> 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".
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário