Gravity and Emptiness

[James Burns]

The C's when they talk about Gravity seem to be talking about what the Buddhists call Emptiness. Is this the case and if not what are the differences?

 

[Jacques]

Hi James Burns,

Since you have not done it yet, we recommend all new members to post an introduction in the Newbies section telling us a bit about themselves, how they found the cass material, and how much of the work here they have read.

You can have a look through that board to see how others have done it.

 

[Lauranimal]

The C's when they talk about Gravity seem to be talking about what the Buddhists call Emptiness.

Can you elaborate on your perception of 'Emptiness' as described by Buddhism? (just want to make sure we are all speaking the same language.)

As I understand it, the C's seem to imply that gravity is only part of the equation.

From 'Riding the Wave', pg130-131

Q: (L) What is the link between consciousness and matter?
A: Illusion.
Q: (L) What is the nature of the illusion? (T) That there isn't any connection between consciousness & matter. It is only an illusion that there is. It is part of the third density...
A: No. Illusion is that there is not.
Q: (L) The illusion is that there is no link between consciousness and matter.
A: Yes.
Q: (T) The illusion is that there is not a link. In third density...(L)I got it! (T) Don't disappear on me now! [Laughter] The relationship is that consciousness is matter.
A: Close. What about vice versa?
Q: (L) Just reverse everything. Light is gravity. Optics are atomic particles, matter is anti-matter... Just reverse everything to understand the next level... It can't be that easy. (J) Wait a second: gravity equals light, atomic particles equals optics, anti-matter equals matter? It is all about balance. (L) And the answer must always be zero.
A: And zero is infinity.
Q: (L) So, you are saying that it is not that there is a link, the illusion is that there is separation. There is no difference, they are the same?
A: Yes.

This is what came to mind when I read your question. But I am still interested in your interpretation of "emptiness".


P.S. Having typed that quote from the book, I have a whole new appreciation for the process that Laura and the crew go through to transcribe and share the C's sessions. Thanks for all you do. :)

 

[James Burns]

One cannot have a 'perception' of emptiness in its most profund sense; it is beyond that because one would be trying to talk about the ineffable, and nobody can do that. To try and answer your question you need to limit the discussion as to how the C's are using the concept of gravity in a broad sense. The talk about how it leads to, and incorporates, a geometric understanding of consciousness which seems to me to bridging the gap between mathematics and ontology. Having read a lot of Buddhist texts it strikes me that there is a great similarity between what the Buddhists attribute to certain aspects of 'emptiness' and what the C's are saying about 'gravity' and I therefore thought that it would be very interesting to hear their reaction to the question posed. I have read nearly all of Laura's books and there does seem to be an imbalance in religious and philosophical emphasis towards Western Traditions rather than Eastern ones. I would be intrigued to see a deeper discussion open up to address this imbalance.

 

[Buddy]

The C's when they talk about Gravity seem to be talking about what the Buddhists call Emptiness. Is this the case and if not what are the differences?

Hi James Burns. It seems to me that Lauranimal's question requesting your interpretation of "emptiness" is important because your question, as phrased, seems to imply agreement between you and other readers, on an enormous amount of assumptions.

Could you also offer a specific example of "great similarity between what the Buddhists attribute to certain aspects of 'emptiness' and what the C's are saying about 'gravity'"?

 

[John G]

One cannot have a 'perception' of emptiness in its most profund sense; it is beyond that because one would be trying to talk about the ineffable, and nobody can do that.

Are you perhaps talking Being/Non-Being as described here?

http://www.cassiopedia.org/glossary/Being_vs._Non-Being

Gravity is called a "binder", a quantum transaction link perhaps even for higher levels than ours (but below the Gurdjieff Absolute where being/non-being emerge). I've seen your posts before on the Enneagram Institute where I have several posts also (I'm Bluelamp there too). It would be nice if you post an introduction in the Newbie section as Gandalf mentioned.

 

[James Burns]

The C's when they talk about Gravity seem to be talking about what the Buddhists call Emptiness. Is this the case and if not what are the differences?

Hi James Burns. It seems to me that Lauranimal's question requesting your interpretation of "emptiness" is important because your question, as phrased, seems to imply agreement between you and other readers, on an enormous amount of assumptions.

Could you also offer a specific example of "great similarity between what the Buddhists attribute to certain aspects of 'emptiness' and what the C's are saying about 'gravity'"?

Yes. As far as similarity is concerned it is best to look at the idea of consciousness. Sunyata, Void, Emptiness is more than or rather, deeper than, 'consciousness' in the Buddhist traditions in the same way that the C's seem to be treating 'consciousness' as a subset of 'gravity'. The Buddhists treat emptiness as a non-affirming negative in the same way that the C's talk about gravity. Rather than get involved in semantics it would be interesting to see how the C's react to the question as I feel it could open up a complete new avenue of discussion. There is much in Mahayana Buddhism in particular that seems to have a strong STO orientation and it would be interesting to see how the C's would treat this.

 

[shijing]

I thought I'd post the excerpt about gravity that I believe James Burns is referencing, just for clarity:

A: Unstable gravity waves unlock as yet unknown secrets of quantum physics to
make the picture crystal clear.

Q: (L) Gravity seems to be a property of matter. Is that correct?
A: And....

Q: (L) And hmmmm....
A: And antimatter!

Q: (L) Is the gravity that is a property of antimatter “antigravity?” Or, is it just gravity on the other side, so to speak?
A: Binder.

Q: (L) Okay. Gravity is the binder. Is gravity the binder of matter?
A: And...

Q: (L) Is gravity a property of light?
A: Not the issue.

Q: (L) What is the issue?
A: Gravity binds all that is physical with all that is ethereal through unstable gravity waves!!!

Q: (L) Is antimatter ethereal existence?
A: Pathway to.

Q: (L) Okay.
A: Doorway to.

Q: (L) Are unstable gravity waves... no, hold everything... do unstable gravity waves emanate from 7th density?
A: Throughout.

Q: (L) Do they emanate from any particular density?
A: That is just the point, there is none.

Q: (L) There are no unstable gravity waves?
A: Wrong...

Q: (L) There is no emanation point?
A: Yes.

Q: (L) So, they are a property or attribute of the existence of matter, and the binder of matter to ethereal ideation?
A: Sort of, but they are a property of anti-matter, too!

Q: (L) So, through unstable gravity waves, you can access other densities?
A: Everything.

Q: (L) Can you generate them mechanically?
A: Generation is really collecting and dispersing.

Q: (L) Okay, what kind of a device would collect and disperse gravity waves? Is this what spirals do?
A: On the way to.

Q: (L) So, if were to focus on collecting unstable gravity waves...
A: When you wrote “Noah” where did you place gravity?

Q: (L) I thought that gravity was an indicator of the consumption of electricity; that gravity was a byproduct of a continuous flow of electrical energy...
A: Gravity is no byproduct! It is the central ingredient of all existence!

Q: (L) I was evaluating by electric flow and consumption... and I was thinking that electricity was evidence of some sort of consciousness, and that gravity was evidence that a planet that had it, had life...
A: We have told you before that planets and stars are windows. And where does it go?

Q: (L) The windows?
A: The gravity.

Q: (L) Oh. Gravity must go into the ethereal dimensions or densities.
A: Good!

Q: (L) Well, where does gravity go. The sun is a window. Even our planet must be a window!
A: You have it too!!

Q: (L) So, gravity is the unifying principle... the thing that keeps things together, like the way all the fat pulls together in a bowl of soup.
A: Gravity is all there is.

Q: (L) Is light the emanation of gravity?
A: No.

Q: (L) What is light?
A: Gravity.

Q: (L) Is gravity the same as the strong and weak nuclear forces?
A: Gravity is “God.”

Q: (L) But, I thought God was light?
A: If gravity is everything, what isn’t it? Light is energy expression generated by gravity.

Q: (L) Is gravity the “light that cannot be seen,” as the Sufis call it: the Source.
A: Please name something that is not gravity.

Q: (L) Well, if gravity is everything, there is nothing that is not gravity. Fine. What is absolute nothingness?
A: A mere thought.

Q: (L) So, there is no such thing as non-existence?
A: Yes, there is.

[...]

Q: (L) Does gravity have consciousness?
A: Yes.

Q: (L) Is it ever possible for the individual to do the choosing, or is it gravity that IS him that chose?
A: The gravity that was inside him was all the gravity in existence.

[...]

A: The entire sum total of all existence exists within each of you, and vice versa.

Q: (L) Then what is the explanation for the “manyness” that we perceive?
A: Perception of 3rd density.

Q: (L) So, the entire universe is inside me... okay, that’s... I understand. Oddly enough, I do. The problem is accessing it, stripping away the veils.
A: That is the fun part.

[...]

Q: (L) According to what I understand, at the speed of light, there is no mass, no time, and no gravity. How can this be?
A: No mass, no time, but yes, gravity.

Q: (L) A photon has gravity?
A: Gravity supercedes light speed.

Q: (L) Gravity waves are faster than light?
A: Yes.

Q: (L) What would make a gravity wave unstable?
A: Utilization.

I'm not sure if the bolded part above is particularly germane to the concept of emptiness that is being discussed or not -- you can see what you think.

 

[Era of Love]

I found this link that might be of interest: _http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/14087.asp

 

[Vulcan59]

Hi Era of Love,

Welcome to the forum. :) We recommend all new members to post an introduction in the Newbies section telling us a bit about themselves, and how they found their way here. Have a read through that section to get an idea of how others have done it. Thanks.

 

[ark]

The C's when they talk about Gravity seem to be talking about what the Buddhists call Emptiness. Is this the case and if not what are the differences?

Gravity, in our world, is a physical phenomenon. It should be described in terms of physics and mathematics, not in terms of philosophy. Philosophical statements is hard to verify. Yes, they can inspire you do go in this or that direction with your research, but that's about all they do. The devil is in the details and many of the important details of what gravity is and what is not are not yet known.

There are many theories of gravity beyond the mainstream one - General Theory of Relativity of Albert Einstein. Some of these theories may have something to do with "Emptiness", which physicists connect, rightly or wrongly, to the concept "quantum vacuum". But the concept of the "quantum vacuum" of physicists is far from being completely clear. Much needs to be still discovered.