or even 45:32, given that 1.40625 is quite close to the square root of 2—we are talking about a difference only in the third decimal place here).

And now we arrive at the real question: why does our brain—or our ear—crave these small integer ratios? I won't be answering that, because frankly, the truth would likely disappoint most of you.

If I’m following your train of thought correctly—and please correct me if I’ve missed the mark here—it seems you're suggesting that music is essentially just mathematics in disguise, in the sense that every single note and rhythm could, theoretically, be expressed through numerical values.

If that’s really how you see it, then I’m afraid I have to respectfully disagree. I truly believe there is something inherent in music that simply defies being reduced to mere numerical values or raw data. Of course, I realize that the physical aspects—the frequencies, the decibels, and all that technical stuff—can absolutely be quantified, but there seems to be this profound spiritual component at play as well. It feels like a different quality altogether, something far more elusive than anything we could ever hope to measure with scientific instruments.

I’ve often found myself pondering why music carries such a profound connection to spirituality, and I suppose there is something deeply moving about how a simple sequence of notes can bypass our logic and strike directly at the soul. It feels as though, when we listen to a truly transcendent piece of music, we aren't just hearing sound waves, but rather experiencing a bridge to something much larger than ourselves—something almost divine. Maybe it's because melody has this unique ability to tap into those universal emotions that words simply fail to capture, creating a sort of sacred space within the listener. I guess you could say that music acts as a medium, translating the intangible whispers of the spirit into a language that every human being, regardless of their background, can instinctively understand and feel.

Paul Ross2 said:Timbre is essentially the harmonic spectrum, which can be broken down into fundamental and higher harmonics via Fourier analysis.
Any complex sound—that complexity being what we perceive as timbre—is composed of a multitude of harmonics (sine waves), which are simply multiples of a fundamental frequency. This base frequency constitutes the fundamental harmonic, while the higher harmonics split into even and odd components, given that the Fourier transform can be represented through sine and cosine transforms, where sines and cosines serve as odd and even functions, respectively.
Think of it this way: when you strike a key on a piano, the string doesn't just vibrate at a single frequency. If you hit an A, say at 880Hz, that's merely the fundamental harmonic. The string is simultaneously vibrating with numerous higher harmonics (multiples of that frequency). On top of that, the intensities of these individual components shift over time—transients, envelopes, and so on. What we hear collectively as a piano tone is the summation of all those vibrations. And why does that same pitch sound nothing like a trumpet? Because the trumpet has a completely different distribution of harmonic intensities, even if the fundamental tone is identical at 880 Hz. In a piano, you have a string fixed at both ends; in a trumpet, you have a column of air within a tube, also constrained by two ends.

So, there is your math. When analyzing strikes, one must analyze the impact on all the higher harmonics, not just the fundamentals. This is precisely why chords exist and sound consonant to us—we play harmonic instruments (where the vibrating medium is fixed at both ends), which makes these specific intervals sound harmonious.

As for rhythm? Rhythm is arguably even more mathematical; it just operates at much lower frequencies. We deal with 3/4 time signatures, and you'll find that certain folk traditions, like those found in parts of the North America, love variations involving 3/4 and 7/8. Their traditional music is built on this, and any seasoned folk percussionist can nail these complex rhythms that would trip up even the most elite rock drummers. For instance, take a rock drummer like Garabet (Gara) Tavitjan from Leb and Sol; he sounds exotic to the uninitiated, but if you asked a professional percussionist from a traditional jazz ensemble or a folk band, they’d probably roll their eyes and say, "If my apprentice can't play that, he's not joining the band."

The ratios of 4/3 or 7/8 are still just ratios of small integers.

Give him a listen (Aber Dojde Donke, Leb and Sol):

It’s actually quite similar to:

And here is a folk drummer playing on handmade drums:

Maybe try taking a solo by Charlie Parker. For instance, take this one:



Just try attempting to transcribe that using standard musical notation.

Now, of course, everything can be expressed mathematically—timbre, Fourier analysis, all of that can map it out. You could technically calculate that he played something like 4.056879877 sixteenth notes here and maybe 3.9234568873 there, but I don't think that's really the point, is it?

Anyway, I'm getting a bit tired of typing this out, so cheers, 🙂

Paul Ross2 said:Exactly. Jazz serves as a perfect example of moving away from classical constraints. In classical theory, when building chord progressions, you generally stick to tones within a specific scale. Jazz doesn't play by those rules; a simple four-chord progression might pull tones from as many as four different scales simultaneously.

Jazz also utilizes harmonies that don't attempt to minimize tension, which is why it can sound so dissonant.

Regarding the physics of beats and interference, there is a decent read on the subject here:
http://www.precisionstrobe.com/apps/...mp/temper.html

Anyway, I’d like to pivot back to Theosophy for a moment.
Why do I hold any affection for Theosophists? It isn't necessarily because of their doctrines—which can be quite cacophonous and bear a striking resemblance to today's New Age movements (it's a bit of a mixed bag, really).

However, a few things about them are genuinely compelling:
1. During H. P. Blavatsky's era, Theosophists were essentially adventurers. They sought out cultures that have since been swallowed by a materialistic world (for instance, one could argue the most aggressive drivers of modern corporate exploitation are certain groups in India). Look at places like Nepal or the Vajra cults, or even the Dugpa mentioned by Blavatsky (the Buddhist sects like Dag Dugpa or Drukpa). They documented these expeditions in their writings, providing us with a historical record we can still study today.

2. They possessed some incredible scientific outliers. Take, for example, Crookes' spiral periodic system, which alternative scientists today use to try and explain that mysterious, degenerate matter they call ORMEs. Sir William Crookes was a Theosophist—or at least closely linked to the movement—and his system was embraced by Theosophists through their occult chemistry.
https://theosophy.wiki/en/William_Crookes

3. Regardless of how one views the man himself, Leadbeater's work describes multiple planes of existence—concepts that later inspired Anthroposophists like Rudolf Steiner.

I feel like you might have missed my central point, though. We definitely agree that harmony is essentially mathematics. However, I would argue that rhythm—specifically improvised rhythm—and timbre, or what we call phrasing, are entirely different animals. To me, that's where the fundamental distinction lies between jazz and the mathematical precision of classical music.

On a side note, does anyone know if there was ever a theosophist who also happened to be a jazz musician? Let's get back to our main topic. 😁

Paul Ross2 said:Actually, music *is* mathematics. And mathematics? It is esotericism. The ancient Pythagoreans revered the tetraktys as if it were God. Certain mathematical principles—take the construction of the dodecahedron, or even the pentagon containing the golden ratio—were regarded as the highest mysteries, the revelation of which was punishable by death.

The leading global minds who have studied music would concur. In fact, every harmonic relationship—specifically those methods used to minimize interference, which manifests as harmony or consonance—and the musical scales themselves, which are tuned based on whether an instrument is fixed at both ends or open (like a bell or a cymbal), are essentially mathematical constructs.

Consider our scale as an example. The just scale is formed by selecting any frequency and its double. This is akin to 2^0 and 2^1 (i.e., 1 and 2), which defines the octave. Thus, the octave is simply a range of tones where the higher tone possesses twice the frequency of the lower one.
Between these exponents of 0 and 1, you create twelve equal divisions (meaning from, say, C to C1, there are 12 distinct boundaries). These constitute all the tones, including chromatic and achromatic notes (12 tones separated by 11 intervals, such as the span from C to C1).

When looking at chords, or thirds, fifths, and fourths... one is essentially looking at the minimization of interference (interference being a physical concept in wave theory—I won't digress into an explanation unless someone specifically asks).

Therefore, music is arguably the art form most closely tethered to mathematics. It is also the only one that lacks a material medium; you have clay for sculpture, canvas for painting, building materials for architecture, or film for cinema (one could argue for magnetic tape, but music is performed in the moment, whereas recorded music is something else entirely).

That is very slippery ground. I don't harbor any illusions that I won't be banned by someone out of sheer whim or rage. I likely will be. But at least I try to endure as long as possible in this era of mass hysteria and collective psychosis. From a spiritual standpoint, I am not particularly concerned with the current situation. Rather, I am interested in the behavior of people who seem prone to "losing it," even when it's codified in "statutes." The crux of the matter is that people grant themselves the natural right to harass others with petty grievances, only to scream when someone finally pushes back physically. To me, violence is violence, regardless of the direction. In this specific instance, there were years of appeals for the West to stop doing what it is doing, but everyone turned a deaf ear. And now we see the result. Let the people suffer, I suppose.

As for matters of the heart, that is even more treacherous territory, so I avoid discussing it altogether.

Well, I suppose if we’re strictly talking about Western classical music, Bach would be the absolute gold standard for that argument.

But jazz... man, there simply aren't any notes on a page that could ever truly capture what someone like Charlie Parker was doing. First off, you have the rhythm—that incredible rhythmic variety—and standard Western notation, which relies on those rigid integer divisions of time, just isn't equipped to document it. And then you have to account for the subtle shifts in timbre, those delicate ghost notes, and the way a phrase is shaped...

To my mind, jazz is fundamentally spiritual music; it carries this profound emotional message that can't be reduced to ink on paper. You really have to hear it live to actually grasp its essence.

casualtiger2 said:This really ought to be one of the most important threads on this spirituality forum.

If we set aside the tiny handful of people who are already enlightened—though I suspect even they have their own routines—and the massive group of people everyone *claims* is already enlightened (where any attempt at effort might actually just pull you away from your true nature, which can happen), then this topic is specifically for those who actually want to work at it, or are already in the middle of doing so.

The basic premise here is that spiritual seekers, if they weren't just born that way, reach certain milestones through some kind of Sadhana.
Even Zen practitioners, who tell stories about sudden insights and satori, spend hours sitting in meditation almost every day (essentially doing nothing). Raman, after his near-death experience, spent years meditating in a temple or a cave. Ramakrishna reached nirvikalpa samadhi through intense devotion to Kali. Even all those others who experienced spontaneous enlightenment were usually doing *something* beforehand—of course, you could argue whether that effort actually caused the enlightenment, but I think we’ve chewed that one enough over at the Great Master School.
Even Jesus went out into the desert for 40 days for some reason, and Buddha is probably the ultimate example of what a person is capable of when they are truly committed to self-realization.

So, this is a space for those engaged in practice. We can discuss—or cite examples regarding—the theoretical foundations, the different types, the effects, the roadblocks, and the practical successes of various "techniques." By techniques, I mean the more classical definitions: meditation, prayer, japa, kirtan, pranayama, asana... but hey, if watering your plants serves the same purpose for you, I'm all for it.

Personally, I’m drawn to the path of yoga; it seems like the most systematic and clear-cut route for self-development (admittedly, I'm not as well-versed in Western systems, but if anyone knows more about them, please, jump in). In his book "Sadhana," Swami Sivananda provides a solid overview of the various types of Sadhana and the conditions needed to practice them, so I'll likely quote from it occasionally—much of it translates pretty easily into the language of Western systems anyway.

And here is what Patanjali says about the practice:

I, 12:
Practice and [spiritual] clarity leading toward that stillness (nirodha) [which was mentioned earlier in YS, I, 2].

I, 13:
The effort to remain [steadfast in that stillness] is what defines [the essence of] "practice" (abhyasa).

I had been thinking about this quite a bit lately, so I figured I’d go hunting for it—assuming someone else had already pulled the trigger on a thread like this... and sure enough, here it is! 🙂

It isn't exactly a bustling conversation, but I noticed the moderator has started breathing some life back into these ancient threads, so perhaps reviving this one makes sense too.

To give you a little context, for the last two years or so, I’ve been sitting (Burmese style) for about two hours every single day. I usually get up around 5:30 AM, have my black tea with milk, and then sit from 6:00 to 7:00, followed by another session from 10:00 to 11:00 PM. Lately, my practice has mostly consisted of repeating 'Thy will be done,' pausing for a few minutes after each repetition, and then just listening very intently.

In the gaps between my sessions, I spend my time reading—mostly A Course in Miracles, along with the Bible, Bhagavad Gita, Quran, and a few other texts.

So, I just finished reading the entirety of The Real Christ, and while I was at it, I also went through the first seventeen years of her autobiography, Contemplative - autobiography of the early years. Honestly, I’d warmly recommend both to anyone who is looking to truly, deeply re-examine their own Christian faith The real Christ. 👍

I originally read The Real Christ as a PDF, but I actually ended up ordering a physical copy for myself because it’s definitely becoming a permanent fixture in my little spiritual library (😬), sitting right there on the shelf alongside the gospel of Ramakrishna and several others.

Joseph Bailey41 said:I’m not a believer, so the whole idea of an instant reunion via suicide (or any other method) isn't even on my radar. For those who are believers, faith usually forbids that anyway, at least according to what I remember from Sunday school. But I'm not talking about God or merging with Him; I'm talking about getting a direct insight into the nature of this "higher reality"—what THAT actually is.

Now, if (according to some random preacher and his gospel, which I don't find any more reliable than ACIM or the writings of Bernadette) you can't grasp THAT through any kind of study or practice... then you have to ask what the point of studying or practicing is in the first place. My answer (after I've had enough sleep) would be: "Keep doing it if you actually enjoy it." I mean, if reading certain stuff makes you feel good—read it. If meditating makes you happy—meditate. If prayer, practicing the "law of attraction," writing poems to a chosen deity, or some spiritual dance brings you joy... just go for it. Even if none of it actually gets you closer to the ultimate goal (as the preacher claims it won't 😍), life will just be a bit more pleasant, and you won't spend your time dwelling on nonsense. Eventually, realization (whether it's God or whatever) will happen on its own schedule—neither sooner nor later.

Actually, I think we might be misinterpreting each other; I was really just commenting on the attitude that since nothing can be realized through mental effort, there's no point in trying at all. That specific mindset can easily be stretched to cover the entire meaning of life, leading to the same conclusion regarding its futility. I just wanted to emphasize that such a conclusion is fundamentally flawed. I was attempting to briefly explain why it's wrong and why that particular stance—of which suicide is the most extreme interpretation—really doesn't make sense (since religion forbids it dogmatically, whereas I am more interested in the underlying reasoning and explanation behind that dogma 😉).

I agree with everything else, though I have to disagree with the notion that ACIM isn't reliable; it seems perfectly clear to me that it stands as the sole absolute truth while everything else is mistaken! 😬 🤣 )

Joseph Bailey41 said:Short and sweet. 👍

It brings up that nagging question again: does it even make sense to put in the effort? To read spiritual books or commit to various practices... when those things can't actually trigger that direct insight. What would be better? Just relaxing a bit, or maybe dedicating ourselves to something else entirely?

In many ways, I suppose this is fundamentally the same dilemma one faces when asking why we don't simply end our lives to reunite with God, assuming one truly believes in His existence. Well, if it were really that simple, it would certainly be an easy fix, but I fear it isn't quite that straightforward. It assumes that every single one of us is a completely isolated, independent entity whose thoughts and actions have no impact on anyone else, which I think is fundamentally mistaken.

Personally, I tend to believe that we can only achieve a total union with God once we all become one—and by "all," I’m referring to the entire conscious universe, encompassing hundreds of billions of galaxies and trillions of stars, not just the human race. And, I'm afraid, that might still be a little ways off. 😁

Brian Young76 said:Well, if we might just circle back to the subject at hand, Brian Young76.

I’ve been continuing my reading of the Real Christ, and it occurred to me that maybe Bernadette Roberts, in her various attempts to unpack the Trinity, has inadvertently stumbled into the same conceptual trap as the Church Fathers she cites. It seems there is this implicit assumption—perhaps unintentional—that time is absolute, and not just from our limited human perspective, but for God as well. But I suspect that isn't quite right, especially since one of the foundational realizations of modern physics—and we really have to thank Einstein for that! 😉—suggests otherwise. If, for instance, we were to set two incredibly precise clocks, placing one at the very bottom of the ocean and the other atop the Himalayas, and then waited for about a hundred years, the clock at the summit would actually show a tiny bit more elapsed time than the one on the seabed (the exact measurement doesn't really matter here). So, if time is already relative for us mere mortals on this little planet, how much larger might the error be if we assume time is absolute for God?!?

What I am trying to get at is this: questions like the ones Bernadette Roberts grapples with—similar to those posed by the Church Fathers—asking how it is possible for God the Father to have 'created' the Son and the Spirit (or whatever specific terminology we choose for the elements of the Trinity—be it Logos, Spirit, Transcendent as Bernadette Roberts calls them, or something else entirely) all at once? I feel that these paradoxes might simply vanish if we accept that time is relative.

I actually attempted to explore one of these interconnected ideas over here:

Why would these things be linked? Well, I suppose it's because if God does not exist within the constraints of time, then everything He creates, makes, or even simply thinks of occurs simultaneously—it is essentially timeless. In that sense, the beginning and the end of the universe would be simultaneous on a temporal scale for such a Being, merged into a single point. Everything is already finished; all this grand drama that we perceive as a sequence has actually begun and ended in the exact same moment, all at once, simultaneously.

One possible interpretation of Einstein's general relativity—which I believe Stephen Hawking advocated—is that at the center of a black hole, time effectively stands still from the perspective of an outside observer. Now, if that interpretation holds true, then for an observer falling into that black hole, time outside the hole would seem to pass infinitely fast. From that vantage point, the entire universe would already be complete, collapsed into a single point in time. The only thing is, that observer wouldn't be able to perceive it, because they would have no way to exchange information with anything on the outside. And what, I wonder, are we supposed to conclude from that???

Gosh... I mean, how can one ever hope to gain a 'direct insight into the true nature of reality' without engaging in these kinds of mental gymnastics?

And don't even get me started on quantum physics and the behavior of elementary particles; if anything, that makes gaining direct insight even more difficult.

Hmmmm.....

Now, I’m truly curious about something. Out of all the spiritual texts I’ve ever picked up, I guess ACIM is the only one that explicitly lays this out—which is why it’s really the only thing I’ve read that seems to align with our relative concept of space-time. I haven't quite finished reading Ramakrishna yet, though he does clearly state that the entire universe is an illusion and that God is the only true reality (which sounds identical to what ACIM teaches), but I don't recall him mentioning this specific dimension of time. As for the Bible, the Quran, or the Bhagavad Gita... I don't see them touching upon the relativity of time, at least not from my perspective.

Does anyone know if this idea is explained anywhere else like this? Does anyone have any insight? Thanks in advance! 🙂

Well, if we might just circle back to the subject at hand, Brian Young76.

I’ve been continuing my reading of the Real Christ, and it occurred to me that maybe Bernadette Roberts, in her various attempts to unpack the Trinity, has inadvertently stumbled into the same conceptual trap as the Church Fathers she cites. It seems there is this implicit assumption—perhaps unintentional—that time is absolute, and not just from our limited human perspective, but for God as well. But I suspect that isn't quite right, especially since one of the foundational realizations of modern physics—and we really have to thank Einstein for that! 😉—suggests otherwise. If, for instance, we were to set two incredibly precise clocks, placing one at the very bottom of the ocean and the other atop the Himalayas, and then waited for about a hundred years, the clock at the summit would actually show a tiny bit more elapsed time than the one on the seabed (the exact measurement doesn't really matter here). So, if time is already relative for us mere mortals on this little planet, how much larger might the error be if we assume time is absolute for God?!?

What I am trying to get at is this: questions like the ones Bernadette Roberts grapples with—similar to those posed by the Church Fathers—asking how it is possible for God the Father to have 'created' the Son and the Spirit (or whatever specific terminology we choose for the elements of the Trinity—be it Logos, Spirit, Transcendent as Bernadette Roberts calls them, or something else entirely) all at once? I feel that these paradoxes might simply vanish if we accept that time is relative.

I actually attempted to explore one of these interconnected ideas over here:

Why would these things be linked? Well, I suppose it's because if God does not exist within the constraints of time, then everything He creates, makes, or even simply thinks of occurs simultaneously—it is essentially timeless. In that sense, the beginning and the end of the universe would be simultaneous on a temporal scale for such a Being, merged into a single point. Everything is already finished; all this grand drama that we perceive as a sequence has actually begun and ended in the exact same moment, all at once, simultaneously.

One possible interpretation of Einstein's general relativity—which I believe Stephen Hawking advocated—is that at the center of a black hole, time effectively stands still from the perspective of an outside observer. Now, if that interpretation holds true, then for an observer falling into that black hole, time outside the hole would seem to pass infinitely fast. From that vantage point, the entire universe would already be complete, collapsed into a single point in time. The only thing is, that observer wouldn't be able to perceive it, because they would have no way to exchange information with anything on the outside. And what, I wonder, are we supposed to conclude from that???

Gosh... I mean, how can one ever hope to gain a 'direct insight into the true nature of reality' without engaging in these kinds of mental gymnastics?

And don't even get me started on quantum physics and the behavior of elementary particles; if anything, that makes gaining direct insight even more difficult.

Hmmmm.....

Paul Rogers94 said:Everything I’m trying to say—no matter how I frame it—boils down to one single point: you can't actually realize anything through mere washing... nothing. A direct look into the true nature of reality... It clarifies everything—yet that "everything" can't be captured by language, which is really just an instrument of reason. Everyone has to find their own way through it... and honestly, that’s where the real value lies.

There is no process for gaining direct insight into the true nature of reality—none. There is no way. "Ways" are merely functions of the mind, and if you think you’ve actually found one, then it’s inherently flawed... Direct insight isn't some prize waiting for you at the end of a spiritual marathon.

What you're looking for simply isn't there—because that thing isn't an object that can actually be known...
That’s the thing—it uncovers everything about an object, yet remains fundamentally unknowable...
That is the subject of all subjects...
That is the core of everything—and everything is that...
That’s just the reality of existence—because everything that actually exists is defined by THAT...
That is the ULTIMATE REALITY.
YOU ARE IT.

From the Gospel according to Paul Rogers94...

You can't truly grasp what you are—you can only perceive what you aren't... because you are the one who knows, the pure essence of knowledge itself.

Everything you're writing seems perfectly fine, but...

I suppose I can't quite agree with the notion that nothing can be realized through the mind. After all, Ramakrishna mentions that the path of devotion is much easier, but the path of knowledge is certainly possible too, even if it is significantly more demanding. One just needs to hold onto the principle of "Not this, not this..."

In my view, the natural sciences actually fit quite nicely with that "Not this, not this..." approach, since they essentially provide answers by defining what is impossible.

hiddenpuma75 said:So, after those first 30 pages, we hit a section from pages 161 to 174 that dives deep into analyzing and clarifying terms like

PERSON VS INDIVIDUAL.

It covers concepts such as the self, the soul, and the logos.

Then, things get really heavy—we’re moving into the heavyweight division here.😁

What does it actually mean to be Christ? (I'm not talking about Jesus as just a historical figure)
We look at the distinction between Jesus and Christ.

What exactly is the Hypostatic union?

And so on, and so forth.

To wrap it up, Bernadette Roberts says this toward the end, and I'll quote her directly:

The truth is simply unbelievable,🙏 ,and hiddenpuma75, bluemason3, krena, Dragan, and Paul Rogers94 haven't the slightest clue, even if they think they do.''

😲

I suppose everyone just scratches where it itches (😬), so in that sense...

I've reached a section where Bernadette Roberts and ACIM definitely diverge—specifically regarding who or what brought this material and energetic universe (space-time) into being.

Bernadette Roberts suggests that God cannot create perfection, because doing so would essentially be creating Himself; therefore, she argues that God can only create an imperfect universe like this one. In this regard, I think she aligns more with traditional Jewish, Christian, or Islamic interpretations, where God acts as the Creator of the cosmos.

On the other hand, ACIM posits that God (the Father) can only create perfection (the Son, who is equal in essence), and that the universe was brought forth through the joint action of the Son and the Holy Spirit—essentially the Father's response to the thought of separation.

Then there's a third perspective: the Gospel of Ramakrishna suggests that the universe was created by Kala, and that all of this is merely a grand cosmic play because Kala finds joy in the game. Only Brahman is truly real, while everything else is an illusion (which is actually something ACIM agrees with).

From a fourth angle, Buddha essentially argued that seeking an answer to this question is irrelevant when you are focused on uncovering truth or reaching enlightenment (much like that parable about the poisoned arrow).

So now I find myself wondering... is it even necessary to find a definitive answer to that question if our goal is the actual realization of God?

Hmmmm....... 🤔

Sandra Murphy33 said:I’m going to dive back into studying A Course in Miracles, so let's pick this up later 😁

It’s actually pretty fascinating how the text was "dictated" through pure atheists; and to make things even more interesting, they were all at odds with one another...

I would truly love that! 😉 😁

Sandra Murphy33 said:I’m going to dive back into studying A Course in Miracles, so let's pick this up later 😁

It’s actually pretty fascinating how the text was "dictated" through pure atheists; and to make things even more interesting, they were all at odds with one another...

Yes, atheists—and specifically PhD psychologists at a prestigious American university, no less. They poured about seven years of their lives into transcribing this book, and it seems pretty clear that neither money nor fame was their primary motivation (which stands in such stark contrast to so many others who have written books about ACIM just to profit from it)... so, if that was the case, what could their actual goal have been? To my mind, the only logical conclusion might be that they genuinely believed the one dictating the text to them was Jesus.

But then again... how can one even begin to determine if Jesus is indeed the author (or the dictator? 😁)? By what standard did anyone decide that the angel Gabriel dictated the Quran?

I suppose if you declare right away that you don't believe in Jesus' resurrection or his transformation into Christ, and you don't believe that Christ appeared to Paul, then we've reached a bit of a dead end—because you wouldn't believe in the possibility of him dictating ACIM either. But what if someone accepts those first points? What criteria would they then use to establish the latter part of the equation???

For instance, I have personally begun (once again) reading the Bible, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, the teachings of the Dalai Lama, Ramakrishna, the Catechism, and the Nag Hammadi writings... and I've even been looking into quantum physics and the natural sciences in general. I am simply trying to find some sort of intuitive answer.

As of right now, I'm still feeling quite uncertain, but I certainly can't dismiss the possibility entirely...

I was wondering if anyone here has had a chance to dive into the latest book by B. Roberts, *the Real Christ*, and if you'd be willing to share some of your thoughts on it? I’ve actually tried picking it up about four or five times now, but honestly, every single time I started, I found myself getting stuck because it felt just a bit too... well, tedious, rambling, and unnecessarily convoluted for my taste. However, about a month ago, I decided to give it one more shot, and I’ve just reached the quarter-way mark when suddenly—everything clicked. It has become absolutely fascinating and, in my opinion, quite revolutionary. From a modern perspective, her interpretation of Christ is incredibly striking, especially since she constantly weaves in quotes from those prominent Christian figures from the first five centuries—whom she refers to as the Fathers of the Church—to back up her own insights.

What I find even more inspiring, though, are the parallels—some of them feel almost identical at certain points—between her interpretations in this book and the teachings found in *A Course in Miracles*.

Hmmmmmm...... 🤔

If you’re looking for a roadmap toward non-duality, one path might lead you through the pages of A Course in Miracles. It’s an interesting study because the guidance is framed entirely within traditional Christian and Biblical terminology. There’s actually a bit of a controversy right from the jump, I suppose; the book addresses the reader directly, and the voice speaking is presented as Jesus himself. But, if one were to look past that specific "detail," the core teachings seem to be centered on pure non-duality.

Anyway, just thought I’d share that in case anyone was curious about 😉

Sandra Murphy33 said:Could you have mentioned this was Lesson 45? 😵

It’s an interesting line, and one I actually quite like (it serves as proof that ACIM leans more toward New Age philosophy rather than being a strictly "Abrahamic religious" text):

"God's will for me is perfect happiness.
This is the truth, because there is no sin"
(Lesson 101)
👍

Well, now... I suppose I might have to disagree with the idea that ACIM is purely New Age or that it isn't Abrahamic in nature. While it certainly might sound that way at first glance—or even a second glance, for that matter—if you were to read The Bible in parallel with ACIM (since the New Testament essentially mirrors ACIM), alongside the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I don't really see any major contradictions. This is especially true if one considers that the original Greek meaning of what is translated as "sin" actually refers to "missing the mark."

What I think might need adjusting, perhaps, is those sections where it says, "my sin..." It really ought to be phrased as "my failure to hit the target, my failure to hit the target, my massive failure to hit the target." If you were to replace the word "sin" everywhere with "missing the mark"—which is what the original texts intended—then I feel everything would align perfectly. 🙂

Joseph Bailey41 said:At that stage, cause and effect don't really exist; things aren't moving in a straight line anymore. If you haven't already, look into "synchronicity."

Oh, so what you're telling me is that I ought to be utilizing non-linear differential equations? Well, why didn't I think of that! Honestly, it’s almost as if it never occurred to me before!!! 😬