₦airaland Forum

^^^ I think you are correct to say that God is bound by his own word and will. This is essentially because God is perfect, and his word and will are perfect.

Might i suggest that perhaps we are being defeated by the insufficiency of words.

You use the word "Eternal" in the sense to mean - unending time. That is correct.

I do not believe that that in any way detracts from my surmise that that which is timeless is also eternal - to the extent that it can never have an end.

Now you can NEVER escape on this point unless you are willing to positively assert that timeless things do come to an end.

That is absoluetly and irretrievably illogical, and you know that. Accordingly you may never rationally assert that timelessness does not connote eternity - it does.


But to escape the insufficiency of words, maybe i should let the issue rest at simply using a different word - let me say that timelessness connotes immutability. But in using this word, i would like you to note that beings within time are not and cannot be eternal in the same way as God is said to be. Because even if they may have an eternal future, they are not eternal in the past: because they had a beginning: God is absolutely eternal - in that he had no beginning and cannot have an end, like you said, he is. I belive that that is real eternity.

But there is little need to quibble over these words and get distracted, because your words below flow entirely into what i am setting out -

But an aspect of God's perfection is that he is changeless; he cannot change for the worse, and does not need to change for the better. He exists as a complete, entire unity, together. His existence is not spread out in time or in space, like the existence of material objects, but his existence is all at once. If God wants to put time on hold right now, would you then be like him, so to speak? Of course not!

Now the foregoing absolutely argues my case for me.

We may proceed on the assumption that Zero = nothingness, and that nothingness is timeless.

Timelessness connotes immutability and eternity - as a timeless nature cannot be ever said to end or change.

The thing that cannot end, is by simple definition, eternal and immutable.

Thus "nothingness" is both eternal and immutable.

So we have come full circle, Maven?

^^^ Pardon me missus -

I thought these were answers -

You asked what the word of God is and i answered -

Deep Sight:
^^^ The word of God is the will of God.

You pressed on and asked what the will of God is, and i answered -

Deep Sight:
Well, i hoped to conclude the "Oneness of Infinity" thread with reflections on that, but since you press, let me only say very briefly that -

- God is ONE

- ONENESS is perfect unity

- Perfect unity is the ultimate form of harmony

- God's will, therefore, is ultimate harmony in creation.

And in response to further queries i clarified -

No - I am describing the will of God for his creation.

God is One. His innate unity means perfection and thus harmony. And this is also his unchangeable will for his creation.

So what in heaven's name have i evaded? ? ?

Please do not accuse me of arguing for arguing sake only as i would have thought my lively interest in this section should have shown that i posess a passion for seeking and not "arguing for the sale of arguing".

Mavenb0x:
And by the way, Nuclearboy has one additional question beyond mine: I think HE is wondering if the OOI has any non-mechanical, non-rigid traits.

Wat does oneness connote if not absolute unity?

What does unity connote if not absolute harmony?

What does harmony connote if not absolute love?

Is there anything "mechanical" about the above?

That i use numbers a s a mirror of logic to describe a theological perception of the existence of the first cause, does not mean that i beleive God to be "numbers" or "mechanical".

nuclearboy:
No no no, you seem to have missed the point.

[1] "within creation"! Are you saying God is limited and doesn't surpass the limits of what is in existence?

No - I am describing the will of God for his creation.

God is One. His innate unity means perfection and thus harmony. And this is also his unchangeable will for his creation.

[2] Where is the character/personality of God in this OOI theory? Or is God an abstract remote concept floating somewhere in the universe?

We are saying God is, as it were, an Individual, with a character, likes/dislikes etc. Your OOI seems to suggest an abstract infinity/whatever (forgive me but words fail me here). Can you clarify this issue?

How can you seek to limit the primordial and transcendental GOD in this fashion. You seek to "humanize" God.

God is ineffable. And yes, God is, in a sense, very very abstrct from the finite dimension in which we live.

Mavenb0x:
A timeless force is not perforce eternal

Can a timeless entity ever be said to have a beginning or an end?

It cannot be said to have such because beginnings and ends are concepts within time.

Thus it is absolutely beyond cavil that a timeless entity is per force eternal.

This cannot be disputed Maven, don't play around with words.

Will you insist that timelessness does not connote eternity then?

I think your trouble may be that you see time as a progression.

That's an illussion. Time is still. We move within it.

Can anyone show me where I asserted that the battle has been fought for you and you don't need to gird your loins and defend yourself against the flesh?

I did not say YOU suggested that. I needed to warn against it because i see many many christian friends of mine (not on this forum) who have the "Jesus has done it all" attitude and i think it is a dangerous attitude for a seeker of truth to have.

All I said is that Christ gives you that initial opportunity before you can then resist the flesh on your own! He validates you for the opportunity by giving you a clean slate to start from, so that you won't begin on the "owing" side.

Might i ask: do muslims and buddhists also have this "initial oppurtunity" you are talking about?

What makes you think anybody is on any "owing" side? What substance can you deduce from the legend of Adamic sin?

What gives you the impression that an all-powerful God could not by an act of his WILL, cleanse man of sin? Why do you think he had to come to the world to be murdered for sin to be dealt with? And does it make any sense that he would complete that onerous task (and at some point during the task pray to himself to avert the task) and yet sin still persists: nay - is on the increase in the world today? Did he fail in his mission?

Particularly does it not strike you that the spiritual state of turning away from the flesh, is what was required of man before christ, and is STILL REQUIRED OF MAN TODAY? Thus what did Christ's coming change?

A timeless state is per force eternal.

Do you deny this?

God is said to exist beyond all time and space. In a timeless state.

Thus his eternal nature.

Do you deny this as well?

Maven, Nuclear -

Do you both really expect me to believe that the simple statement -

"God's will is harmony within creation" -

Requires further expatiation?

Ok, what would you say his will is - chaos?

You jump the gun when you mention "a line."

I am still at "a point."

Make you wait till i reach where i dey gooooo. . .

Now what other qualities can we deduce?

We have seen that -

1. Eternity is self-existent

2. Eternity is ONE Eternity.

What does oneness presuppose in the mind.

Oneness is absolute unity.

I hope faint echoes of Judaic, Christian and Islamic scripture assail the mind of the reader at this point – echoes of all those scriptures insisting on the oneness and eternal nature of the originating element - God

Will be back . . .

Now we return to the last thought within the thought-development of this thread.

We were discussing zero. We had also discussed why zero must per force be the starting point.

And we were able to see that although for hypothetical and theoretical purposes we commenced from the presupposition that zero is nothing, the truth is that zero is not really nothing. Because nothingness connotes no time, and a timeless state is what is called eternity. Zero is therefore imbued with eternity. Or simply put –

0 = Eternity.

This is the first thing we must absorb, and reflect carefully on. Because it shows us conclusively that eternity is a self-existent reality which remains irrespective of anything. It remains, as we have seen, even in a state of nothingness. It is timeless, and simply still.

Thus while eternity has been said to be incomprehensible, we should, in all calmness, absorb the simple reality that eternity is simply stillness.

I hope that in this alone, the reader already senses that we have crossed a major thought boundary: namely the presupposition in our minds that everything must come from something else, which is the supposition that leads to the question - “Where did God come from” or “Who created God?”

The thought boundary that we have crossed is the realization that some things are self-existent – such as Eternity – and would exist and remain what they are even in a state of supposed nothingness (i:e – zero). Thus we need no more bother with the question – “where did Eternity come from” as we can see that Eternity is a still and permanent self-existent reality.

Now let us reflect a little more closely on the nature of Eternity.

Eternity being a still and permanent factor for want of a better word, cannot in anywise be said to be divisible. Its very intangibility presupposes this. The fact of timelessness also presupposes this. A timeless state cannot be regarded from a finite perspective of limited periods, given its timelessness.

Thus Eternity is indivisible.

And since it is indivisible, eternity is all one unified state.

Thus eternity is ONE, as -

There is only ONE eternity.

I hope that we are carefully able to absorb the thought progression here. The discerning reader should see along the line that something almost magical has happened along the thought process: namely that whereas we started out with zero, we now have ONE Eternity. We have moved from nothingness to somethingness. And more importantly, we realize that that somethingness was always there: it is, to be very simple, called Eternity.

I am grossly tempted at this early stage to begin to point out what qualities of God are already obvious within this, but I am certain that many readers already see some of it.

Will continue shortly please.

I dare add that whereas No. 7 is how most of us live our lives, all we need to do is adopt No. 6 - fight our desires - and we are sailing home.

This can be acheived by any person of any religious or cultural persuasion: and it is well advised not to be decieved into believing that the battle has been fought for you already as each man must gird his loins and take up his sword to face his fight.

I feel that No. 4 makes no sense at all.

I do not see that embracing the cross can make any person, or has ever made any person free from fleshly desire.

I doubt altogether if it is really possible in this realm to be completely free from fleshly desire: given that our very hormones are designed by the Creator to crave certain things ad infinitum. But i digress.

The point i really want to make is this: freedom from the things of the world is an individual thing that every person must take a conscious inner spiritual decision on. This decision must be reinforced through meditation and a focus on the immaterial truths of existence.

In this way the puristic Buddhist monk is able to renounce "the flesh" more comprehensively than many a person looking to the Christian cross might ever conceive. A study of the ascetic lifestyle of some of these monks and their focus on spiritual as opposed to material development might make it abundantly clear that freedom from the material cycle does not, and cannot come from clinging to the memory of the execution of a radical jewish carpenter 2000 years ago. That seems to me to be entirely beside the point, aside from reeking extensively of a materialistic and ritualistic mentality that is entirely at odds with genuine spirituality.

The claim may long be made that the "freedom" of which you speak is a "spiritual" thing which can only be understood by "christians" who have the "holy spirit" - i will not counter that save to urge each and every person in his quiet moments to reflect within his soul what spirituality really means, and what it would take to free one's self from the grip of the materialist cycle.

Well, i hoped to conclude the "Oneness of Infinity" thread with reflections on that, but since you press, let me only say very briefly that -

- God is ONE

- ONENESS is perfect unity

- Perfect unity is the ultimate form of harmony

- God's will, therefore, is ultimate harmony in creation.

Besides, the Christian faith transcends logic - it is not constrained within the limits of logic.

Viaro, it might be more apt to state that spirituality transcends known logic.

For your statement may just as easily be hijacked by a Hindu person worshipping cows - in defense of this he may declare - "the hindu faith transcends logic!"

Yes, may I humbly proceed.

But may I make a few extraneous remarks before doing so.

From the earliest days of one’s youth one was told – “God created everything,” The very natural question springing to one’s mind of course was – “Who created God?” or “Where did God come from?” It has often been said that any person who attempts to decipher the riddle – “who created God” or – “Where did God come from?” is simply toying with insanity. We were thus sternly adjured NOT to attempt the question – nay – not to even dare think about it.

But I have always been of the persuasion that nature abhors a vacuum: I feel that humans would not have been given the faculty to ponder the question at all, if we were never intended to find the answer. Thus the absence of the answer, in the presence of the faculty to ponder the question, is a vacuum. This seems so self evident to me, that I have therefore made the pursuit of truth my chief calling in life, with the pursuit of understanding of the origin of all things as the epicentre of the quest.

I say these things for one reason only: I want to make it clear before proceeding yet further that –

1. God’s existence, or shall I say – the “reality” of God is a deep mystery
2. It is not easy to articulate, even by a person who may have a faint glimmer into its meaning
3. Even when articulated, it may not be easy to grasp
4. And finally, the person attempting an articulation may well appear simply deranged!

I say this for you Viaro!

I proceed in a moment.

Where do you find that 'will of God'? In stones? In an evasive O.O.I. that defies articulation? In your 'zero' concept of 'nothingness'? Hahaha!! You're quite a character

It really surprises me that till date you are yet to grasp the simple fact that the much bashed "oneness of infinity" is also exactly how your bible and all Abramamic Religions describe God -

He is described as ONE - See Deutoronomy 6: 4 -("Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one ONE Lord." This is also plastered all over the Quoran.

He is described as infinite, or eternal.

So perhaps you want to revisit your antagonism to the idea.

I recall MavenBox using an allegory in another thread where Jackie Chan WROTE the script, DIRECTED the movie and PLAYED lead. So when you say "Why do you persist in this UNSPEAKABLY HORRID contradiction? ? ? He is following a script written by A SCRIPT WRITTER AND YET YOU INSIST THAT HE IS GOD? ? ?", have you forgotten that the script writer could also be following His script?

Fair enough except that he began in Gethsemane to attempt to change the script stating to the one he was pleading with "Nevertheless not as i will, but as thou wilt" - thereby indicating a clear possible dichotomy of wills which cannot be defended given the unity of God.

You can hold on to your deism without trying to hammer your drivel on Christians and write them off as holding 'horrid' or irrational worldviews just because your deism is too narrow to contain Christian doctrines,

Ok, is my Deism also too narrow to contain the doctrine that Olumba Olumba Obu is God?

Just ride on worshipping a fellow human being and calling that "broad."

^^^ The word of God is the will of God.

viaro:
You're daft. St[color=Black]up[/color]id fool. Does that help?

Well Viaro, you must really be in a bad mood.

As i recall it -

I pointed out a simple and obvious contradiction -

And you responded describing me as "insane," "dense" and now "daft", "stupid", "a fool" and "a hypocrite."

I do wonder since when it became a crime to point out contradictions. What's the purpose of debate then?

You do point out what you believe to be contradictions in my theories. I do not recall responding with insults.

Do have a good day.

Alright folks.

I am sorry I took so much time coming back to this. I have been engaged all week with a soul-sapping project.

Now let me attempt some explanations in prose.

First off, I think I need to clear something up – the diagrams above are not intended as proof of the existence of God by themselves alone. The diagrams, like I stated earlier in this thread, are simply a mirror which reflect certain basic logicalities. Let’s carry on.

At the outset, we need to discuss the concept of zero as it relates to this subject.

What is zero?

A starting definition would be to say that zero is nothingness.

Why are we concerned with this?

We are concerned with this simply because the very question we are trying to ask is the question of existence – why does anything exist at all? How did the universe come to be? What is the source of everything that we see in existence?

We are thus asking what brought about all the things in existence.

We must thus start from a point where nothing existed – even if hypothetically – in order to begin the construct of a situation where there was nothing, and journey to the situation which we have today, in which there are things in existence.

Thus the situation in which there was nothing is the logical starting point and that situation refers to Nothingness.

Now –

Nothingness = Zero

Thus we understand clearly what we mean by Zero, and why it is the starting point.

Now let us return to some premises I laid out early in this thread -

Premise 1: Zero is nothingness

Premise 2: Nothingness, being EMPTY by definition, cannot be said to have a limit.

Premise 3: Nothingness is therefore infinite.

Premise 4: Infinity connotes Eternity

Premise 5: Eternity connotes Time to infinity

Premise 6: Time therefore exists as inseparable factor of Zero.

First step Conclusion: Zero is in fact not really nothing: as it is imbued with time, infinity, and thus eternity.

It might help a better understanding of the premises above to say that nothingness actually presupposes no time. And timelessness is nothing but eternity – this cannot be disputed.

Thus we can see very clearly that even (supposedly) with nothing existing – that very nothingness presupposes what forms the foundation of the idea of God and transcendence; to wit – no time: which is eternity.

Therefore –

0 (i:e nothingness) = Eternity.

Let’s start with this only.

I will be back to continue, I had planned to finish the whole write-up before my good friend Viaro in another thread accused me of abandoning this discourse, and so I thought I would just post what I had written thus far, and continue later.

Besides, the Christian faith transcends logic - it is not constrained within the limits of logic. Ironically, many of your types who talk about 'logic' haven't the slightest clue what that word means, or what type of logic you even want to begin to apply in your drivel.

Yep, Guru Maharaji is God - that definitely transcends logic!

Jesus was following a script written by a script-writer - And yet insists that he himself is the Script Writer.

I forgot to add that it becomes even more inane and laughable when one considers the fact that he supposedly tried to change the script mid-way in Gethsemane by praying to himself to change the plot - a fact that you Viaro - lied that he did not do, which argument was kicked to dust here -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-355093.64.html#msg4989271

viaro:
Why do you persist in this UNSPEAKABLY HORRID contradiction? ? ? He is following a script written by A SCRIPT WRITTER AND YET YOU INSIST THAT HE IS GOD? ? ?

IT IS CLEAR THAT YOU ARE JUST DETERMINED TO SWALLOW THIS FOREIGN MYTH AT THE COST OF YOUR OWN LOGICALITY.

Why do you prefer your insanity to the discussions of other people? I am beginning to think you're one gross hypocrite that I regretably wasted my time trying to defend with reason. Deism is NOT Christianity, and you don't have to try to deride what you don't subscribe to in the Christian faith just so you could pamper your very evasive deistic worldview.

I think it's about time you, Deep Sight, retire this attitude of resorting to such insane outbursts whenever the Deity of Jesus Christ is being discussed. For long I'd waited to see what you make of your nameless, fictional 'singularity' (aka 'oneness of infinity') god - but it always comes to a deadend. ALWAYS. It never makes any sense to anyone, and your finest intellect could not even begin to scratch the surface at defining that 'god' for you.

This is why you leave your 'oneness of infinity' god as a perennially unfinished product - a linear tarradiddle you introduced to Nairaland that has grown into an 'apeiron borborygmus' without a cure. YET, I don't remember many people lashing out every single time you make recourse to your spurious nomenclatures of the deistic 'O.O.I' ([b]o[/b]neness [b]o[/b]f [b]i[/b]nfinity) god. You may have tried everything from philosophy to maths (the Mathematics which Deists always murder on this forum), and yet your O.O.I. stands furtively defenseless. All we have left is a benign smile of amazement at how very dense Deists could be even at the elementary maths they use in trying to "prove" their 'oneness of infinity' god.

Deep Sight, even where you may not agree with Christians on the Deity of Christ, please have the decency to retain some sanity and let others be. This attitude of yours where you think others are horridly illogical for not squaring with your mendacious stu[color=Black]pi[/color]dity is best left to the craft of smaller minds. . . unless you would like to confirm that yours is helplessly narrower.

One of these days, viaro would like to examine this shallow deistic religion of yours and thoroughly waste it for all the emptiness it's worth. Cry me a river then, if you may. Gather all your best shots and we may feel very sorry for you after I'm done examining your amazing aboulia.
___________________

And oh, lest I forget, a few verses down the John 5:19 you quoted, viaro believes that Jesus Himself identified on EQUALITY with the Father in worship when He stated this in John 5:23 - "That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him." He did not ask for a lesser degree of that divine honour - but categorically said that the very same honour that men render to the Father is the same that should be rendered to Him the Son. That, for me, is where all arguments cease and all talk against the Deity of Christ is hopelessly unwarranted - whether or not you are yet horridly biting your nails.

UNSURPRISINGLY, YOU DID EVERYTHING - RAIN INSULTS ON MY OWN CREED, CALL IT SHALLOW, IMPUGN MY INTEGRITY - ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING - EXCEPT ADDRESS THE CONTRADICTION I POINTED OUT. WHY ARE YOU SO EMOTIONALLY DEFENSIVE VIARO?

That contradiction was simple; she stated that Jesus was following a script written by a script-writer - And yet insists that he himself is the Script Writer. Can you wrap your head around that Viaro? I didn't think so. You don't need to be so defensive simply becasue the fact that you worship a fellow human being as God is exposed/ Tell me how that is better than worshipping Guru Maharaji?

P.S - THE ONENESS OF INFINITY IS NOT A SUBJECT THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED IN THE OFF-HAND MANNER THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO DISCUSS YOUR PAGAN TRINITARIAN MYTH.

Be that as it may i have written the prose during the week and will post it soon.

As John 5:19 clearly states, JESUS WAS FOLLOWING A SCRIPT! The only thing he can do is what the script-writer had determined or allowed him to do.

Why do you persist in this UNSPEAKABLY HORRID contradiction? ? ? He is following a script written by A SCRIPT WRITTER AND YET YOU INSIST THAT HE IS GOD? ? ?

IT IS CLEAR THAT YOU ARE JUST DETERMINED TO SWALLOW THIS FOREIGN MYTH AT THE COST OF YOUR OWN LOGICALITY.

Krayola i thought this transcript might shed perspective -

Vitruvian Man - Presentation Transcript

1. Vitruvian Man The true dimensions of the Human Being

2. Leonardo da Vinci, 1452 The evident and explicit is not usually the whole truth The Vitruvian Man is one of the more well known sketches in the world. Leonardo Da Vinci designed it to express the idea of the dimensions of the Human. In principle the Human body. As a realist and a perfectionist he measured the Human body from every angle, so he could understand better its dimensions and be able to draw and sculpt it perfectly. And he did. Man's height is four cubits (and thus 24 palms). The length of a man's outspread arms is equal to his height. The distance from the hairline to the bottom of the chin is one-tenth of a man's height. The distance from the top of the head to the bottom of the chin is one-eighth of a man's height. The distance from the bottom of the neck to the hairline is one-sixth of a man's height, etc.

3. Leonardo da Vinci, 1452 The things more tangible and physical in appearance are often the ones with more metaphysical significance The real dimensions of the Human Being are not the physical dimensions. The human being is one and three at the same time: body, mind and soul. There is a perfect body, like Da Vinci explained in the sketch, but the perfect Human Being is the one that is perfectly balanced in its three dimensions.
4. Leonardo da Vinci, 1452 The things more tangible and physical in appearance are often the ones with more metaphysical significance At the physical level, the body as well as the human being, is a complex system. It can be divided into 10 perfectly connected and functional systems: Circulatory, digestive, muscular and nervous among them.

5. Leonardo da Vinci, 1452 You probably have heard that humans and chimpancé share 98% of their DNA The main differentiator between the human and animal world is precisely the intangible, not the body. First: the intellect that resides in the mind. We are talking about intelligence, creativity. Second: our capability to feel, that resides in the soul. Not feeling in term of the senses, but in term of the heart. Love, pain, frustration. Feeling with the senses is only a electrical connection. Feeling with the soul is a combination of biochemical and electrical connections.
6. Leonardo da Vinci, 1452 The magic of the human being is that it can be individualized but not isolated The human being exists by itself but also in terms of his relationship with the others and nature. And in this field is where our humanity, our mind and our soul really work.

7. Leonardo da Vinci, 1452 The body and its relationship with the mind The Nervous System connects every part of the The universe at this level body to the brain. They are our interfaces to the The universe at thisI level hear, smell, is: what see, material world. is: what I see, hear, feel. touch or smell, touch or feel. There is nothing outside this circle. According with our body.

8. Leonardo da Vinci, 1452 The body and its relationship with the mind MIND But also through the mind we learn that there is me, there is the others and there is nature. So our universe expands infinitely.

9. Leonardo da Vinci, 1452 The Soul The human being exists by itself but also in terms of its relationship with the other and nature. And in this field is where our humanity, our mind and our soul really work.

10. Leonardo da Vinci, 1452 The body and its relationship with the soul The soul is more a transmitter than a receiver. It The Solar SOUL puts us in contact with everything in the Plexus universe. connects the Soul with the body When you love something it is because you connect with it, the two things have found the same frequency and receive and transmit freely. Have you heard of a ¨hunch¨? Have you heard of ¨butterflies in my stomach¨? All are really a manifestation of the soul with others and nature. So our universe expands infinitely. And we get to recognize that it consists of me, the others and nature.

11. Leonardo da Vinci, 1452 The perfect human is the most balanced one. Balanced means in Harmony. The body is in harmony when it is healthy. The mind is in harmony when its purpose of existence, the creative thinking, is active. The soul is in harmony when we recognize ourselves as part of a bigger whole: me, the others and nature. So, if you hurt / love yourself, others or the nature, you are hurting / loving yourself, and that means absence / abundance of harmony. When you love and serve yourself, the others and nature, then regrets, impatience, violence and all feelings of disharmony disappear.

12. Leonardo da Vinci, 1452 A Human in Harmony. Active creative MIND thinking Loves and Takes care of its physical body. service himself, the others and SOUL nature Cannot stop being active in creative thinking. Transmits and therefore receives love for it self, Eats well, the others and nature. exercises BODY and rests well

13. Vitruvian Man The true dimensions of the Human Being

My God. Imhotep is Nirvana.

Notice that i always say "hear" in quotation marks?

This is to avoid the confusion with hearing with your ears. I USE "hear" for lack of a better word.

Fact remains that you can distinguish the words clearly within your mind.

What is the meaning of that term - "the inner voice?"

You dont have one, Krayola?

^^^ How did you perceive what you thought?

How did you know it was those words you were thinking?

Are you saying to me you do not "hear" your own thoughts - within your mind?

Really can you suggest this?

Let's start with the poser i was giving Toney.

Let's try a quick experiment.

1. Be perfectly silent for a moment.

2. In your mind, not out loud, say these words - "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog."

3. Did you hear yourself?

Yes - your physical ears heard absolutely nothing! But your mind could hear that sentence loud and clear - YES.

Let's start with this only for now: it is clear that your mind "has ears" of its own - which are not your physical ears - YES?