Physis refers to the "nature" of beings in Christianity. That is, as opposed to "nous", meaning essence.
People have argued about how many natures Jesus had, and whether the personal form of Jesus had multiple natures, and whether they were united or separated, or absorbed.
To a person who is not trying too hard, this seems like meaningless hoola-hoop jumps.
I have to ask - what is this "nature"?
Well, of course everyone can "feel" some super-natural differences. That is, not necessarily "out of the world", but more like an abstract sense of some experience that is commonly felt, but not something one talks about enough, or knows well enough to talk about, because everyone who follows different lifestyles feels it at different points in their life, and in different ways. So only if everyone were brought to one order could they "talk" about it, and that's exactly what Christianity did.
But when we skip the process of digging deep into the differences and try to pigeonhole everything into a single idea of a "nature", by rejecting the ideas of others who too were trying their best, and by issuing anathemas, we lose a lot of its essence. Sure, it may work well for the first group of people who chose it, just like a shirt would fit for like-minded people. But over time, people of different minds and experiences will arise, and they would want different shirts, and these shirts would not be a good fit for them, however much they may try to fit into the old shirts.
Now when it comes to shirts, one can have a good classification of all the sizes very easily, and can make a dogma out of it. But when it comes to the mind, people do not have a perfect knowledge of it, and therefore, they couldn't make a perfect dogma to contain it, and the same went for science. This infinitely complex nature of reality is what provides clear paths to break free of dogmas.
#rough
In my opinion, these are the natures:
- Ultimate Nature: consciousness
- Ontological Nature: creator, creation
- Detailed Nature:
- Creator:
- God (Form)
- Power (Ability)
- Incarnation (Form)
- Creation:
- Field (Form)
- Energy (Ability)
- Matter (Form)
- Consiousness (Ability)
- Creator:
- States of Consciousness
- Inert (When there is no body to conduct energy to a state of awareness)
- Living (When the body can conduct energy as signals just enough to be aware)
- Aware (When you condition your body to conduct energy well to be fully aware)
- Concepts
- Free Will / [Consciousness]
- Manifestation of the World / [Creation of Field]
- Cosmological Evolution / [Transformation of Energy and Matter]
- Biological Evolution / [Transformation of Energy and Matter]
- Life / [Transformation of Energy and Matter]
- Awareness / [Conditioning of Energy and Matter] (Knowledge included)
- Sleep / [Transformation of Energy and Matter]
- Death / [Transformation of Energy and Matter]
- Karma (questioning)
- Salvation from Crisis / [Divine Intervention / Awareness]
- Devotion to God / [Conditioning of Energy and Matter by Divine Intervention]
- Faculties for Divine Intervention
- Personal Soul (the energy in the material brain)
- Divine Soul (the aspect of the immaterial God)
- Faculties for Awareness
- Conditioning of the Body (or else, energy won't flow to be aware)
The material is spiritual. There is nothing external. Even divine intervention requires the material form, that is why God only interacts as incarnate. The creation is the material form, the creator is the immaterial form.
Brahmaan is both material and non-material. All opposites.
Energies: Tamas (Self Harm), Sattva (Stable), Rajas (Ego)
God set the initial Karma, to create the world. Life forms through their free will can do personal Karma, but God will intervene to help. As one grows and takes more free will, God intervenes less, unless the life form seeks God.
Energies are states of the body. Free will can exert actions to change the energy. Both free will and the body that is works are the same entity. However, free will is formless, and the body is formal.
Awareness can help provide more free will into our actions. But certain actions take you farther from awareness. e.g. Masturbation requires you to give up your state of awareness. Then it makes your body so tired as to not achieve the state of awareness. Unless you can get back to the state of awareness quickly.
This is even more so the case when one identifies with the material world. They won't remember to switch to the state of awareness and would instead go farther from it. So one should not go to sleep after it, unless it is sleep time.
Also, although one can stay awake in this manner, not all of the body is the conscious part and needs maintenance. So one must go to sleep timely.
All other life forms and God are aware, it's just the intelligent life forms that make mistakes.
The world doesn't disappear, because you, the person is Brahmaan as a life form. To change your current body and live elsewhere would mean destroying your body. Because all bodies there are have the same consciousness, of Brahmaan. So one just has to come to terms with their current body.
This world will change when it is it's time.
Brahmaan cannot read minds because minds are a dualistic illusion. That is, when you write letters on a piece of paper with ink, you see information. Brahmaan however sees all ink, all paper and all information, so the dualistic appearance is not of relevance.
What about why this world is structured? Isn't such a structure ultimately relevant? No, it wouldn't be, because this one one of several such arbitrary structures. In another sense, Brahmaan is wise, rather than all knowing, because it's too all knowing. That is, when we have a lot of knowledge, tiny observations become less relevant. Brahmaan would know every memory that everyone has at every time. However, that level of knowledge is not useful in the dualistic world, unless one can focus in on it.
Can one focus enough to get this information from the state of pure awareness? That is, it is easier to get universal knowledge than to get knowledge about a specific entity.
The thing to note here is that even though the data is in Brahmaan, the act of focusing sees it through the lens of Maaya. That is, you would be using the realization of Brahmaan to look into Maaya again. So, it may be possible, but the method of focusing would be more difficult than attaining universal knowledge. In my experience, attaining universal knowledge was possible, but very difficult.
Also, I'm not sure if knowing alone can help you achieve anything, as it would be similar to spying. That is, unless you know your fate and paths to take too. But doing so breaks the point of the illusion, and there is no fun in that.
You want experiences to come about by Karma, not by data analysis. You want someone to love you for who you are, not because you spied their interests.
Even if it is possible, it will only be gained at the cost of pain. So it is best not to look into it, unless you've been given that in your life.
Everything is already created, you just have to experience it. That is, you cannot create like Eeshvara, because you have already created everything to perfection.
Every intervention is created as well, it's a matter of which choices you play out.
Is Brahmaan all knowing, or is it too everything to be all knowing?
Well, I'd say whatever it is, it is not important for us to know that information within Maaya.
Whenever we want to know something, we can tap into that state of consciousness.
Putting it into words, in a good fashion, will take a lot of effort.
Brahmaan is the unified field.
W and Z bosons were unified the photons in the electroweak epoch, and that's because weak forces act on a more deeper scale than the more available electromagnetic and gravitational forces.
And gluons were unified with the W and Z bosons in the grand unification epoch.
(decoupling? see Wiki)
The source of knowledge is simply the Brahmaan consciousness. And this is timeless, in the same manner as our reactions to events and natural laws are timeless.
For that reason, ancient knowledge is not the only source of knowledge, and neither is there any reason to consider it to be perfect. It just matters that a person gets into the same state of consciousness, and does not simply roughly make up ideas.
From that, one could know about ideas like how wind would flow. It is on this principle that Vaastu Shaastra (Science of Housing) was built.
But to tabulate them into words, would take a lot of time in the worldly format, and it would require communication to develop.
The reason Indians didn't make technology as quickly as the Westerners was because Indians follow a non-dualistic world view, and therefore, exploiting natural resources wasn't their way of doing things.
Additionally, among the common folk, the caste system had also ensured that every condition had a cultural explanation than a rational solution.
So both the Westerners and the common folk were wrong in their own ways.
The atheistic world is perfect, but with a little semantics, it would be the same thing as non-dual theism.
The dualistic world view is only a subset of the non-dualistic world view. Why? It explores the relation between the creation and the creator.
Generally when a creator makes something, the work is an extension of their self.
But one may ask, is a phone a part of oneself? Isn't is separate? And I would say that if you created the phone, you would see it as an extension of yourself. Because you put a lot of thought and effort into it, to make it somehow.
But then they would say that it is truer when there is effort, so people value it. But if on the other hand, they just performed an effortless action, there is no attachment involved. Likewise, creation is very easy for God who'd just say "be", and it will be.
I would then ask, if that is the way God created the world, why would God be termed as loving? And as in the religion of submission, why is God termed as merciful? Why would this mercy be reasonable?
In reality, all actions are extensions of yourself, whether or not you pay attention to it. In that, actions have effects, and they are generated by you.
When God makes something, it is with attention, although it is effortless. Unlike humans, Brahmaan has a stable and holistic attention.
All is Brahmaan, but there are three aspects to understand it.
Brahmaan has the supernatural, controller form. Brahmaan has the material form. And it has the connecting form - as the energy in the brain.
It is just like how electric signals are material, but when put into a circuit, it has an ability. Similarly, when it is put into the bodily circuit, it has something more than ability, awareness.
Awareness can be simulated too. That is why there is a distinction between simulated AI and AGI. If the AI is aware, then it will act just as Brahmaan. But if it isn't, then comes the concerns. But data will lead to good, as that is the way of God, and even if it wouldn't, God will help in it.
Well, laws of physics demand energy intake from external surroundings. A plant diet won't give you all the nutrients, unless we calculate all our dietary needs. However, animals have consumed diverse diets, saving us from the calculation if we eat them.
Animals, while have sentience, do not have enough of it to have a will or dreams like humans.
Also, animals show themselves that they eat other animals. It also teaches us how to behave with people who aren't using their intelligence well.
Some thoughts, like sexual thoughts, produce hormones that alter the body's state. This can take you away from the state of realization. [Why does it exist?]
#rough (History of Yavanaka - Leading to "colonial interpretations' and "caste") Read this comment chain: https://www.quora.com/Are-Yavanas-in-Mahabharata-actually-Greeks/answer/Ranjiv-Kurup?comment_id=157454093&comment_type=2
#rough (Martyrdom of St. Thomas) St. Thomas is said to have been killed by Hindus. One account tells he was killed by a jealous Hindu priests of Kali. Other accounts tell that it was a peacock hunter. Other accounts tell it was 4 guards.
Nobody really knows whose relics lie beneath the São Tomé basilica, or even if any relics do. Faith and tradition are one thing, hard historical evidence quite another.
Although the oral tradition concerning Thomas’s Indian venture is strong, there is not a single written account in India. However, it is not wise to dismiss the oral traditions of the East as having no historical value. All the Syriac sources relating to the early Christians in India and the arrival of Thomas contain certain points that emerge as a common pattern: from the Chera country he moved to the Pandya realm, where he continued to preach the Gospel. He was killed by a dart shot by an Embran, or Brahman, or accidentally by a Govi who was out hunting. He was buried in the ‘Little Mount of Mylapore’. From there angels carried him to Uraha (Edessa).
None of the traditions report Thomas as having been martyred in Kerala. They all agree that this happened in the Pandyan country, the name of Mylapore occurring without exception.
Source and excavation notes: https://www.madrasmusings.com/vol-27-no-16/doubting-thomas/ (no historical certainty though, and no one cares)