Conference hydra::dejavu

    	If you want to discuss other dimensions, let's!
    
    	I believe that other levels of reality exist - one reason being
    under the theory that each action has an infinite number of ways
    to occur, thus numerous realities are created with each step!
    
    	I also believe that Heaven and Hell are alternate realities
    relying on a different type of physics.
    
    	Larry
    

    I not sure wiether I believe in other dimensions or not, I do however
    have one interesting piece of information to offer on the subject.
    
    Since I was I child I have had a re-accuring (sp?) dream where I
    was in a parallel dimension. That is it was almost, but not exactly
    the same as this world, in one for instance Shakespere was never
    born. In most of then the alpabet is differant and I have a difficult
    time reading, also the money isn't exactly the same and I have a
    constanst fear of being accused of some crime beacuse of that. 
    
    Thru out the dream I have a strong desire to get home, and I worried
    about being discovered as some one who doesn't belong.
    
    I've never run into anyone else who has had a simular experiance,
    but I have to admit I havn't asked very many people either...
    
    -vicki
    
    

    	It is VERY interesting that you mentioned your parallel dimension
    experience in the form of a DREAM, because there is a part to the
    theory I mentioned in 165.1 about infinite realities being created
    with every action which states that dreams are one way of "connecting"
    with those alternate realities - perhaps you are keeping in touch
    with the dimensions which resulted from actions NOT taken by you
    in this reality.
    
    	Even conservative scientists today will admit there is some
    credit to the possibility of at least one universe beyond ours;
    I believe there are MANY, all as real (or imaginary?) as our own.
    
    	Larry
    

    "Dimensions," alas, are used in two many ways.
    
    Disregarding "time" as a dimension:                   
    
    I suspect what people really are talking about here are "alternate
    space-time continuua."  Just to make things a little clearer:
    
    A zero-dimensional "universe" would be a dimensionless point --
    a location.
    
    A one-dimensional "universe" would be a line, extending to infinity.
    This line could contain an infinite number of points (or
    zero-dimensional universes).
    
    A two-dimensional "universe" would be a plane, extending to infinity.
    This plane would contain an infinite number of lines (one-dimensional
    universes).
    
    A three-dimensional "universe" would be a volume, extending to
    infinity.  This volume would contain an infinite number of planes (etc.)
    
    A four-dimensional "universe" would be a hypervolume, extending
    to infinity.  This hypervolume would contain an infinite number
    of volumes (etc).
    
    This can be extended up as far as you want to venture into
    n-dimensional geometry, and is mathematically valid for both Euclidian
    and negative-warped spaces.  (The general law is that an n-dimensional
    universe is a transcendant-volume containing an infinite numner
    of [n-1]-volume universes.)
    
    Having said _that_, let's go back to good old "ordinary"
    three-dimensionality.  If we from our three-dimensional viewpoint
    look at a book, we can consider each page a two-dimensional space
    (a plane); that these "lie `next' to" each other from our perspective
    -- from the perspective of a two-dimensional being, though, these
    planes couldn't exist (save the being move in a direction it can't
    comprehend).
    
    Bump up the dimensions one: now from a fourth-dimensional perspective,
    this universe could be one of a number of similar hyperplanes "lieing
    `next' to" each other in a way that book pages do in the
    two-dimensional example.  
    
    These other hyperplanes are what most people call "other dimensions."
    
    We can talk about alternate continuua _or_ other dimensions, but,
    without trying to be mean, I suspect we'll get farther with a little
    precision of language.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    

    	I was referring to EVERY type of possible "alternate reality";
    since we know so little about them beyond speculation, I feel it  
    is wise to discuss them all, as it is logical to assume that other
    realities can have alternate dimensions - using your definitions.
    
    	Larry
    
    

    Okay, let's for the ,moment just stay within our continuum.  Anyone
    who's operated an ordinary transistor (or tube) radio at some times
    becomes aware that there are multitudes of radio stations broadcasting
    simultaneiusly (some AM, some FM) and that we have to use a device
    to "tune in" one of them to the exclusion of the rest.  Within our
    own space, there may be numerous "realities" that one needs just
    to learn how to "tune into."  
    
    This is what in a crude way some mystics speak of.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    	True.  We ourselves exist in the Third AND Fourth Dimensions,
    the Fourth being Time, which we in the Third dimension can only
    move in one direction - "forward" (unless we build a time machine
    someday!).
    
    	Larry
    

I agree with Steve -- generally the use of terms like "dimensions" and
"higher planes" in occult, mystical and spiritual contexts is meant to be
metaphorical rather than literal.  Only in quite modern times has the
concept of "physical" dimensions greater than three been taken seriously. 

My favorite example of the use of this metaphor, in this case for a
religious purpose, is Dali's beautiful painting "Corpus Hypercubus" (or
some such) also called, "Christ on a Hypercube".  I believe that it is
hanging in the Metropolitan museum of art in New York. 

It shows a vast checkerboard plane.  Suspended over the plane is the
geometric figure which represents a hypercube cut apart and unfolded into
three dimensions (I won't bother to explain here in more detail how this
3-D shape is related to the 4-cube; but if you don't know what it looks
like, imagine four cubes stacked one on top of the other, then place a cube
on each of the four exposed faces of the second cube from the top).  Christ
is crucified on the hypercube.  In the foreground is a cliff, on the top of
which is a figure gazing worshipfully at the crucified Christ.  The whole
thing has that gorgeous, crystal clear, luminous quality that is so
distinctly Dali. 

The interpretation, as I understand it, is that it is a statement of the
basic Christian belief that the crucifixion of Christ was an event on the
"higher" spiritual "plane" as well as the mundane, physical "plane"
(symbolized by the checkerboard landscape). 

			Topher

    
    Surely if it affects you, ie: if you can detect it, then almost
    by definition it is part of your own reality.  Therefore there may
    be large numbers of other realities, but by definition it really
    doesn't matter at all because there is no way you can detect them/they
    can affect you.
    
    /Bevin

    	There is some more discussion on other dimensions (or alternate
    realities, if you prefer) in MTV::SF Note 216.
    
    	This is NOT a reply saying take this discussion elsewhere -
    I think there's some great feedback here.
    
        I was wondering if anyone thinks there is any plausibility to
    theory I mentioned in 165.4 that dreams are "connections" with
    alternate realities.
    
    	Larry
    

    RE .4  .10
    
    Larry,
    
    When you speak of alternate realities, are you speaking of
    "simultaneous" lives and "aspect" selves?  These terms are
    used by spirit teacher Seth in the books by Jane Roberts.  
    I don't know if I really grasp the concepts, but just the 
    idea of it is very interesting and exciting.
    
    The feeling I got about the dream mentioned in .4 was that
    possibly the person actually has lived in a very different world
    before incarnating here, and that the strange world is actually
    this one!
    
    Carole Fretts
    

    	Yes, I do mean a "simultaneous life" in the sense that these
    are numerous "yous" which are the results of actions NOT taken by
    you in this reality.
    
    	I myself am trying to look at this issue from the more scientific
    view, as I feel it is easier to "test out", but as I said before,
    we know so little about other realities, it would be foolish to
    rule out any concepts.
    
    	Larry
    

re: .10

I think there's a science fiction book called "Infinity's Web" that
uses that as a premise.  (oops, was that what your note in SF started
out with?)

    re: .10
    
    I have been thinking about those times, in my dreams, when something
    makes a racket in the context of the dream, and I wake suddenly
    to find that something has really fallen on the floor or one of
    my children has bumped into something on the way to the bathroom.
     I have often wondered how the dream can instantly include these
    extraneous sound effects in its story line.
    
    I am one of those who feel the dreamworld is indeed another world,
    or another dimension.  It fascinates me to think where this experience
    fits. 

    I think dreams are pretty interesting and sometimes the other dimension
    theory seems to go a long way toward explaining them.  I do think that
    there is more than one type of dream.  Some of them are pretty 
    fantastic and some are almost indistinguishable from reality.  I've
    noticed the incorporation of external sounds also.  What I find 
    interesting is the way the various senses operate selectively in
    dreams.  Most of the time I don't notice whether my dreams are color
    or black and white.  Sometimes though, I'll wake up remembering
    particulary vivid colors like a bright red fire truck.  Most of the
    time things are kind of vague but sometimes I'll remember fine
    details, like I was focusing in some fine print.  I don't ever remember
    smelling anything in a dream but I do remember tasting food and drink.
    If we do visit other dimensions, are those dimensions the same as 
    this one?  If they are, then can the apparent differences be explained
    by the dream state or the perception of the dreamer?  If dreams are
    just random static by the subconscious and all made up, why are they
    fabricated the way they are?

    Mike

    	There is an ancient philosophical Chinese story about a man
    who awoke from a dream about being a butterfly, and wondered if
    he was a man dreaming he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming
    he was a man.
    
    	Larry
    

In _Illusions_, Richard Bach mentions that when we see other aspects
of reality (Richard was talking to his dead friend Don at the time),
us normal, sane Earthlings see it as a dream. On the other hand, I say that
most dreams are simply our brains doin' what comes natural. Dreaming is a
necessary thing for humans and we tend to go crazy if deprived of it. Also,
some of the mechanisms involved have been puzzled out and are very helpful
in explaining particular aspects of sleep and dreams. For example, when we
dream, a chemical is released that "locks up" the motor area in the brain
which makes sure that we don't act out the dream, physically. If that area
doesn't get unlocked soon enough on awakening, we can experience the
"paralyzed" dream/feeling. As for incorporating outside sounds into the
dream, my guess would be a simple survival mechanism! Let's face it, sleep
is a pretty low-survival thing to do. About the only way to know if there is
something out there is by sound, since the eyes are closed and it is usually
dark as well. So it would make sense that loud sounds or voices or babies
crying would cut right into the dream and get our attention.

I also think that the subconscious (and other things, perhaps) can more
easily communicate/poke at us when we are dreaming and the brain will just
weave it into the plot, without skipping a beat. Thus, alot can be gained by
studing both the physical basis for dreaming and the content as well.

DDA

    	In regards to that mechanism which locks physical activity while
    dreaming, and if it doesn't unlock, we can still experience the
    dream while awake - that would explain why I once awoke from a dream
    and saw a character from my dream - an old man - standing at the
    end of my bed talking to whomever he was talking to in my dream!
    He disappeared about ten seconds later, but only after I had to
    sit up and bed and tried to touch him - that's how real the image
    looked!
    
    	What I am telling is the truth, and it was scary!
    	Has anyone else experienced having a dream while still awake?!
    
    	Larry
    

    Re: .17
    
    I have also had noises cut into, and get woven into, the plots of
    my dreams.  A few nights ago there were Great Horned owls hooting
    in our backyard.  I was dreaming that I heard them, went outside,
    and saw one swoop down to try to snatch up my cat.  I beat the owl
    off my cat (in the dream) and scooped it up, scurrying inside with
    it.  When I woke, and realized I was _really_ hearing owls, I sat
    bolt upright and thought, "my god, is my cat inside or outside?"
    It was a great relief to see her sleeping on my husband's foot.
    
    Marcia

    	The first dream that i remember noises were part of it was years
    ago. In my dream i was sitting at this outdoor cafe drinking something
    and talking to a friend. then the noise started , looking across
    the street (in the dream) a roadwork crew started in with jackhammers
    and other lound banging. After waking up in the morning and sitting
    down for my breakfast , my mother asked me if i heard my brother
    who came home a day early from a vacation, banging on the door and
    ringing the bell (the bell is one of those old pull doorknob type
    and this thing sounds like a jackhammer) i said to my mom "oh that
    was dave making all that noise i thought i was dreaming it" then
    i just laughed because he was outside for about an hour or so and
    it was cold and raining !                         
    
    chris

    After about 48 hours with no sleep, I "dream" while "awake".  I
    try to avoid this situation as much as possible, but it has happened
    a couple of times in my 29.25 yrs..
    
    /Bevin

    
      I want to revisit the dimensions question that started this
    discussion.  If time is the fourth dimension of our reality (a
    theory I accept, the fifth also exists within the equation
    E=M*Csquared where C is a constant. Thus anything in our reality
    (universe) can be also be defined in terms of its location along
    a line extending from E (pure energy) to M (pure mass). 
    
      Now: we can identify pressures (atmospheric and others) which
    are in terms of applied "E".  Where does this lead us next? I'm
    not sure, but in any case we're living in at least a five-dimensional
    universe all dimensions of which can be defined... 
       

    re: .-1
    
    Modern physics is far to complex to be susceptible to such a simplistic
    view of energy/mass.
    
    /Bevin

RE: .23
    
    The title of the note I'm REPLYing to is:
    
    "Its best to leave physics and dimensions to physicisst"
    
    I wholeheartedly, and unreservedly DISAGREE with this statement.
    
    Science has a dark twin -- scientism.  Scientism is the tendency
    to view science as a religion: its practice as a secret Mystery,
    its practioners as priests and priesteses, and its (current) theories
    as Dogma.
    
    There are few things more harmful to the scientific enterprise than
    Scientism.  It is particularly harmful since it disguises itself
    so well as its enemy and because it is such an almighty temptation
    which must be faught at all times.
    
    ITS BEST **NOT** TO LEAVE PHYSICS TO PHYSICISTS.  It is best to
    learn as much as you can manage about it.
    
    A physicist is simply someone who has decided to spend a particular
    effort on that relatively narrow area.  They are not necessarily
    wiser or smarter than someone else.
    
    And speculation is an essential part of learning/doing science (in
    science there really is no distinction between learning and doing).
    
    I would only council a touch of humility.  Remember that what you
    have learned is a simplification of what is true.  Of course, I
    would council all scientists the same.
    
    The statement (.22) which is rejected in .23 as simplistic is not
    simplistic at all.  It is, apparently, based on some misunderstanding
    generated by *simplifications* of current theories/views, but it
    shows some sophisticated thinking.
    
    It is never wrong to try to understand, and it is never wrong to
    speculate -- it is only wrong to be sure you understand and to elevate
    your speculations to the status of facts.
    
    				Topher

    Re .22-.24:
    
    Maybe here a small point's worh noting [again: I've mentioned aspects
    of this elsewhere]:  There's a difference between _theoretical models_
    and reality.
    
    "Science," in its broadest sense is the collection of and systemization
    of knowledge in such a fashion as to provide fresh insights aboyut
    our environment.  It is based on an article of faith: "the coinditions
    that caused a certain effect, if duplicatesd, will always produce
    that effect."  Thus, because there "always has been" a sunsise,
    there "always will be." [Not counting cloudy days. ;-)]  Given that
    article of faith, however, the way any branch of science works is
    that sufficient facts are observed, recorded, and compared so that
    they can be used as a basis for predicting effects.
    
    Once these facts are correlated, a _theoretical model_ is developed.
    It might be the Gamow "nuclear fluid" model of the atom or the P.
    A. M. Dirac model of subatomic particles (positive and antipositive).
    
    The key thing is that the model _doesn't have to be "true"_ in
    order to work.  A scientist might use a model of convenience to
    "get a handle" on an effect without believing it's "true."
    
    The problem comes in when this is explained to a layman.  The
    communication link is such that the layman thinks that he or she
    is getting The Word from a source On High.  Then a scientific theory
    is treated like Holy Writ, which it isn't.
    
    A scientist is perfectly happy [in theory, scientists being human]
    to throw out a theoretical model for a better one.  Does that make
    the old model less "true?"  No; it just doesn't _fi_t as well for
    observed phenomena.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

RE .22

     One of the universals (i.e., it is believed to occur in all languages)
     of language change is a process called generalization.  This is when a
     somewhat specialized word acquires an additional sense (meaning) which
     is a generalization of the old one.  Sometimes the old one disappears
     and sometimes it continues to be used. 

     The "original" meaning of dimension referred only to space.  It was
     realized that only a very slight generalization of the concept covered
     time as well.  Einstein showed that without that generalization the
     concept was really incomplete: i.e., except under the specialized
     conditions we normally encounter space and time cannot really be
     cleanly separated. Although they are *still* different in character,
     any attempt to describe one without the other will be inaccurate. 

     There was a further, much broader generalization made, however.  If
     you make a "plot" of, for example, the energy of a system against the
     amount of time which has passed from some arbitrary time, then the
     energy is being represented as a "distance", that is, it has "become"
     a dimension. 

     This is only a part of the reason that physicists feel comfortable
     referring to properties of a system as "dimension" but the whole
     reason, though more complicated, is really no more profound (also, no
     less -- converting an arbitrary quantity to a distance by plotting is
     a much more profound concept than is generally realized).  When
     something like energy is referred to as a "dimension", the word is
     being used to mean something other than what it generally means when
     we refer to dimensions of space or space/time.  Unless you are
     involved with the math on at least a moderately complicated level, it
     is better to ignore this sense of the word completely. It won't help
     your understanding at all, and it can lead to misunderstandings. 

     One way of looking at spatial dimensions concerns trying to find an
     object. We can find an object by giving three numbers in an arbitrary
     coordinate system.  For example, I could say that my office is, say,
     up three flights of stairs on the main stairwell, twenty feet left
     from the top of the stairs and then thirty feet left.  It is the need
     for three numbers that makes our space three dimensional. 

     In some contexts the value for one or more coordinates can be
     "understood" and so not specified.  If I was giving you directions to
     get to a restaurant I would give you the street and number (two
     dimensions) but would probably not bother to give you a height unless
     it were not at or close to the understood street level. 

     But wait; I'll probably be moving my office sometime in the next two
     years. If in two years you follow the directions I gave you won't find
     my office (though you might find what used to be my office).  There is
     really a *fourth* coordinate which is generally understood as "around
     now".  If instead of locating "objects" we talk about locating events
     (which may include the "event" of an object simply "being there") then
     we include time as well. 

     This concept of an event requiring four dimensions to be located was
     well understood before Einstein.  H.G. Wells even includes an account
     very similar to mine in his book *The*Time*Machine*. 

     What Einstein discovered was that if you ask two different observers
     *where* an event occurred, you will get an answer which is not only
     different for the two observers, but quite arbitrarily different.
     Similarly, if you ask the two observers *when* the event occurred, you
     will get a similarly arbitrary answer, even after compensating for the
     time it takes for each to observe it due to the finite speed of light. 

     However, if you ask the two observers *where-and-when* the event
     occurs, looking at all four numbers for each of them, then the
     difference between the two observers is not arbitrary, but follows a
     simple conversion factor.  If you only look at the time coordinate or
     only look at the space coordinates then there is no way to convert
     from the set of coordinates used by one observer to that used by the
     other.  But looking at the four space/time coordinates allow you to
     determine from what one saw what the other could see. 

     Although, time and space are mixed-up, they still have different
     properties. You can ask an observer whether time or space is the "more
     important" part of the distance between two events, and they can do
     some calculations and give you the answer.  Einstein called the
     distance between two events an "interval", and said that the interval
     was "space-like" if space was "more important", or "time-like" if time
     was "more important" to an observer.  Although there might be some
     disagreements about by how much, according to Einstein, every observer
     would always agree on whether any given interval is space-like or
     time-like. 

     The relationship between mass and energy, described by E=MC^2 is
     similar, by the way.  It says much more than that one can be
     "converted" into the other.  It says that what appears to be energy,
     specifically kinetic energy, to one observer, will appear to be mass
     to another, and vice versa.  Neither observer is wrong -- they are
     both right.  Mass and energy are different ways of looking at the same
     thing. 

			Topher

    Re: .22
    
    Getting back to the question of dimensions > 4. Having my undergraduate
    and graduate work in physics, perhaps this question has been left
    to me :-). It's a little rusty (not much of Schroedinger in software),
    but I'll try and reflect on what I remember.
    
    We all recall the equation E = mc**2; however, that isn't exactly
    as Einstein stated it. The equation for a particle of rest mass
    m *AND* momentum p is:
    
    	E**2 = (p**2)(c**2) + (m**2)(c**4)
    
    I leave it as an exercise to the reader to show that for momentums
    near 0, this will reduce to the standard equation.
    
    Now things get a bit fuzzy, but as I recall all of this is derived
    from vector calculus using something called 4-vectors. The way we
    are used to viewing things are by the spatial coordinates (x,y,z).
    The classic 4 vector has time added in (x,y,z,t). There are other
    4 vectors, and I believe one of them involves momentum and energy.
    Alot of the rest revolves around Electricity and Magnetism.
    
    The bottom line is that all this about energy and mass can come
    about working in the 4 dimensions (the 4th being time).
    
    Now, if you are real interested in what Physics is doing with
    dimensions there was an article in Scientific American a couple
    of months ago about Superstrings. It is a theory by which all forces
    can be explained by using (I think) 11 dimensions. Rather heavy
    stuff!
    
    Hope this helps.
    
    Gary

    Re .28:
    
    A better way to look at it is this way.
    
    A point has zero dimensions.
    Move the point one unit and you get a line [segment] of unit length.
    Move the line at right angles to its length and you get a square of
     unit measurement.
    Move the square at right angles to its plane and you get a cube
     of unit measurement.
    Move the cube at right angles to its _volume_ and you get a hypercube
     (tesseract) of unit measurement.
    Move a tesseract at right angles to its hypervolume, and you get
     a hypertesseract of unit volume.
    ... and so on.
    
    The problem is, that we're limited to the first three (perceived)
    spatial dimensionsm, so we don't know how to move things in the
    higher dimensions.
    
    However, there is a misconception here: a tesseract does indeed
    have an "outside" -- it's bounded by eight cubes, each of which
    is a hypersurface in 4-space.
    
    As Topher mentioned somewhere else, the striking pasinting by Salvador
    Dali, _Corpus Hypercubus_ shows a crucifixion scene of Jesus syspended
    before an unfolded tesseract to symbolism Our Savior's higher purpose
    (transcending the normal physical world).  Dali had a significant
    mathematical background and knew whereof he painted in this case.
    
    The Robert A. Heinlein story, "And He Built a Crooked House," was
    based on the idea that if three-dimensional bewings were trapped
    within a hypercube, they'd experience all kinds of anomalies.  There's
    a good case to be made foe another interpretation: that their pretty
    eight-room house would just seem to lose seven rooms.  (But that
    wouldn't be as entertaining.
    
    SDteve Kallis, Jr.
    

    When I'm in the mood, I see each person's viewpoints (mind?) as
    being a point in some N-dimensional space.  That is, each of us,
    with our different backgrounds and subjectivities, forms a point.
    
    To ease the imagination of this idea, you might think of an eye
    suspended in 3 space, looking in a particular direction.  Each eye
    represents a person.  Eyes are scattered around some vacuum of senses.
    
    Now an object is introduced into "reality".  Each eye has its point
    of view, determined by its position in space, and angle of sight.
    The "object" is seen from different perspectives, depending on the
    person.  Some see a multicolored, multifaceted thing, because the
    "lighting" is good.  Others see a flattened, dull thing.  Still
    others don't even see the object.
    
    This can easily be used as a description of ideas and
    "misunderstandings".  Communication between people is shown to be
    the incredible thing it is.  And the varied views shown and accepted
    by readers/writers of this conference show an especially vivid example
    because the subject matter so often includes objects which occur
    solely within the mind.
    
    Extrapolation of this idea is left to the reader(s).

    Reading all your notes on other and multy-dimensionality, I think
    you guys might be interested in this hypothesis:
    
    Each (3-dimensional) human being is a sort of shadow of a higher
    dimensioned being. (suppose!)
    
    In this limited 3-D being we only carry the awareness of this 3d-space.
    
    Evolution has braught forward creatures and now they have developed
    into human beings that became so refined and intelligent that they
    can start to imagine other dimensions. But somehow this brain seems
    to be limited in the conceptrualisation of what might be beyond
    himself.
    
    Next step in this evolution is that man rises above this limited
    consciousness into a consciousness of his higher dimension.
    
    If this would be the preprogrammed natural evolutionary process
    for humans, then the whole lay-out must be there allredy somehow.
    Just as in a small seed, there is the map of the whole tree is has
    to become.
    
    This is presented as a hypothesis. Well it can be proved also.
    
    This natural desire of man to start looking over the bounderies
    of his awareness, was very cleverly followed up by gurus and teachers
    who use this eagerness of "seekers" to make a lot of money.
    
    The powers man can get from certain practices are undinyable
    (clairvoyance, hypnotism, see past, future and so on), but if you
    read only this noteboard, you can conclude that lot of these things
    can be really damaging to this actual consciousness. People get mad
    or retreat from the society, give all their money to gurus and start
    doing all kinds of funny things.  Why?
    
    Because there are different forms of consciousness beyond our "normal
    one".
     
    Since these conscounnesses are different from the one we now, we
    jump to easely to the conclusion that they are "higher".
    
    If there is a real HIGHER consciousness, in the sence that it bring
    humans into their naturally higher cycle of awareness, then this
    should result into a better, more intelligent and more normal being,
    more healthy in the sense that this being becomes aware of the cause of
    its functioning .
    
    If there is this HIGHER consciousness, then ity should come natural
    to the person, you cannot pay for it, because such a low level practice
    would go directly against the nature of this HIGHER awareness (makes
    sense, isn't it?) 
    
    So anyone who reaches this Higher dimensionality teaches it freely.
    (its like free software to make the human hardware run better)
    
        If all this sounds crazy, just forget it. If it rings a bell read
    the note number 401.7 called "A Unique Discovery, By a person called Sri 
    Mataji and wich explains this subject, and find out what is already known 
    and practiced by people.

    Sorry for the long note, just wanted you to hear about this, maybe
    that's what you guys are looking for. And it exists. No joke!
    
    My name is johan (Belgium) and visiting my friend of sarvesh who owns this
    account.  See you?
    My name is Johan, friend of poalo who owns this account.

hummmm, Could this be John Mitchel's walk-in?......8^)

couldn't resist.

ME.