intent. This is, after all, MY experience. ;-) :))
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 4:37 PM, gabbydott <gabbydott@gmail.com> wrote:
> They see now how your concept of people does not include James' 3-year old
> son. That's very sad evidence, to speak in Allan's terminology.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Vam <atewari2007@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Good. Period. I will not question even what I find presumptuous.
>>
>> Now we can go on with what we know or experience or declare our
>> fantasy with laughter, without feeling small because the other guy
>> knows " so much " and disapproves.
>>
>> James, it's not what the 3-year old says or believes... what I'd love
>> to see is the expression that accompanies, which takes us to the heart
>> of the matter. And, how soon and easily the next diversion engages the
>> being so completely !
>>
>> We all can say yes to what makes people honest, happy, peaceful,
>> better informed, empowered, smiling and accepting of others.
>>
>> On Mar 23, 8:48 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > We can live without some organs but not without the vital ones. I ,
>> > the self-sense, is centered somewhere in the brain , it is a
>> > particular part of the brain and if that is not rendered dead somehow
>> > or the other , it exist. To my understanding we are that part of the
>> > brain and being mortal die when it dies. According to thinkers through
>> > the ages this body is just a vehicle and individual souls are separate
>> > from it and exist even after its death . To them souls are different
>> > from God or rather separate from Him. According to your stream of
>> > thinkers the Self is one but the self-sense lives for birth after
>> > birth until it realizes its true nature and becomes one with the Self.
>> > I don't ascribe to this view but being finite with a limited
>> > understanding I might be wrong , but so could be you.You were talking
>> > about a wondrous experience but an experience none the less , which is
>> > called Turiya avastha by some yogis , I find it to be just a state of
>> > the organism just like the awake-dream-sleep states. That it can be
>> > attained by use of entheogens further diminishes its spiritual value
>> > but I will not argue with you on this count as your belief about this
>> > experience has become quite ingrained in your psyche.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Mar 22, 7:07 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> You are the organism...
>> >
>> > > Who knows me, my-SELF better ? You or I ?
>> >
>> > > I know I am the organism but more like " I am the hand, the leg, the
>> > > tongue..." There's more to me than. Much more. In fact, quite like I
>> > > can live without a hand or leg, what I am can live without the
>> > > "organism."
>> >
>> > >> and when asleep it is you the organism that is asleep , you don't go
>> > >> anywhere but in a state of sleep like the dream-state and awakened-state it
>> > >> is still you in totality.
>> >
>> > > Refer above. It is the organism that is asleep, not I. I only let it
>> > > sleep because it needs to. I, in fact, go nowhere. I only withdraw my
>> > > attention and awareness from issuing without and, instead turn it to
>> > > the mind. In it I create all things, without as much as moving my
>> > > little finger, so to say... the mountains, the glades, the trees,
>> > > flowers, women, great food, the hurt and throbbing pain, the tiger
>> > > ready to pounce on me, the sky travel, visits to the moon... All of
>> > > these I experience in my dream.
>> >
>> > > Then, I tire of even these and withdraw my attention and awareness
>> > > from the mind. People who are not trained in the art of negotiating
>> > > their way through the "inner" process they have nothing more to see or
>> > > be in respect of. They then rest identified with the vitality which
>> > > keeps the body alive... in the beating heart, the moving breath,
>> > > neurons at minimum activity, without anything in their awareness.
>> >
>> > >> As for the Unconscious I speak of it is Nature or God...
>> >
>> > > How can a source which raises consciousness, and matter that is
>> > > unconscious, be only unconscious. We never see unconscious rocks
>> > > create intelligent robots. The logical conclusion is to posit a
>> > > faculty that includes both unconsciousness and consciousness, as we
>> > > understand these two terms, even though we might not have any idea of
>> > > what such a faculty could be. That is our limitation... we can
>> > > recognise unconsciousness and consciousness, but not a third that
>> > > includes both.
>> >
>> > >> ... and I don't want your seal on my beliefs, for your reasoning is
>> > >> shallow and has no depth. You are confusing yourself to be something
>> > >> separate from and above the body but I can understand your stupidity because
>> > >> people across the ages have believed so without any solid ground and against
>> > >> all evidence to the contrary , I am happy you will live through the ages and
>> > >> make many people happy ,but I am satisfied that I will not ascribe to your
>> > >> stupidity and on my deathbed will be satisfied in knowing that I will reach
>> > >> the peaceful stage which people like you feign to attain while all the while
>> > >> desiring worldly pleasures for eons and eons.
>> >
>> > > There is to discuss in the rest of your outpourings above. You are
>> > > welcome to beliefs and opinions. You speak of an understanding which
>> > > is entirely absent in what you wrote. You could try again; I would
>> > > definitely add to the discussion when I find something I can
>> > > understand.
>> >
>> > >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > On Mar 21, 10:44 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> >> Believing in delusional experiences of others is gullibility...
>> >
>> > >> > And who is to pronounce on your "wisdom," RP ?
>> >
>> > >> >> mistaking a trance-like state to be a self-realized state is
>> > >> >> stupidity.
>> >
>> > >> > And, why should inclusive self-realisation have to be trance-like,
>> > >> > RP ? I really wonder where or from whom did you pick up such narrow
>> > >> > associations through your growing up !
>> >
>> > >> >> When asleep it is you as an organism that is asleep.
>> >
>> > >> > You mean to say now that the organism ( the body ) is different
>> > >> > from
>> > >> > your self ? If yes, who and what is this self, and how do you know
>> > >> > if
>> > >> > it so ? You've said it is unconscious, where as you are conscious.
>> > >> > So,
>> > >> > being of diametrically opposite, opposed and contrary nature, are
>> > >> > you
>> > >> > the self or the non-self ?
>> >
>> > >> > You could choose to begin all over again and review the true nature
>> > >> > of
>> > >> > the self and what constitutes it. Then, what is your true nature ?
>> >
>> > >> > Or, are you saying that, when asleep, you are the organism and
>> > >> > there
>> > >> > is no self ?
>> >
>> > >> >> Don't mistake awareness with yourself , it is simply a state of an
>> > >> >> organism
>> > >> >> just as the dream and sleep states.
>> >
>> > >> > Don't worry about my mistakes. It is time you worried about yours !
>> >
>> > >> > I am not exactly excited about having a response from you. But I'm
>> > >> > open to surprise !
>> >
>> > >> >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com>
>> > >> >> wrote:
>> > >> >> > James, ignorance is never the issue; it will correct itself, now
>> > >> >> > or in
>> > >> >> > some decades.
>> >
>> > >> >> > But stupidity is the issue and its first manifestation is
>> > >> >> > disrespect
>> > >> >> > for diversity, in general. In particular, stupid people are
>> > >> >> > closed to
>> > >> >> > diversity of knowledge and experiences that others have.
>> >
>> > >> >> > For instance, miracles can always happen... quite as a near
>> > >> >> > improbable
>> > >> >> > event can. What it means is another matter. I feel hearing out
>> > >> >> > that
>> > >> >> > out, from one who has experienced, is more interesting than the
>> > >> >> > pontificating babble on the same matter from someone who has not
>> > >> >> > had
>> > >> >> > the wondrous experience.
>> >
>> > >> >> > So too, knowledge of any kind... if someone can build it up from
>> > >> >> > the
>> > >> >> > empiricals, physical or mental, to realisations that have
>> > >> >> > wider-space
>> > >> >> > longer-time scale validity. It is the absolutist general
>> > >> >> > statement,
>> > >> >> > having no relationship with the empiricals and their truths,
>> > >> >> > that seem
>> > >> >> > so stupid.
>> >
>> > >> >> > Human beings have a responsibility to knowing themselves first,
>> > >> >> > before
>> > >> >> > speculating about dimensions and what-not. Just now, a cause and
>> > >> >> > effect relationship was stated between brain and mind. And, I do
>> > >> >> > not
>> > >> >> > see why or how. I do see the physical qualifying what is in the
>> > >> >> > mind,
>> > >> >> > as emotion or thought. But they are in the mind, and are not the
>> > >> >> > mind
>> > >> >> > itself. The brain is there while we are asleep, and alive too,
>> > >> >> > so why
>> > >> >> > do not "have" a mind then ? In fact, why are we ourselves
>> > >> >> > "absent"
>> > >> >> > then ?
>> >
>> > >> >> > All in all, there is a need on our part to be less glib about
>> > >> >> > facts
>> > >> >> > and truths. Untill then, it would be a good idea to go on some
>> > >> >> > adventure, or at least long walks, or make a man or woman happy,
>> > >> >> > or
>> > >> >> > treat another person to happiness, or taste our way to pleasure,
>> > >> >> > or
>> > >> >> > write down one's thoughts and see for oneself what it actually
>> > >> >> > is...
>> >
>> > >> >> > On Mar 18, 9:39 am, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com>
>> > >> >> >> wrote:
>> > >> >> >> > How do you know that, RP, when your dead ? Have you ever died
>> > >> >> >> > before ?
>> >
>> > >> >> >> > We all have a body and a mind. Based on its capabilities, or
>> > >> >> >> > incapabilities, what are we talking about ? Nature ? We
>> > >> >> >> > hardly know
>> > >> >> >> > what, how much, how far, in what ways... it works, in all the
>> > >> >> >> > 10 to
>> > >> >> >> > power 22 star worlds. What we know of it can hardly determine
>> > >> >> >> > what we
>> > >> >> >> > do know about it, quite as the past can hardly define the
>> > >> >> >> > future !
>> >
>> > >> >> >> I read "not" the first time and had to do a double take on your
>> > >> >> >> correction. Your concerns are the reason I use the term
>> > >> >> >> 'nature', when
>> > >> >> >> I use it romantically I try to make it clear that I am taking
>> > >> >> >> liberties. In general I agree with the last part, which gives
>> > >> >> >> me a
>> > >> >> >> large pause on words like 'absolute' and 'infinite', as I
>> > >> >> >> prefer to
>> > >> >> >> see that which is outside the boundary of my vision as a
>> > >> >> >> mystery full
>> > >> >> >> of potential or perhaps containing probabilities given the
>> > >> >> >> degree of
>> > >> >> >> my experiences. This reconciles easily with me between pursuits
>> > >> >> >> of
>> > >> >> >> science, philosophy and human nature.
>> >
>> > >> >> >> > Likewise, God. WTF are we talking about ? Now this could seem
>> > >> >> >> > rude but
>> > >> >> >> > should make perfect sense in the context. As in what is this
>> > >> >> >> > God ?
>> > >> >> >> > What constitutes it ? How does it relate to that other fog
>> > >> >> >> > word "
>> > >> >> >> > Nature " ?
>> >
>> > >> >> >> Nature, to me, is all there is, whatever that may be. Notions
>> > >> >> >> such as
>> > >> >> >> God I include within 'romantic liberties' but that is a
>> > >> >> >> preference
>> > >> >> >> within my personal philosophy. Others use it differently in
>> > >> >> >> diverse
>> > >> >> >> ways, some of which I find appealing.
>> >
>> > >> >> >> > I sincerely believe such threads are started on account of
>> > >> >> >> > something
>> > >> >> >> > diseased within us !
>> >
>> > >> >> >> What point would there be to a pursuit of knowledge or truth
>> > >> >> >> without
>> > >> >> >> ignorance? Denying the latter sounds robotic. IMO approximation
>> > >> >> >> is
>> > >> >> >> implicit.
>> >
>> > >> >> >> > Healthy people should be talking of matters they know or have
>> > >> >> >> > experienced. One can then opine, extrapolate,
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > read more »
>
>
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário