The visible universe is the underground of another world ? We are in the underworld ?

[Abramelin]

5 hours ago, moonman said:

It's not chaos, but it isn't structure either. It's organized chaos - and why the universe uses it, I do not know.

It ìs structure:

Link

5 hours ago, moonman said:

There's no reason to bring another universe into the conversation.

I agree.

[Coil]

On 10/30/2021 at 10:39 PM, Ove said:

The visible universe is the underground of another world ? We are in the underworld ?

Starting from the level of Overmind, the One and evenly diffused energy is divided into many gods, beings and further physical objects; therefore, such a large number of stars and planets appear in space and the energy collapses into lumps as nodal centers-points, since we see only three-dimensional objects.

Since our universe is created by a living being, then the true form of objects must have the form of a living being. Early races and civilizations saw this therefore, they depicted the constellations in the form of animals and humans, and each planet of the solar system had its own god-ruler. Moreover, all types of animals and humans and even the structure of the human body in earthly evolution were formed under the influence of these living constellations and planets of the solar system, many-faced angels and gods planets that transmitted to us the elements of subtle bodies (physical body, vital body, mind, emotions, personality).

 

Spoiler

 

Earth's magnetosphere.And if you turn it vertically, there will be a human figure:

102. To the senses it is always true that the sun moves round the earth; this is false to the reason. To the reason it is always true that the earth moves round the sun; this is false to the supreme vision. Neither earth moves nor sun; there is only a change in the relation of sun-consciousness and earth-consciousness.
https://www.hinduwebsite.com/divinelife/auro/auro_aphorisms.asp

 

Mother Earth:

Sun-Surya:

Constellations of animals:

 

Man is formed by the zodiac:

 

Four-faced angels who took an important part in the creation of man and animals at the beginning of evolution:

 

Scheme of the universe:

 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2021 by Coil

[jaylemurph]

That’s funny. The vast percentage of humans I know have, err, limbs. Multiple sets of them. Not to mention sexual organs. 

Either I’m hanging around circus freaks all the time, or your alleged human figure doesn’t look too actually human. 

—Jaylemurph 

[+Pettytalk]

It seems that we should first consider the etymology of the term, consciousness, before giving consciousness form. From a certain view, the physical one, I see no images of  form. Clearly I mean that I don't see any particular shape and color, in any possible combination, when I look for a physical scheme where consciousness is given any responsibility for shaping the visible physical universe under discussion on this thread. If anything, consciousness has an abstract form that can be shown to others, universally, by applying one or more of the other abstract ideas, such as geometry, and mathematics, to then give shape to a physical representation of consciousness. This representation can then be shared with other beings, conscious, or semiconscious; this physical view we have formed on our minds of an abstract consciousness. Obviously, ancient eyes saw the heavenly physical objects differently, being at a disadvantage, as they were all too near-sighted without the aid of powerful optical magnification. Today, with all our vantage views, we can say that the ancients were blind as bats. However, being blind like bats helped them developed other senses, like sonars, to safely navigate the universe. The sixth sense, one may say, or as is often said by an ancient wise one, they grew another eye to better see with the form and purpose of the physical universe. And this is nothing other than the eye of the mind, or the eye of the soul, since the ancient wise, in many cases, considered mind and soul as being interchangeable terms, practically the same, synonyms. And the mind's eye clearly sees, and also reaches distances that no telescope, no matter how large or where placed, can ever dream of seeing. The mind's eye can focus on, and resolve such distances as infinity, and still even further, far, far beyond the infinite vault of our universal physical sphere. The mind's eye vision is infinitely faster than the speed of  light of this physical universe, since it's engineered and motored to use spiritual, light fuel. This immense power source used by the mind, spiritual light, is a totally renewable source, and is fully sustainable, indefinitely, even past the point of no return, physical death. THINKING is the Best Way to Travel, since it allows the mind to freely go on fantastic cosmic rides, timely speeding trough eternity, and back again, over and over again, to no end, I suppose, since only the Mind of God knows no End, nor any Beginning, for that matter.

MW

Essential Meaning of soul

1 : the spiritual part of a person that is believed to give life to the body and in many religions is believed to live forever.

Essential Meaning of consciousness

1 : the condition of being conscious : the normal state of being awake and able to understand what is happening around you.

2 : a person's mind and thoughts.

3 : knowledge that is shared by a group of people

Full Definition of consciousness

1a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself.

b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact.

c : awareness especially : concern for some social or political cause.

2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : mind

3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual .

4 : the normal state of conscious life regained consciousness.

5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes.

[Coil]

10 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

It seems that we should first consider the etymology of the term, consciousness, before giving consciousness form. From a certain view, the physical one, I see no images of  form. Clearly I mean that I don't see any particular shape and color, in any possible combination, when I look for a physical scheme where consciousness is given any responsibility for shaping the visible physical universe under discussion on this thread. If anything, consciousness has an abstract form that can be shown to others, universally, by applying one or more of the other abstract ideas, such as geometry, and mathematics, to then give shape to a physical representation of consciousness.

The body is also consciousness, just our physical body is less conscious than the mental, it is fixed in contrast to the mobile mental or emotional body, but in out-of-body beings the body and consciousness are one and the same, and their body shape and color expresses their qualities and character.

Consciousness is the same in our body and we could move consciousness to the leg or arm, just the brain is more adapted for the functioning of consciousness. Consciousness occupies a certain place in space and has its own shape, weight and color also affects thoughts - they have a certain shape, weight and color.

The early races saw more than we do, we see hot stars and planets, they saw creatures-gods and animals in the sky, but we see only condensation of light in the form of stars and planet-balls.

Moreover, even the days of the week, past civilizations assigned the names of the planets of the solar system because they knew that they took an important part in the formation of the Earth and the evolution of man, his body and all other kingdoms of nature.

[+Pettytalk]

34 minutes ago, Coil said:

The early races saw more than we do, we see hot stars and planets, they saw creatures-gods and animals in the sky, but we see only condensation of light in the form of stars and planet-balls.

To help me see what you mean, which early races are you referring to? Would you agree that what we see today, with our unaided naked eyes, is the same the ancients saw? I mean that from the same general position, and approximately the same time, let us say Cairo Egypt, and at midnight, has the night sky changed any for anyone with 20/20 vision whether it was today, or thousands of years in the past? How many thousands of years back do we need to look, using our current knowledge, to see a substantial change in the night sky? Of course, compensating for and disregarding modern day air and light pollution.  Generally, I mean, disregarding certain comets and asteroids.

Imagination, and superstition is what makes us see animals and gods in the sky. Especially if we are told what to imagine by those we look up to.  You are told to draw the imaginary lines of connection. The past is no different than today, as human nature has changed little from thousands of years ago, just as the night sky has not changed much for the same time frame. I only see points of light, and I draw my own conclusion...usually just from reading Plato.

HERMOGENES: You seem to me, Socrates, to be quite like a prophet newly inspired, and to be uttering oracles.

SOCRATES: Yes, Hermogenes, and I believe that I caught the inspiration from the great Euthyphro of the Prospaltian deme, who gave me a long lecture which commenced at dawn: he talked and I listened, and his wisdom and enchanting ravishment has not only filled my ears but taken possession of my soul, and to-day I shall let his superhuman power work and finish the investigation of names—that will be the way; but to-morrow, if you are so disposed, we will conjure him away, and make a purgation of him, if we can only find some priest or sophist who is skilled in purifications of this sort.

HERMOGENES: With all my heart; for am very curious to hear the rest of the enquiry about names.

SOCRATES: Then let us proceed; and where would you have us begin, now that we have got a sort of outline of the enquiry? Are there any names which witness of themselves that they are not given arbitrarily, but have a natural fitness? The names of heroes and of men in general are apt to be deceptive because they are often called after ancestors with whose names, as we were saying, they may have no business; or they are the expression of a wish like Eutychides (the son of good fortune), or Sosias (the Saviour), or Theophilus (the beloved of God), and others. But I think that we had better leave these, for there will be more chance of finding correctness in the names of immutable essences;—there ought to have been more care taken about them when they were named, and perhaps there may have been some more than human power at work occasionally in giving them names.

HERMOGENES: I think so, Socrates.

SOCRATES: Ought we not to begin with the consideration of the Gods, and show that they are rightly named Gods?

HERMOGENES: Yes, that will be well.

SOCRATES: My notion would be something of this sort:—I suspect that the sun, moon, earth, stars, and heaven, which are still the Gods of many barbarians, were the only Gods known to the aboriginal Hellenes. Seeing that they were always moving and running, from their running nature they were called Gods or runners (Theous, Theontas); and when men became acquainted with the other Gods, they proceeded to apply the same name to them all. Do you think that likely?

HERMOGENES: I think it very likely indeed.

SOCRATES: What shall follow the Gods?

HERMOGENES: Must not demons and heroes and men come next?

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to stare up at the sky millions of years from today? Would things look exactly the same, or would the sky be totally unrecognizable? Wonder no longer — the European Space Agency (ESA) has just released a video answering that exact question.

Since July 2014, ESA’s Gaia mission has been charting the positions of stars in the Milky Way with higher accuracy than ever before. Its goal is to create a three-dimensional map of our galaxy, which is uniquely challenging because we’re trying to make a map from inside the galaxy, rather than being able to take a step back and view it from outside.

With such precise stellar positions, however, comes something else: stellar motions. The stars seem perpetually fixed in the sky — sure, they rise and set, and change throughout the year as we go around the Sun, but they always form the same patterns. A significant percentage of the constellations most of us know are those derived, after all, by the Greeks just a little under 2,000 years ago. So, of course, it’s natural to assume that the stars just don’t move, because they’ve looked pretty much the same for thousands of years.

 

[Abramelin]

Bone:

Apparently, this structure is the most strong, and/or the most stable structure.

The question is: why?

Edited November 6, 2021 by Abramelin

[Coil]

3 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

To help me see what you mean, which early races are you referring to? Would you agree that what we see today, with our unaided naked eyes, is the same the ancients saw? I mean that from the same general position, and approximately the same time, let us say Cairo Egypt, and at midnight, has the night sky changed any for anyone with 20/20 vision whether it was today, or thousands of years in the past? How many thousands of years back do we need to look, using our current knowledge, to see a substantial change in the night sky? Of course, compensating for and disregarding modern day air and light pollution.  Generally, I mean, disregarding certain comets and asteroids.

Imagination, and superstition is what makes us see animals and gods in the sky. Especially if we are told what to imagine by those we look up to.  You are told to draw the imaginary lines of connection. The past is no different than today, as human nature has changed little from thousands of years ago, just as the night sky has not changed much for the same time frame. I only see points of light, and I draw my own conclusion...usually just from reading Plato.

 

 

At the time of Atlantis, people did not yet have a complete combination of the physical and subtle body, so they could see the world and the stars in a different way. But even in the time of the pharaohs, there were people who had developed keen eyesight, so they saw the gods and captured them on their frescoes. This explains such a number of gods and belief in natural spirits in paganism and religions. When people lost the sight of the subtle world, they needed faith in some one deity, Christianity and other one-god religions were born in one god. It was difficult for the early races to see the stars, since the sky was covered with dense clouds, so they ascended to the gods only in a dream and their consciousness was active and they did not fall asleep, but ascended into heaven and traveled with the gods. And the Egyptians left the initiated person in the pyramid so that he three days traveled in the world of the gods so they kept the tradition of the Atlanteans.

In the future race, the human subtle body will again protrude above the physical body and we will see all natural spirits, angels and gods. And then not the physical and physical objects will be important for us, but subtle objects and worlds, beings and consciousness.

In those days, every person had a thin head that did not look like a physical one, but like some kind of animal, a calf or a lion, and if a craving for the spiritual was developed, then the head of an eagle. There were such creatures in whose aura all these creatures were. The Egyptian zodiac also consisted of animals and people.

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

[Abramelin]

Coil and Pettytalk, the two of you should get a room, and quit this topic.

Please.

Edited November 6, 2021 by Abramelin

[psyche101]

On 11/7/2021 at 8:49 AM, Abramelin said:

Coil and Pettytalk, the two of you should get a room, and quit this topic.

Please.

Oh

Are they different people?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

On 11/7/2021 at 6:36 AM, Abramelin said:

Bone:

Apparently, this structure is the most strong, and/or the most stable structure.

The question is: why?

I find it humerus that you would post that picture.

[onlookerofmayhem]

11 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

I find it humerus that you would post that picture.

Odd you don't find it femurous...

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

4 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Odd you don't find it femurous...

I wouldn’t have a leg to stand on if I did.

[onlookerofmayhem]

6 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

I wouldn’t have a leg to stand on if I did.

I could send you a pair of orthopedic shoes if you'd like.

Then you could at least stand corrected.

[MDagger]

On 11/6/2021 at 6:49 PM, Abramelin said:

Coil and Pettytalk, the two of you should get a room, and quit this topic.

Please.

Nah they could stay here while I leave the room....

MDagger

[+Pettytalk]

On 11/6/2021 at 3:49 PM, Abramelin said:

Coil and Pettytalk, the two of you should get a room, and quit this topic.

Please.

The word of the day is, "quiet," not quit.

 

[jaylemurph]

23 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Oh

Are they different people?

Great minds think alike, but fools seldom differ.

—Jaylemurph 

[+Pettytalk]

It seems, but it may not be. The mind is easily fooled into seeing similarities where none exist. The greater the mind, the greater it gets fooled, and the difference is proportional to the greatness perceived. We are sharing personal visions of similarities in an attempt to localize the whereabouts of our universe, in relation to the existence of other possible universes. Basically, we are asking, where are we, really?  We are attempting to find similarities to the macrocosms by looking at the microcosm for possible patterns. But we must be careful, by assuring the exclusions of any similarities we may see, which are caused by bouts of apophenia.

 

[+Pettytalk]

And while we are on the subject of mind and seeing similarities. I noted that no one brought brains to use. Talk about seen similarities. Has anyone seen the inside of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican? In particular Michelangelo's painting on the walls and ceiling. Some say that God is everywhere. I thought about that, thinking that, based on some propositions that the entire physical universe may just be the body of a living God, perhaps we are located in the brain. Then one day, in art class, I chanced to look at some closeup pictures of various sections of the frescoes painted by Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel. And ever since, I believe our universe, what we can see of it, is God's Brain.

The Creation of Adam (1508-1512) on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel has long been recognized as one of the world’s great art treasures. In 1990 Frank Lynn Meshberger, M.D. described what millions had overlooked for centuries — an anatomically accurate image of the human brain was portrayed behind God. On close examination, borders in the painting correlate with sulci in the inner and outer surface of the brain, the brain stem, the basilar artery, the pituitary gland and the optic chiasm. God’s hand does not touch Adam, yet Adam is already alive as if the spark of life is being transmitted across a synaptic cleft. Below the right arm of God is a sad angel in an area of the brain that is sometimes activated on PET scans when someone experiences a sad thought. God is superimposed over the limbic system, the emotional center of the brain and possibly the anatomical counterpart of the human soul. God’s right arm extends to the prefrontal cortex, the most creative and most uniquely human region of the brain.

https://www.microneurosurgery-roma.com/explaining-the-hidden-meaning-of-michelangelos-creation-of-adam/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34703841/human-brain-universe-similarities/

An astrophysicist and neuroscientist teamed up to compare similarities between the universe and networks of neurons in the brain.

Despite the substantial difference in scale, the two complex systems are strikingly alike.

The researchers used a combination of methods from cosmology, neuroscience, and network analysis to quantitatively compare the two.

[Ove]

A structure or network like this, is always inside something. The observable universe is on the inside of something. There is a world outside the observable universe.

[Abramelin]

On 11/9/2021 at 12:04 PM, Pettytalk said:

I noted that no one brought brains to use.

Posts #16 & 21.

[Abramelin]

32 minutes ago, Ove said:

A structure or network like this, is always inside something. The observable universe is on the inside of something. There is a world outside the observable universe.

We can continue endlessly finding analogies: what about a natural sponge?

Would your 'something' resemble a sea?

[Ove]

1 hour ago, Abramelin said:

We can continue endlessly finding analogies: what about a natural sponge?

Would your 'something' resemble a sea?

Sea or earth, the structure serve some purpose, within something it's in. It holds something together or connected.

[fred_mc]

If the universe is a network where information is exchanged, I wonder how it is done. Speed of light is far too slow. We know about entanglement. Perhaps there are also ways that we haven't discovered yet.

[Abramelin]

1 hour ago, Ove said:

Sea or earth, the structure serve some purpose, within something it's in. It holds something together or connected.

For some reason I have been thinking of the Web of Wyrd.

It has nothing to do with a physical structure.