Apparently you’re my godfather. I’m the newborn mentioned, daughter of Rich and Lindsey. There is so much I don’t know about my early life and the people in it because my father was declared, my mom was kicked out of the sea-org, and we ended up running from my father to SC in the early 80’s. I have had my fair share of horrors with Scientology organizations (my mom got back into it for a while in the early 90’s). Thinking too much about my experiences with Scientology literally makes me feel sick, so I won’t get into it too much. I’m glad your business is successful and you’ve been strong enough to withstand all that you have. Just wanted to drop you a line. 🙂

-Christy

Just found this blog. David do you remember me? You offered me a job in Le Bus when I was an undergrad at Drexel. 1979/80?

Elie Scialom

Roger,,

I got a good chuckle from reading your reply.

A worthy opponent and a meaningful dialectical argument (discussion) is always appreciated and enjoyed.

It is a good start for this Sunday

Thanks

Dio

Thank you Roger, Someone is screwing with my IPad as it won’t take my email. I wonder why? You are a beautiful being & I am so glad I can write you.Since blowing the SO in 1978 after giving my heart & spirit to the SO so much has occured. Colon cancer 19 yrs out, & breast cancer last yr.But I have beaten it all into remission & will always be the fighter I am. In The SO that I loved in the beginning,I could not see @ that time what was to come.Now I certainly do.However I keep pushing forward because my soul will not let me stop. I love Mike & was not sure I could do the blog, but I took the leap& got on it.In Truth, Ann Watson.PS Imam not sure if Imgot cancer from my weeks on the Excaliber ship which I loved although now I know was not Ll sunshine & roses.

Thank you, Ann. What a lovely way to be.

Hi Roger,Just had to add I don’t believe you could abuse this forem.We all know what rock(hole) the abusers live at & in! a forever friend Ann Watson.

Dio, your advice is sound regarding evaluating information against knowledge etc. and not being hasty in over-valuing what you subscribe to. I started with LSD, Ram Das,kundalini yoga, tantric yoga, J.Krishnamurti, T.M. scientology, mechanistic materialism, Tibetan Buddhism, neo-advaita, and finally classical, old-school vedanta under the guidance of an enlightened teacher. This illustrious-sounding resume is no proof that I know the difference between up and down. What it does mean though is if I haven’t gotten the big picture by now all good advice is wasted on me. Talking with you is addictive but I don’t want to abuse this forum. Thanks for the discussion, we may well do it again.

Roger,

1. On one hand: You raise a fair question by saying that you do not know what I mean by dimensions.
I would say that no one earth really knows for certain.

There are many philosophers who write about dimensions and I have not seen any agreement between the different ones I read.

My best definition is only an imaginary one or intuitive one, (as a concept) based on the common denominator that I could best comprehend of what I read. It did not occur to me that I should.

You can spend some time reading up on definitions on line.

Here are a few:

Dimension:
a. a property of space; extension in a given direction: A straight line has one dimension, a parallelogram has two dimensions, and a parallelepiped has three dimensions.
b. the generalization of this property to spaces with curvilinear extension, as the surface of a sphere.
c. a magnitude that serves to define the location of an element within a given set, as of a point on a line or an event in space-time.
d. a plane of existence.

Wikipedia has some detail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension

I just thought of these definitions:

A location of existence. A place where some thing can be located.

2. You only refer to Vedic scripture as your source.

There is a saying: Beware of the one who has only read one book.

The formula for understanding as explained in “How To Study a Science”, which makes the most sense for mere earthlings, is in order to understand something, you have to study and evaluate every subject of comparable magnitude in the known universe. If you do not do that and only parrot an author or authority you are only slightly aberrated. Parroting is not intelligence.

From: How to study a science:

Any person who accepts knowledge without evaluating it for himself is demonstrating himself to be in apathy toward that sphere of knowledge.

When a person tries to erect the plans of a life time or a profession, or even base an argument on data which he himself has never evaluated, he cannot possibly succeed.

Fundamentals are very, very important, but first of all one must learn to think in order to be absolutely sure of a fundamental. Knowing how to think properly and honestly is the first requirement. Thinking is not particularly difficult to learn. Briefly, it consists merely of comparing a particular datum with objects or concepts of comparable magnitude and opposite magnitude, in the physical universe as it is known and observed. A lot more could be said on thinking.

I suggest you read the following books which have data on dimensions:

a. The oahspe. Available on line free in pdf.
b. http://www.revelatorium.com
c. Walter Russel’s books,.. in particular “The Universal One”. There is lots of data on dimensions in that book.

available at http://www.philosophy.org

3. In the bible Jesus is alleged to have said: In my Father’s house, there are many mansions.

One could assume that means dimensions, or locations to exist.

If you read those that would be a good start.

There are a lot more.

4. In a discussion if you are operating solely from the data on of one book or one source and I am operating from another book or multiple sources (as I am), it is an eristical discussion (a nonsensical discussion). Like a German talking to a Chinese, each in their own language and trying to understand each other, without knowing the other’s language.

To begin to make it a dialectical discussion you would first also have to read multiple sources.

More along the formula for understanding.

Dio

I don’t know what you mean by dimensions because you didn’t say what you mean by dimensions. Vedic scripture says there are three dimensions or orders of reality and we experience all three simultaneously. What you say about the dimensions not impinging on each other is in accordance with that knowledge. There is the subjective reality (pratibasika) which consists of your thoughts, feelings, perceptions. There is the empirical reality, (vyavaharika) which consists of the shared universe whose laws are the same for everybody. Then there is absolute reality (paramarthika) which is witnessing presence. Paramarthika is considered the only thing that is real. In vedanta, “real” means that which is non-changing and is ever-present. That would be YOU as pure awareness.