Raghu from the intro has known Ram Dass since the late 60s and went to India many times and has the same Guru as Ram Dass. From the very start it was Ram Dass’s intention to record all of his public speaking engagements for future use. Without the Be here Now Network to categorize and edit and publicity publish these recordings then we would never hear these talks of Ram Dass. Not only that, but the revenue helps fund other projects ventures to benefit even more people. As far as I know, everyone on the Be Here Now Network, who also has podcasts, such as Jack Kornfield, Joseph Goldstein, and Sharon Salzburg all had a great friendship with Ram Dass that stems back to the 60s and 70s. If it was a bunch of strangers profiting off of Ram Dass teachings, I would feel different about it, but I would still accept it as it is.
@@LeoandLunaLumine123 what an informative response thank you for taking the time to explain all of that. I’ve been listening to Ram Dass lecture for quite some time and I was always curious about the process of publishing all of these. I’ve just began following the Ram Dass network more closely so this is all lovely know 🤍
Thanks for this, 🎯♥😶 🙏☮ wishing love, grace, courage and understand🎯ing for all. Please keep reminding because It does help. Thank you,Thanks for sharing truth
I missed the retreat or workshop info, I’m in NC. And have already been interested. But I can’t find it , how to enroll or reserve a spot….can anyone post the link
There is too much talk in the beginning. It's Ram Das i want to listen to. I need no explanation what he's talking about. Ram Dass words go right into my heart. So please, keep the presentation at minimum 60 seconds.
[The difference between 0 and 1 changed a year ago and why that matters]: Both sides in the Religion vs Science debates use the Materialism/Empiricism version of logic, math and physics which say 1D, 2D, 3D and 4D are "locally real" and 0D is "not locally real". Unfortunately for Materialism/Empiricism, quantum physics proved the observable universe is actually "not locally real" a year ago (Oct 2022 was the earliest article i could find). The immediate lead-up to this was the Nobel Prize proving quantum entanglement. Well over 300 years ago Leibniz vs Newton competed for the title of "Universal Genius". We chose Newton, obviously, but an interesting point is that nobody ever proved Materialism/Empiricism... we simply thought it "ought" to be true. The only proof that happened was a year ago when quantum physics flat-out disproved Materialism/Empiricism: The observable universe is "not locally real" and that proves we chose the wrong guy, full stop 🛑. Zero vs nonzero numbers are what we assign "locally real" and "not locally real" to. If zero is one thing then nonzero is the other. This is due to zero being not-natural whereas nonzero numbers are natural. The "absolute" version of the observable universe proposed by Newton simply does not exist and it never has (was never proven anyhow, just disproven). Leibniz said 0D is necessary and more real; having no predecessor and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are contingent and less real; all having an immediate predecessor. Necessary and more real = locally real Contingent and less real = not locally real Leibniz was correct and that means we're all taught contradictory logic, math and physics. [What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus]? Newton's calculus is about functions. Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints. In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation. In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation. Study zero (not-natural) vs nonzero (natural) numbers since the difference between 0 (zero) and 1 (nonzero) changed a year ago. Then: 0 = not locally real 1 = locally real Now: 0 = locally real 1 = not locally real It's about time the same tired Religion vs Science arguments we've heard for over 300 years can be updated (on both sides). Holy guacamole its gotten so boring 💤.
Contradictory: *impossible to be true.* Non-contradictory: *possible to be true.* ❌️Contradictory Theology, Mathematics and Physics (knowing good; functions; limit built into every operation)❌️: 1. The Gen 1 character and the Gen 2 character are the exact same character (knowing good). 2. Zero is not fundamental and nonzero numbers are fundamental (Newton/Einstein calculus). 3. 0D is not locally real and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are locally real (Newton/Einstein physics). ⬆️ this is what we're all taught. Materialist/Empiricist version of reality.⬆️ ✅️Non-contradictory Theology, Mathematics and Physics (knowing good from evil; relations defined by constraints; limit is a separate operation)✅️: 1. The Gen 1 character and the Gen 2 character are polar opposite characters (knowing good from evil). 2. Zero is fundamental and nonzero numbers are not fundamental (Leibniz calculus). 3. 0D is locally real and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are not locally real (Leibniz physics). ⬆️ this is what quantum physics proved a year ago and if Theology doesn't match Math and Physics then you're doing it wrong. Realist version of reality.⬆️ [🦄Materialism/Empiricism💩 version of Religion]: Interpreting the Bible with the Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character as the exact same character generates near 70,000 contradictions (see reason project) and requires heavy apologetics. A Bible interpretation which includes near 70,000 contradictions (impossible to be true) is what a snake-oil salesman would sell you. 🐍 [🦤Materialism/Empiricism💩 version of Science]: The standard model of physics is Einstein's 3+1 space-time, which are considered locally real, where 0 is considered not locally real...been that way since Newton for zero vs nonzero numbers. Problem is...quantum physics proved the observable universe (1D, 2D, 3D and 4D) is actually not locally real...and that was over a year ago. (Yes, Leibniz was correct after all.) 🦧 [Layman's terminology of locally real vs not locally real]: locally real = more real (Leibniz said "necessary") not locally real = less real (Leibniz said "contingent") [Closing arguments]: The Materialism/Empiricism package contains within itself all the contradictions, false dichotomies, paradoxes and literally "life's biggest questions". It's been a year why is everyone still using Logic, Calculus and Geometry that is contradictory at the most fundamental level? Legitimate question 🙋. If both Religion and Science removed their "Materialist/Empiricist-perspective shades 👓" (contradictory for a year) and put on their "Realist-perspective shades 👓" (non-contradictory for a year) they would not only cease to argue...they'd agree with each other (world first 🪙).
[Infinity and zero, theology, soul]: in·fin·i·ty MATHEMATICS a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞). (In counting numbers 0 is the subject where positive integers "1, 2, 3 and 4 etc" are the objects). What is the meaning of zero in Webster's dictionary? a. : the arithmetical symbol 0 or 0̸ denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity. b. : additive identity. specifically : the number between the set of all negative numbers and the set of all positive numbers. Zero is the most important number in mathematics and is both a real and an imaginary number with a horizon through it. Zero-dimensional space is the greatest dimension in physics and is both a real and an imaginary dimension with an event horizon through it. Isn't⚡God⚡supposed to be outside of space (1D, 2D, 3D) and time (4D)? Well, 0D is outside of space and time: 0D (not-natural) = dimensionless and timeless 1D, 2D, 3D (natural) = spatial dimensions 4D (natural) = temporal dimension Read Leibniz's Monadology 📖 and consider that the Monad is the zero-dimensional space binding our quarks together with the strong force (it is). The other side of the Monad is Monos (Alone) and this side is Monas (Singularity) and there's an event horizon between them. So El/Elohim or Theos/Logos etc pick your language. Quarks are dimensionless (no size) and timeless (not-natural). The two main quark spin configs two-down, one-up (subatomic to neutron) and two-up, one-down (subatomic to proton) could easily be construed as the male (upward facing trinity) and female (downward facing trinity) image that Elohim made us in during Genesis 1. Quarks (no spatial extension) experience all 3 fundamental forces plus have a fractional electric charge⚡and that's why protons and neutrons (spatial extension) have electrons orbiting around them. In Geometry any new dimension has to contain within it all previous dimensions. This holds true with it being impossible for atomic protons and neutrons (spatial extension) to exist without subatomically containing within themselves quarks (no spatial extension). "Something (spatial extension) from Nothing (no spatial extension)". A) The postulated soul, 👻, has 1. no spatial extension 2. zero size 3. exact location only B) Quarks are mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts. Mass with no size is a unique equation in that it has no spatial extension. Conclusion: A and B are the same thing.
[Important point 👉 (dont forget)]: 0D (zero) is different from 1D-10D (nonzero) because 0D is a not-natural dimension whereas 1D-10D are natural dimensions. 0D monad (Creator event horizon) 1D, 2D, 3D are spatial (space) dimensions 1D line 2D width 3D height 4D, 5D, 6D are temporal (time) dimensions 4D length 5D breadth 6D depth 7D, 8D, 9D are spectral (energy) dimensions 7D continuous 8D emission 9D absorption 10D black hole (Destroyer event horizon) It is impossible for anything 1D-9D to approach 0D or 10D due to their event horizons. 10D contains a placeholder 0 (not locally real) for its event horizon. Only 0D is locally real on this side. The other side of the event horizon at the zero-of yourself (near horizon) is God. The other side of the event horizon of a black hole (far horizon) is not God. Anything we know about black holes (Destroyer) we know the opposite of that is true for monads (Creator), and we know some crazy sci-fi stuff about black holes. It's a mirror universe with 0D at the center. This side (Elohim; Singularity) is contingent and less real (the natural dimensions anyway) and the other side (El; Alone) is necessary and more real (pretty sure the entirety of the other side remains locally real). The zero-of ourselves (more real 👻) was made by the Holy Trinity (Deity; possessive; God's) in Genesis 1 which should not be confused with the Unholy Trinity (Deity; plural; gods) in Genesis 2-3 who messes with the 1D, 2D, 3D parts of us (less real 🤷♂️). Elohim was "syncretized" to just mean El during the Babylonian captivity. To avoid this simply use the Latin, "unsyncretized", counterpart Deity for possessive (God's) and plural (gods) context. (Septuagint and Vulgate use Post-Babylonian captivity "syncretized" meaning of Elohim so mistranslate as Theos and Deus, respectively). Gen 2-3 introduces the placeholder Elohim (not locally real) and their blind, foolish chief running amok. Plurality of bad guy that 'are' each other and 'are not' God. Nephilim are sons of the false Elohim associated with Yahweh (the BAAL, or LORD, of the gods).
[Monad in philosophy/cosmogony]: Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the sum "I am" of all things. The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both. The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an *elementary particle.* It had a *geometric counterpart,* which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people. [In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's *Monad,* from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of *the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together* using the strong nuclear force]: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force. 2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together. 3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions. 4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics. 7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions. [Monad in mathematics, science and technology]: Monad (biology), a historical term for a simple unicellular organism Monad (category theory), a construction in category theory Monad (functional programming), functional programming constructs that capture various notions of computation Monad (homological algebra), a 3-term complex Monad (nonstandard analysis), the set of points infinitesimally close to a given point
"Some first follow the true Savior but then turn away to worship a dead man." - the revelation of Peter THE WORLD RULER TRIES TO KILL ME And then a voice of the world ruler came to the angels: “I am god and there is no other god but me.” But I laughed joyfully when I examined his conceit. But he went on to say, “Who is the human?” And the entire host of his angels who had seen Adam and his dwelling were laughing at his smallness. And thus did their thought come to be removed outside the majesty of the heavens, away from the human of truth, whose name they saw, since he is in a small dwelling place. They are foolish and senseless in their empty thought, namely, their laughter, and it was contagion for them. The whole greatness of the fatherhood of the spirit was at rest in its places. And I was with him, since I have a thought of a single emanation from the eternal ones and the unknowable ones, undefiled and immeasurable. I placed the small thought in the world, having disturbed them and frightened the whole multitude of the angels and their ruler. And I was visiting them all with fire and flame because of my thought. And everything pertaining to them was brought about because of me. And there came about a disturbance and a fight around the seraphim and cherubim, since their glory will fade, and there was confusion around Adonaios on both sides and around their dwelling, up to the world ruler and the one who said, “Let us seize him.” Others again said, “The plan will certainly not materialize.” For Adonaios knows me because of hope. And I was in the mouths of lions. And as for the plan that they devised about me to release their error and their senselessness, I did not succumb to them as they had planned. And I was not afflicted at all. Those who were there punished me, yet I did not die in reality but in appearance, in order that I not be put to shame by them because these are my kinsfolk. I removed the shame from me, and I did not become fainthearted in the face of what happened to me at their hands. I was about to succumb to fear, and I suffered merely according to their sight and thought so that no word might ever be found to speak about them. For my death, which they think happened, happened to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death. Their thoughts did not see me, for they were deaf and blind. But in doing these things, they condemn themselves. Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the rulers and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance.
Why do people hate on Raghu Marcus so much in every one of these comment threads? I get that we are listening for Ram Dass but it seems counterintuitive to all this "Love" shit
@@bethbradley1986 I feel you. I personally skip to ram dass as well but am always amazed by how many people vocalize their discontent with Ragu Marcus. He's a human, y'know? Anyway.
It's good that they're vocalizing. It's helping them realize the way they're thinking even if they don't know it. I used to skip too but now I hear his wisdom because he is deeply realized.
It's good that they're vocalizing. It's helping them realize the way they're thinking even if they don't know it. I used to skip too but now I hear his wisdom because he is deeply realized.
I want to like this talk. I do like the subject matter. But whatever Ram Dass was like as a live speaker, some important part is clearly missing in recorded form.
22:55 many people can relate. Doctors call it drug induced manic psychosis or something of the sorts 😊 And if you see the doctor as more of a “somebody” than you, then you’ll take that diagnosis of that condition of mind to heart. You are so, so much more. Yes you. Reading this now. Just leaving this for anybody who knows exactly what Ram Dass is saying. You were not “out of your mind” like the ‘others’ tell you ❤ love you and your experience is valid And here I am commenting this hoping my experience is valid too, even though it was validated to the highest degree through this video 22:57
I need a Ram Dass community...🥲
Same
In the heart
We’re here 😊🫶
Me too.
We are here
11:44 💓
Thank you lol
The speakers before Ram Dass is our guru in drag lol.
We still love you raghu
Thankyou
Man, what a gift this man was and still is! Really needed this today, thank you guys for sharing his talks!
Love from Assisi 😄❤
So grateful for these words. ✨💕 sending love to us all.
Thank you ❤
“The object isn’t to get high to get out there, the object is to be free!”
Unless you can get high for free lol
Raghu! Thanks for the episode. I love when Ram Dass speaks with this energy. Glad to time travel back to be with him.
I love the talks, cant help but feel the intro is an attempt to own someone elses wisdom. with love.
Raghu from the intro has known Ram Dass since the late 60s and went to India many times and has the same Guru as Ram Dass.
From the very start it was Ram Dass’s intention to record all of his public speaking engagements for future use. Without the Be here Now Network to categorize and edit and publicity publish these recordings then we would never hear these talks of Ram Dass. Not only that, but the revenue helps fund other projects ventures to benefit even more people.
As far as I know, everyone on the Be Here Now Network, who also has podcasts, such as Jack Kornfield, Joseph Goldstein, and Sharon Salzburg all had a great friendship with Ram Dass that stems back to the 60s and 70s.
If it was a bunch of strangers profiting off of Ram Dass teachings, I would feel different about it, but I would still accept it as it is.
@@LeoandLunaLumine123 what an informative response thank you for taking the time to explain all of that. I’ve been listening to Ram Dass lecture for quite some time and I was always curious about the process of publishing all of these. I’ve just began following the Ram Dass network more closely so this is all lovely know 🤍
SO HAPPY FOR YOU TO BE BACK!!!!! Hasn’t been the same. Love you !!! What a great treat to have you back.
Thanks Raghu!
I think when I first heard Ram Dass speak I felt He was so part of all of Us
Thanks!
Nice to hear you again Raghu
20:15 Some "BUDDY" that i used to know (Man of no ego).
I'm so thankful for these podcasts, often I feel like I'm going crazy but listening to these reassures me that I'm not. Namaste 🕉🙏🫶
Ram Dass never seemed to not hit the nail on the head
For real! I came here to RamDas not a bunch od talking feon someone nor there
Thanks for this, 🎯♥😶 🙏☮ wishing love, grace, courage and understand🎯ing for all. Please keep reminding because It does help. Thank you,Thanks for sharing truth
EMBRACE IT ALL, and for they who do not, have empathy for their unawakeness.
You can still be awake and struggle to embrace even a part of it. Just have empathy period.
Raghu, Prodcast was a great slip of the tongue!
Looking forward to this Fellowship - Podcast discussion next week on Feb 27th
Me too even though I have class during that time
@@joker-mo8cb there is a new meet up for the latest podcast on March 12th!!
Thank you for this , I needed it 🙏❤️🙏
Raghu it was so nice having you introduce the podcast again 💕
"...for a small pittance I'll help you wear my suit." 😅
beautiful
I am with you on that
Haha "be here now, accept the present moment as it is, also, buy this thing, you need this"
Starts at 11:55
Jai Guru
love u raghu
Hi Raghu ☺️💕
I missed the retreat or workshop info, I’m in NC. And have already been interested. But I can’t find it , how to enroll or reserve a spot….can anyone post the link
sure here you go
There is too much talk in the beginning. It's Ram Das i want to listen to. I need no explanation what he's talking about. Ram Dass words go right into my heart.
So please, keep the presentation at minimum 60 seconds.
💜
11:55
❤
Does anyone listen to the guy at the beginning? Not me
real
Useless, interpreting what doesn’t need to be… gives him a meaning
Hello everyone, isnt ram das great.❤
[The difference between 0 and 1 changed a year ago and why that matters]:
Both sides in the Religion vs Science debates use the Materialism/Empiricism version of logic, math and physics which say 1D, 2D, 3D and 4D are "locally real" and 0D is "not locally real".
Unfortunately for Materialism/Empiricism, quantum physics proved the observable universe is actually "not locally real" a year ago (Oct 2022 was the earliest article i could find). The immediate lead-up to this was the Nobel Prize proving quantum entanglement.
Well over 300 years ago Leibniz vs Newton competed for the title of "Universal Genius". We chose Newton, obviously, but an interesting point is that nobody ever proved Materialism/Empiricism... we simply thought it "ought" to be true.
The only proof that happened was a year ago when quantum physics flat-out disproved Materialism/Empiricism:
The observable universe is "not locally real" and that proves we chose the wrong guy, full stop 🛑.
Zero vs nonzero numbers are what we assign "locally real" and "not locally real" to. If zero is one thing then nonzero is the other. This is due to zero being not-natural whereas nonzero numbers are natural.
The "absolute" version of the observable universe proposed by Newton simply does not exist and it never has (was never proven anyhow, just disproven).
Leibniz said 0D is necessary and more real; having no predecessor and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are contingent and less real; all having an immediate predecessor.
Necessary and more real = locally real
Contingent and less real = not locally real
Leibniz was correct and that means we're all taught contradictory logic, math and physics.
[What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus]?
Newton's calculus is about functions.
Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints.
In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation.
In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation.
Study zero (not-natural) vs nonzero (natural) numbers since the difference between 0 (zero) and 1 (nonzero) changed a year ago.
Then:
0 = not locally real
1 = locally real
Now:
0 = locally real
1 = not locally real
It's about time the same tired Religion vs Science arguments we've heard for over 300 years can be updated (on both sides).
Holy guacamole its gotten so boring 💤.
Contradictory: *impossible to be true.*
Non-contradictory: *possible to be true.*
❌️Contradictory Theology, Mathematics and Physics (knowing good; functions; limit built into every operation)❌️:
1. The Gen 1 character and the Gen 2 character are the exact same character (knowing good).
2. Zero is not fundamental and nonzero numbers are fundamental (Newton/Einstein calculus).
3. 0D is not locally real and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are locally real (Newton/Einstein physics).
⬆️ this is what we're all taught. Materialist/Empiricist version of reality.⬆️
✅️Non-contradictory Theology, Mathematics and Physics (knowing good from evil; relations defined by constraints; limit is a separate operation)✅️:
1. The Gen 1 character and the Gen 2 character are polar opposite characters (knowing good from evil).
2. Zero is fundamental and nonzero numbers are not fundamental (Leibniz calculus).
3. 0D is locally real and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D are not locally real (Leibniz physics).
⬆️ this is what quantum physics proved a year ago and if Theology doesn't match Math and Physics then you're doing it wrong. Realist version of reality.⬆️
[🦄Materialism/Empiricism💩 version of Religion]:
Interpreting the Bible with the Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character as the exact same character generates near 70,000 contradictions (see reason project) and requires heavy apologetics. A Bible interpretation which includes near 70,000 contradictions (impossible to be true) is what a snake-oil salesman would sell you. 🐍
[🦤Materialism/Empiricism💩 version of Science]:
The standard model of physics is Einstein's 3+1 space-time, which are considered locally real, where 0 is considered not locally real...been that way since Newton for zero vs nonzero numbers.
Problem is...quantum physics proved the observable universe (1D, 2D, 3D and 4D) is actually not locally real...and that was over a year ago.
(Yes, Leibniz was correct after all.) 🦧
[Layman's terminology of locally real vs not locally real]:
locally real = more real (Leibniz said "necessary")
not locally real = less real (Leibniz said "contingent")
[Closing arguments]:
The Materialism/Empiricism package contains within itself all the contradictions, false dichotomies, paradoxes and literally "life's biggest questions". It's been a year why is everyone still using Logic, Calculus and Geometry that is contradictory at the most fundamental level? Legitimate question 🙋.
If both Religion and Science removed their "Materialist/Empiricist-perspective shades 👓" (contradictory for a year) and put on their "Realist-perspective shades 👓" (non-contradictory for a year) they would not only cease to argue...they'd agree with each other (world first 🪙).
[Infinity and zero, theology, soul]:
in·fin·i·ty
MATHEMATICS
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).
(In counting numbers 0 is the subject where positive integers "1, 2, 3 and 4 etc" are the objects).
What is the meaning of zero in Webster's dictionary?
a. : the arithmetical symbol 0 or 0̸ denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity.
b. : additive identity. specifically : the number between the set of all negative numbers and the set of all positive numbers.
Zero is the most important number in mathematics and is both a real and an imaginary number with a horizon through it.
Zero-dimensional space is the greatest dimension in physics and is both a real and an imaginary dimension with an event horizon through it.
Isn't⚡God⚡supposed to be outside of space (1D, 2D, 3D) and time (4D)?
Well, 0D is outside of space and time:
0D (not-natural) = dimensionless and timeless
1D, 2D, 3D (natural) = spatial dimensions
4D (natural) = temporal dimension
Read Leibniz's Monadology 📖 and consider that the Monad is the zero-dimensional space binding our quarks together with the strong force (it is). The other side of the Monad is Monos (Alone) and this side is Monas (Singularity) and there's an event horizon between them. So El/Elohim or Theos/Logos etc pick your language.
Quarks are dimensionless (no size) and timeless (not-natural). The two main quark spin configs two-down, one-up (subatomic to neutron) and two-up, one-down (subatomic to proton) could easily be construed as the male (upward facing trinity) and female (downward facing trinity) image that Elohim made us in during Genesis 1.
Quarks (no spatial extension) experience all 3 fundamental forces plus have a fractional electric charge⚡and that's why protons and neutrons (spatial extension) have electrons orbiting around them.
In Geometry any new dimension has to contain within it all previous dimensions. This holds true with it being impossible for atomic protons and neutrons (spatial extension) to exist without subatomically containing within themselves quarks (no spatial extension).
"Something (spatial extension) from Nothing (no spatial extension)".
A) The postulated soul, 👻, has
1. no spatial extension
2. zero size
3. exact location only
B) Quarks are mass with no size measured in Megaelectron Volts. Mass with no size is a unique equation in that it has no spatial extension.
Conclusion: A and B are the same thing.
[Important point 👉 (dont forget)]:
0D (zero) is different from 1D-10D (nonzero) because 0D is a not-natural dimension whereas 1D-10D are natural dimensions.
0D monad (Creator event horizon)
1D, 2D, 3D are spatial (space) dimensions
1D line
2D width
3D height
4D, 5D, 6D are temporal (time) dimensions
4D length
5D breadth
6D depth
7D, 8D, 9D are spectral (energy) dimensions
7D continuous
8D emission
9D absorption
10D black hole (Destroyer event horizon)
It is impossible for anything 1D-9D to approach 0D or 10D due to their event horizons. 10D contains a placeholder 0 (not locally real) for its event horizon. Only 0D is locally real on this side.
The other side of the event horizon at the zero-of yourself (near horizon) is God.
The other side of the event horizon of a black hole (far horizon) is not God.
Anything we know about black holes (Destroyer) we know the opposite of that is true for monads (Creator), and we know some crazy sci-fi stuff about black holes.
It's a mirror universe with 0D at the center. This side (Elohim; Singularity) is contingent and less real (the natural dimensions anyway) and the other side (El; Alone) is necessary and more real (pretty sure the entirety of the other side remains locally real).
The zero-of ourselves (more real 👻) was made by the Holy Trinity (Deity; possessive; God's) in Genesis 1 which should not be confused with the Unholy Trinity (Deity; plural; gods) in Genesis 2-3 who messes with the 1D, 2D, 3D parts of us (less real 🤷♂️).
Elohim was "syncretized" to just mean El during the Babylonian captivity. To avoid this simply use the Latin, "unsyncretized", counterpart Deity for possessive (God's) and plural (gods) context. (Septuagint and Vulgate use Post-Babylonian captivity "syncretized" meaning of Elohim so mistranslate as Theos and Deus, respectively).
Gen 2-3 introduces the placeholder Elohim (not locally real) and their blind, foolish chief running amok. Plurality of bad guy that 'are' each other and 'are not' God.
Nephilim are sons of the false Elohim associated with Yahweh (the BAAL, or LORD, of the gods).
[Monad in philosophy/cosmogony]:
Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the sum "I am" of all things.
The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both.
The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an *elementary particle.*
It had a *geometric counterpart,* which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people.
[In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's *Monad,* from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of *the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together* using the strong nuclear force]:
1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force.
2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together.
3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions.
4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter.
5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz.
6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics.
7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.
[Monad in mathematics, science and technology]:
Monad (biology), a historical term for a simple unicellular organism
Monad (category theory), a construction in category theory
Monad (functional programming), functional programming constructs that capture various notions of computation
Monad (homological algebra), a 3-term complex
Monad (nonstandard analysis), the set of points infinitesimally close to a given point
"Some first follow the true Savior but then turn away to worship a dead man." - the revelation of Peter
THE WORLD RULER TRIES TO KILL ME
And then a voice of the world ruler came to the angels: “I am god and there is no other god but me.” But I laughed joyfully when I examined his conceit. But he went on to say, “Who is the human?”
And the entire host of his angels who had seen Adam and his dwelling were laughing at his smallness. And thus did their thought come to be removed outside the majesty of the heavens, away from the human of truth, whose name they saw, since he is in a small dwelling place. They are foolish and senseless in their empty thought, namely, their laughter, and it was contagion for them.
The whole greatness of the fatherhood of the spirit was at rest in its places. And I was with him, since I have a thought of a single emanation from the eternal ones and the unknowable ones, undefiled and immeasurable. I placed the small thought in the world, having disturbed them and frightened the whole multitude of the angels and their ruler. And I was visiting them all with fire and flame because of my thought.
And everything pertaining to them was brought about because of me. And there came about a disturbance and a fight around the seraphim and cherubim, since their glory will fade, and there was confusion around Adonaios on both sides and around their dwelling, up to the world ruler and the one who said, “Let us seize him.” Others again said, “The plan will certainly not materialize.” For Adonaios knows me because of hope. And I was in the mouths of lions. And as for the plan that they devised about me to release their error and their senselessness, I did not succumb to them as they had planned. And I was not afflicted at all.
Those who were there punished me, yet I did not die in reality but in appearance, in order that I not be put to shame by them because these are my kinsfolk. I removed the shame from me, and I did not become fainthearted in the face of what happened to me at their hands. I was about to succumb to fear, and I suffered merely according to their sight and thought so that no word might ever be found to speak about them.
For my death, which they think happened, happened to them in their error and blindness, since they nailed their man unto their death. Their thoughts did not see me, for they were deaf and blind. But in doing these things, they condemn themselves. Yes, they saw me; they punished me.
It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. It was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the rulers and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance.
After 12 minutes it starts
Ok...11.44
Thank you Jexzi
@@aaaaancly❤️
1111
r♡m d♡ss isn't we♡ring his sp♡ce suit now ♡
📡🪶💓
Omg stop with the selling upfront 😂
11:46 bs Stopps and ram starts
Why do people hate on Raghu Marcus so much in every one of these comment threads? I get that we are listening for Ram Dass but it seems counterintuitive to all this "Love" shit
It's just a 'feeling'. I always go to the start of Ram Dass' lecture.
@@bethbradley1986 I feel you. I personally skip to ram dass as well but am always amazed by how many people vocalize their discontent with Ragu Marcus. He's a human, y'know? Anyway.
It's good that they're vocalizing. It's helping them realize the way they're thinking even if they don't know it. I used to skip too but now I hear his wisdom because he is deeply realized.
It's good that they're vocalizing. It's helping them realize the way they're thinking even if they don't know it. I used to skip too but now I hear his wisdom because he is deeply realized.
25:39 😂
I used to take drugs. I still take drugs.. but i used to, too .😄
I just seen that comedian on UA-cam yesterday that said that.
I want to like this talk. I do like the subject matter. But whatever Ram Dass was like as a live speaker, some important part is clearly missing in recorded form.
What does this even mean!? What's missing?
sell some more stuff why don't you? 4 minutes in and nothing, Be more productive...hmm what BS
There is no one but God
My brother, please do not slot yourself in again
😂
@@lukeskydropper😁😁💫
what a fake guru
He would concur!
22:55 many people can relate.
Doctors call it drug induced manic psychosis or something of the sorts 😊
And if you see the doctor as more of a “somebody” than you, then you’ll take that diagnosis of that condition of mind to heart.
You are so, so much more. Yes you. Reading this now.
Just leaving this for anybody who knows exactly what Ram Dass is saying. You were not “out of your mind” like the ‘others’ tell you ❤ love you and your experience is valid
And here I am commenting this hoping my experience is valid too, even though it was validated to the highest degree through this video 22:57
It’s normal to have doubts, but you know the truth. Even if it has faded over time and you are back to “normal” 😊
23:54 oh my, never mind 😅😂 guess I was crazy
RAM Dass is a funny man
24:20 yes 🥹😢 it was like a dying and rebirth. Just like your experience, the one reading this.
11:11
3:33
7:07
8:08
2:22
09:09
10:10
❤
6:06
1:11
5:55
12:12
4:44