[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

This is the stage (for myself, at least) when I began to discern something about the nature of "coincidences". They are truly non-random. Little coincidences that in the past you would have missed or dismissed - now it becomes impossible to gloss over them or take them for granted - there is nothing merely "ordinary" about their nature. Every moment, and every coincidence looks bright and special.

When you leave aside your own interpretations and judgments of events, the events (including coincidences) can be perceived with a kind of clarity that would startling to the you, before you were a meditator. The true meaning jumps out at you, quite unmistakeably.

If our own interpretations and judgements are left aside, I'm curious how it is possible for the true meaning of moments or events to be revealed, since understanding the meaning of something requires interpretation, and deciding that something is true requires judgement.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Later in your meditation, you may have the experience (if you have not already had it) of sensing the interconnectedness of all things - then it will become quite easy to understand that coincidences are not random. All things are connected.

Undoubtedly I still have far to go with my practice of meditation. I have experienced a few brief moments of a feeling of interconnectedness, but perhaps not of the same strength as you have because to me the feeling did not contain an unmistakable clarity of meaning. It was no more than a feeling.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

On a separate note, in the context of this kind of discussion, we should perhaps drop the term "coincidence" and use the more precise term "synchronicity" - coined by the 2nd-most famous psychologist in the history of the world.

My understanding of psychology is very limited, but it seems to me that since at some level our brains work though pattern recognition, synchronicity could be the brain's attempt to apply a pattern where one doesn't exist. Feel free to shoot me down on that point, it certainly requires a lot more exploration before I'd even suggest it's valid.

I'll read more of Jung's work before I make any further comment on that particular topic.

Originally Posted by Rocket Surgery

Imagine yourself alone in a massive, perhaps infinitely large room where every surface is covered with video screens. Each screen shows a completely unique angle on the universe, and each is of interest to you.

However, you have but two eyes, and it's not possible for you to view every screen at once. You know that to truly experience each angle and what it has to offer, you must isolate your focus to one screen at a time. How can you possibly do this and still have time to experience every screen?

Since you cannot get the full experience of each screen without dividing your attention, the only answer then is to DIVIDE YOURSELF.

I have difficulty accepting your analogy as it's stated because I can't conceive of how a being with the power to divide itself, limit the awareness of those divided entities, yet still share the awareness of all of those entities, is not able to divide its attention between multiple screens.

I also think it's misleading to compare ourselves to the source entity. As long as a similarity between humans and God is even implied, I've no doubt that people will resist accepting the idea of God as much more than human. A God that is all that is, and a God with two eyes, are irreconcilable in my opinion.

I would more readily accept the analogy if the source entity could view all the screens at once, but decided that full sensory experience would be the more rewarding option. But that still leaves the question of why? Why would an omnipotent being have any need or desire to observe and express himself?

Originally Posted by Rocket Surgery

Either that, or there was once NOTHING in existence from which came EVERYTHING as a result of a huge cosmic explosion. When you can scientifically prove that physical matter can be conjured up out of pure nothingness -- which so far is impossible -- then I might be tempted to consider the existence of an objective universe.

Perhaps God conjured physical matter not out of nothingness, but out of itself. Perhaps we, and everything in existence, are part of God, but also have our own real physical existence. Perhaps reality isn't purely subjective, or purely objective, but a combination of both.