Allan
--
(
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:07 AM, RP Singh <1234rp@gmail.com> wrote:
You are 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. As for the
Unconscious I speak of it is Nature or God 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.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Vam <atewari2007@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, theorise... and still be
>> >> > understandable.
>>
>> >> A good general policy, not sure if all this was for both RP and I but
>> >> I for one admit failure on every term above at some time or other.
>> >> "What if?"
>>
>> >> Call me a masochist but I enjoy the diversity of thought, meanderings,
>> >> responding to your message, pestering RP's wisdom, etc.. :)
>>
>> >> > On Mar 17, 11:26 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Good
>> >> >> Allan
>> >> >> On Mar 17, 2012 5:28 PM, "RP Singh" <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > As long as I am alive I am conscious of the world and myself , but when I
>> >> >> > am dead I reach a state of permanent unconsciousness , a state of supreme
>> >> >> > peace where nothing disturbs me , a sort of nirvana. that is the ultimate
>> >> >> > state from which nobody returns.
>>
>> >> >> > On Friday, March 9, 2012 3:32:12 AM UTC+5:30, Ash wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> This does make some sense to me RP so I hope my question doesn't sound
>> >> >> >> critical. For me thinking in this way causes a massive amount of
>> >> >> >> difficulty, as it sounds like immutable truths, so I have to translate
>> >> >> >> away the language to get glints of my own thinking through. We could
>> >> >> >> easily call my predicament not seeing the forest for the trees, and
>> >> >> >> that would be a fitting if not limited statement. In my mind I prefer
>> >> >> >> to start with the will representing laws of nature which are dynamic,
>> >> >> >> and work more along an opportunistic heuristic. For me it is obvious
>> >> >> >> that some people talk about an n-dimensional entity, but n is an
>> >> >> >> aspect of scope in one's perspective. If n is potentially infinite,
>> >> >> >> then the truths may have strength but are more optimizations than
>> >> >> >> static ontology. I am wondering if there is some useful perspective
>> >> >> >> that can be used in my situation, or perhaps it is a hopeless case.
>> >> >> >> Perhaps you have something to help me?
>>
>> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:21 AM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > Neil , there is no difference. The universe is not nature but a
>> >> >> >> > manifestation of Nature or God. It is unconscious but not dead, as
>> >> >> >> > that would have meant no life , further it has to be unconscious as
>> >> >> >> > the conscious is always bound to certain limits and is dual.
>>
>> >> >> >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:57 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> That's a little bit different - and I'm in agreement. Some scientists
>> >> >> >> >> have suggested we could make a universe with life conditions in the
>> >> >> >> >> laboratory - still leaving us with issues about beginnings. Science
>> >> >> >> >> fiction wise one can imagine making such universes in order to travel
>> >> >> >> >> in time in them to discover more on how we were made - by occupying
>> >> >> >> >> earlier stages of them. I tend to think of the unconscious as what
>> >> >> >> >> isn't in rational consciousness, but I know this is inadequate as much
>> >> >> >> >> human consciousness in action is not known to the participants
>> >> >> >> >> rationally.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> On Mar 5, 2:59 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> Life had to come from somewhere , why not from an unconscious Nature
>> >> >> >> >>> which would explain the presence of Laws behind every action and
>> >> >> >> >>> inaction.
>>
>> >> >> >> >>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:36 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> > That doesn't help RP. Why this rather than a host of alternatives?
>>
>> >> >> >> >>> > On Mar 4, 4:28 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> >> God is not made of fire , air , earth , water , ether and
>> >> >> >> consciousness ,
>> >> >> >> >>> >> rather all these emanate from Him. God is unconscious and without
>> >> >> >> >>> >> attributes.
>>
>> >> >> >> >>> >> On Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:51:49 PM UTC+5:30, RP Singh wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >>> >> > God , Nature , Truth , Reality is unconscious and the Creation
>> >> >> >> which
>> >> >> >> >>> >> > emanates from it has no choice. You may think that you have
>> >> >> >> choice , but
>> >> >> >> >>> >> > whatever you think , feel and do is as certain as the trajectory
>> >> >> >> of the
>> >> >> >> >>> >> > celestial bodies. The entire universe , you included, is bound
>> >> >> >> by laws and
>> >> >> >> >>> >> > everyone is a slave to" Laws", that is , "The Will of God".
>> >> >> >> >>> >> On Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:51:49 PM UTC+5:30, RP Singh wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >>> >> > God , Nature , Truth , Reality is unconscious and the Creation
>> >> >> >> which
>> >> >> >> >>> >> > emanates from it has no choice. You may think that you have
>> >> >> >> choice , but
>> >> >> >> >>> >> > whatever you think , feel and do is as certain as the trajectory
>> >> >> >> of the
>> >> >> >> >>> >> > celestial bodies. The entire universe , you included, is bound
>> >> >> >> by laws and
>> >> >> >> >>> >> > everyone is a slave to" Laws", that is , "The Will of God".
(
)
|_D Allan
Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário