The experience I wrote about in my book A Forever Place suggests this one Universe we commonly perceive as “ours” and “the only one” may, instead, be one of an infinite number of universes. While my experience was an isolated event, the concept seems to have an energy of its own, now being explored in depth by the scientific community. Here is a small portion of an article in a recent issue of Discover magazine that suggests my experience has other enthusiasts.

“There was a time when the word universe meant ‘all there is.’ Everything. The whole shebang. The notion of more than one universe, more than one everything, would seemingly be a contradiction in terms. Yet a range of theoretical developments has gradually qualified the interpretation of universe. The word’s meaning now depends on context. Sometimes universe still connotes absolutely everything. Sometimes it refers only to those parts of everything that someone such as you or I could, in principle, have access to. Sometimes it’s applied to separate realms, ones that are partly or fully, temporarily or permanently, inaccessible to us; in this sense, the word relegates our universe to membership in a large, perhaps infinitely large, collection.

With its hegemony diminished, universe has given way to other terms that capture the wider canvas on which the total of reality may be painted. Parallel worlds or parallel universes or multiple universes or alternate universes or the metaverse, megaverse, or multiverse – they’re all synonymous, and they’re all among the words used to embrace not just our universe but a spectrum of others that may be out there.”

From The Hidden Reality by Brian Greene

Word o’ the Day: Hegemony – predominance, authority

Several of you sent personal emails in response to my last blog entry. Thank you for those! Your comments are profound and valuable. Here are some of them:

Laura: Interesting . . . much like parenting is a concept, when we refer to our mother or father, grammatically we capitalize Mom or Dad when we use it in the place of their name . . . But I see the bigger point [Zac’s] trying to make. And, I also agree that saying the word, god, is soothing . . . probably has to do with our first sounds as children – ga-ga. Curse words often evoke that same fun in the saying!!

Therese: I have to say that I disagree with this all the way through. I have a direct connection with God and I will capitalize His name. He is not a concept; He is our father and our God. He has created us and to capitalize His name is only with respect, even if it is just His name… It is important to me, because I do capitalize for my gratitude for Him of the gift He has given me.

Victoria: Tell Zac that I enjoyed his post. We are all vibration.

————————————
Each of us has a personal concept and name for the All-Encompassing, the All-Knowing. For some, it’s Allah, or Shiva, or God. For others it’s Universe or Spirit. For some it is a concept that cannot be explained. I once heard a guy tell me his concept of God was the sense he experienced when he rubbed a touch-stone he carried with him. I read about scientists researching “dark matter” and in a way, even this is God.

As for me, I believe one is the same as the next. If your “God” is merely a concept – I get it. I accept it.

If your “god” is the peace that comes from focusing on a touch-stone while meditating – I get it. I accept it.

I embrace the idea that any concept of “God” is remarkably similar to another when you dig into the depths of it, however, because of my human condition, I am unable to describe God with my limited language. Nevertheless, I believe that your God is the same God as mine; I think He is big enough to encompass all of that, and more.

My friend Jan put it this way: “God is God and he will do what he wants no matter what human judgments we place on each other, for we are not truly able to understand the awesomeness of GOD.”

Capitalized or not, god is God is Universe is Spirit is….

I accept that. I embrace it.

Respectfully,
David Wine

I wonder if the Universe has a personality; an identity with values I can understand—like respect, integrity, discernment, encouragement….

I no longer claim the religious beliefs my parents taught me, but at times I still ponder them. In those younger years, my friends and I were full of questions like:

“If the Bible tells stories about King David and his many wives–and his son Solomon who had seven hundred wives, and the Bible also says, ‘Go, and do thou likewise,’ then is it OK for me to have several wives?”

We were curious, but mostly just having a little fun with our teachers. They usually gave us a resounding “Pshaw” and continued with their lecture, flipping from one Bible text to another, building “proof” of some particular doctrine or tenet.

Now that I’m older, my new question is: If one Bible text can be used to support another in establishing a system of beliefs, then the “many wives” argument should hold as much weight as any other, shouldn’t it? How would you decide which Bible text supports or “proves” another?

Here’s an example. My teachers thought they had resolved the meaning of Biblical prophecies in Daniel and Revelation, one of which speaks of “2,300 days.” They told us that the 2,300 days in that prophecy are symbolic of 2,300 literal years, and that the “day equals a year” concept is based on two unrelated texts in Ezekiel 4:6 and Numbers 14:34. I think the “day equals a year” concept is taken out of context. But don’t take my word for it. Decide for yourself.

My inquisitive mind wonders why we should limit the “day equals a year” concept to only prophetic passages? Why not use it to explain other time-related stories, such as the story of creation? If read literally, the Biblical story of Creation teaches that the sun, moon and stars, our planet with all of its vegetation, the animals and humans were literally created in 6 days. However, if we apply the “day equals a year” model to the creation story, then maybe God took 6 years to create the Universe, the Earth and its inhabitants. While we’re at it, why not expand our thinking another notch and say “a day equals a billion years” and allow creation to take a literal 6 billion years?

Creation meets evolution!

Why can’t both theories be explained within the same, broad spectrum? I am neither a creationist nor an evolutionist. I embrace both theories…AND the other 6 theories we haven’t even discovered yet.

Actually, I think the missing link is based on a much larger concept.

From God’s perspective, “time” does not exist. It doesn’t matter if God created the world in 6 days or 6 billion years. From His perspective it would have been the same moment either way.

Well, that’s one perspective. Here’s another —

God is capable of anything. He’s able to create an entire Universe, including our Earth, with ‘age’ already existing in its structure. Maybe God did create our earth in 6 days and, while He was at it, had a little fun and made it with 4.6 billion years of “age” already built in.

After all, He is God….

What’s your theory? Maybe it’s one of the other 6.

Inquisitively,
David Wine

The human perspective of our universe is small, and until I was given the dream experiences in my book A Forever Place, I didn’t think too much about the possibility of other Universes.

Ponder these ideas…

• A few thousand years ago, conventional wisdom said the world was flat.
• A few hundred years ago, it was commonly believed that Earth was the center of the universe.
• A couple hundred years ago, air travel was considered impossible.
• About a century ago heroin was available over the counter at the corner drugstore, and was touted as a wonder drug that clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind, calms the stomach, and is a perfect guardian of health.

Back when these concepts were “the truth,” a person would likely face despair, misfortune or death if they happened to be the first to suggest “the truth” might actually be false. For instance, when Galileo began promoting Copernicus’ notion that perhaps the earth DID revolve around the sun, he was convicted of heresy and ordered to house arrest.

I’ll take the risk of being tossed in the slammer and make some wild suggestions:

• The world is round,
• The earth is not the center of the universe,
• I can hop on an airplane and fly from New York to L.A. in less than 6 hours, and
• Heroin may give buoyancy to the mind but is probably not a perfect guardian of health.

(There may be an occasional exception to such definitive announcements. My old boss thinks he’s the Center of the Universe. By extrapolating I could conclude that Earth is an approximation for the center of the universe if I use the boss-is-the-center-of-the-universe theory!)

For now, my challenge is to consider this: What are the things I currently believe to be THE TRUTH, but given more time, will discover to be false? The more I ponder this question, the more I discover about our Universe and things beyond the four dimensions I commonly take for granted: length, width, height, and time.

Recently I read a story about an ant’s perspective: An ant’s knowledge includes the surface of the ground to and from its nest. It also knows about finding food and defending its home. But the ant knows nothing about human love, or…the international space station, or…the color blue. What if the ant was able to move out of its dimension into ours? Think what the ant would learn! And what if we were able to move out of our current dimension into the next? We know of the ant’s existence and can study and describe it to other humans. Who (or what) knows of our existence and can study it and describe it to others of its kind? [paraphrased from a story told by Osho]

What are the things I believe to be true, but really are not?

Oh, the things I don’t know…yet.

Inquisitively,
David Wine