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 <atewari2007@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, 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