Wait, Ian ! There's no need to believe that others cannot add to the discussion, according to what they understand of it and believe about it. Let's not limit it to logic. My reasoning is there for everyone to consider.
The least we may appreciate is that this is not about religiousity or deity or rituals. It is about how and what we know we are : Part ( without Whole ) or Whole( without Part ) ? For, logically, the same thing cannot be both a Part and the Whole, at once. On Aug 11, 8:26 pm, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/8/11 Vamadevananda <[email protected]> > > > > > " Have you paused for a moment to consider that the lack of > > understanding is yours, Vam ?" > > > This too is a personal observation, irrelevant to the matter being > > discussed ! > > With respect, Vam, it was you who were asking why atheists could not > understand. I was only suggesting -- as another way of looking at things -- > that perhaps they *do* understand and you do not. It's not a personal > attack, I assure you, and I hope you'd do me the courtesy of pointing out > when I make such an assumption. > > " Remember, some of us were theists before and have walked up the path > > > you're on and found it's a dead-end." > > > You have no idea of the path I'm on, Ian ! > > My statement was only meant to illustrate that a number of your statements > operate from a basis of assumed knowledge ("why don't they understand!"), > which I contend is built on an assumption you are incorrect to make. I don't > know what path you're on -- even if I have an idea of the gate you've opened > -- but that's why I'm here. If I wasn't interested in listening and sharing > ideas, I wouldn't engage with you. > > > The identity as One, Unit, Whole, is not easy to realise. Not because > > it is difficult, but because it goes against our learnt habits and > > perceived dividends that consume our will for identity with Whole. > > This idea you have -- which is "not easy" but at the same time "isn't > difficult" -- is apparently unprovable, indemonstrable, offers no "perceived > dividends", and goes against established logic? I think I need a little more > convincing, Vam. I'm not closed to the concept of a single unifying theory, > and I'd sort of like there to be one to tie up a few loose-ends, but when > you put such a thing into these terms it's very hard to know how to proceed. > > > This is understandable value I am speaking of. The realisation, and > > the experience, of that identity goes beyond mere understanding ! > > It's an "understandable value" that is "beyond mere understanding"? > > Ian --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
