Erik, grüßGott! My assumption is that the universe will continue existing when I die. Technically it’s speculation, but seems like a good bet, right?
Apologies for having not replied 'til now, I am a bit busy with work.
As this is a speculative thread, might I attempt a speculative answer?
Physical time and physical space - and all those processes of material transformation taking place within time and space (including the fever, the cloth, and the hallucination of a horse) - have their own (provisional) objectively and order because they are the meditations (or spontaneously yet continually created contents) of a universal mind.
This is why the universe has a continuance even when the particular mind or brain dies.
Our own ‘individual minds’ (or brains) can be ‘of’ that universal mind (or universal meditation) when the particular psychological contents - put together by thought and psychological time - are no longer existent: that is, when the mind or brain is empty of all psychological content, and so is in a state of pure attention or pure awareness without self, without ‘I’, without thought.
Only then could it be said - although there would be no-one to say it, and no reason for it to be said - that there is no object and no subject. There would just be universal meditation.
A good story! 
That’s a compliment from me, since I consider all views to be stories, but not all stories to be good ones. 
It definitely resonates with me, rings possibly true. Your universal mind sounds somewhat like a God process. Am I projecting or is that a little bit what you’re thinking?
It might be a good bet, but you will never know. That is a fact. And even if something continues existing it is never like that you have known. It is something new. The Rick of tomorrow is not the Rick of today even physically.
1 Like
Hi, would you say that there is a difference between “natural” destruction like an earthquake and destruction caused by thought because of self-centredness of the mind? Even though both springs out of the universal mind, to me, it is not the same.
The word God is too personal for me. But perhaps what K and Bohm called “mystery” (in their 1975 discussions, which are the topic of Wim Opdam’s recent thread on the subject) would be a better fit:
K: Every religion has talked about that mystery – Judaism said the nameless, Hindus have called it brahman, others, Christians, haven’t gone very deeply into that matter, they called it God. But there is something really tremendously mysterious.
Mystery works for me, though I usually reify it by saying: the Mystery.
Is there a difference?
I don’t know if you have heard some of those 1975 discussions between K and Bohm? (some of them are admittedly a little tedious and difficult to follow, but there are others - as Wim Opdam has said - that verge on the revelatory). At one point they distinguish between the mysterious and the strange:
By strange they apparently mean parapsychological happenings, such as levitation, telepathy, synchronic fatalisms, unusual physical transformations (such as, in one example, turning plain water into sugared water without using saccharine; and, in another, of making a newspaper shrink in size until it almost disappears!) - and extra-sensory perception generally.
By the mysterious they seem to have meant the true great mystery of the world, of the universe; the order of creation, the unfolding of world-history - or that the world even exists; also what may be implied by the word “sacred”; and also the nature of destiny, of what takes place when a brain becomes a vessel of another dimension than the one we are privy to already.
So by strange I understand K and Bohm to have meant ‘mysterious things that can occur in life’ (or ‘mysteries’ in the plural).
While by mysterious I understand them to have meant ‘the true mystery of all things’ (in the singular).
Is there a difference?
For me there is a difference between saying something is mysterious and something is the Mystery.
The latter is more reified, presented as if a substantial thing, Named. The former is just a pointer.
I don’t know if you have heard some of those 1975 discussions between K and Bohm?
I will listen!
New musing:
What are the main ‘core’ questions that keep us looking and learning?
For me there is a handful of Big Questions, but this is a pretty good umbrella:
What (in tarnation!) is really going on here?
You?
Mam I feel questioning is important but don’t know the particular set of core questions as far as now.
May be its totally depeneded on the situation we are facing.
What is your present ‘core’ question or interest?
Why there is a sort of resistance to accepting the situation as it is?, this is the present question I am having inside. 
What about you mam?
Why there is a sort of resistance to accepting the situation as it is?
Ah yes, this question is quite fundamental for me too. Could you talk about your resistance, give us a sense of how it feels?
What about you mam?
I mostly wonder about what makes things tick: me, other people, animals, plants, trees, stones, the physical world, the mental world, the universe, everything!
My research paper got rejected mam, it is a bit painful for me at the moment. It happened 60 minutes ago, anyways I came out of it and started talking with you.
Have you faced any situations, like this in your life?
Lots of my things have been ignored or rejected, sure! It can be very painful.
How are you dealing with your situation?
Btw, I am a sir not a ma’am.
It seems that you have more experience, compared to me. Hope you are dealing with all of them quite well enough.
After chatting with you I watched some Pakistani, Indian, African, and Mexican food videos for some time and finally felt asleep 
Now I have to make some adjustments to my paper and resubmit it to some journal.
Viswa, I did reply to your message from a couple of weeks ago, but if you recall it was you who didn’t reply to me because your account had by that time been deleted again (you seem to forget that the fact of your being banned has consequences not only for you!).
At that time we were discussing - or rather, I was responding to your assertions - about the nature of a religious mind.
You were saying that a religious or enlightened person has no concern about wars, about human suffering, is completely indifferent (“like nature”) to what is going on in the world, and has no compassion. You were saying this because you feel that K was mistaken for being concerned about wars, about human suffering, for not being indifferent to the world and for talking about compassion.
Into this conversation you were bringing up all kinds of extraneous issues, about NATO, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, gun crime, the US dollar, Putin, Zelensky, Ukraine, currency value, the Buddha, Joe Biden, the Arab world, etc. - which I found incoherent and rambling.
In the posts you left on the public forum you were saying that love can co-exist with hate, and bringing in the Buddha and Nagarjuna tangentially to corroborate your assertions - something which I again found incoherent and rambling.
Time is limited, and I have a life like everyone else on the forum. I have work to do, relationships to attend to, and other interests apart from posting here. So, with the best will in the world, I cannot reply to everything that you or another might message me. And on top of this, I find your rambling way of using language, your constant shifting of interests, your tendency to make unsupported assertions, and your background acceptance of traditional Hindu beliefs a difficult concoction to assimilate.
Could I suggest - without sounding rude, but just as a practical matter - that you find someone on the forum who actually “gets” what you are wanting to communicate (as I do not), and begin a discussion with them (rather than me)? There is nothing special about what I have to say that you will not find out through someone else, so you won’t be missing anything. - The important thing is that you begin to actually dialogue with another (if that is what you want), rather than jump around reactively from topic to topic (which is what you are presently doing), and I don’t think I am best placed to do this with you (at least, not on the consistent basis that you are demanding of me).
So, rather than ask me what my intentions are, why not ask this question of yourself? What are you truly wanting out of a discussion here? What does dialogue mean to you? I hope you don’t take offence at my saying these things.
1 Like
What is the paper about?