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