Rogers.  D.Scn. ( wrote:
>Now, funnily enough, I think it might be a needed process exactly FOR those 
>who have seen the universe dissolve and somehow concluded either: a) it was 
>only there "for them", or b) they're the "only one" there, or c) it was only 
>an "illusion" in the first place - like that is meaningful or something.

     The day you understand that a mockup of space doesn't take
up any space, you will understand what an illusion is.

>"There IS something there."

     Actually the process needs to be continued to

    "There IS nothing there."

     "Spot a something."

     "Spot a nothing."

     Produces marked alteration of what something and nothing mean.

>Here, I'd say it could be a fair process if it was changed to "a hologram" 
>as opposed the "the."  Oh, and secondly, it would have to be understood that 
>any "walking" within that hologram was done by means of a body similarly 
>created in the hologram.  I mean, the mest universe is NOT a hologram 
>anyway, and mocking it up that way and then using the mest body to move 
>around as usual, well, I think it would be like a Zen exercise and make 
>people spin.

    The mest universe IS a hologram projected in a zero dimensional
substrate called Source.

    Source sources (illusions of) what source is not.

     That which didn't have any space or time could never create any
space or time, but it might be able to create illusions of space and
time projected into its own spaceless timeless substrate.
     "Life is a holodeck" - Adore.