> 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, 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?
>
> ...
>
> read more »
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário