Ah, and there is the crux, the paradox that takes us into the transrational...and the one and the many. for indeed, we are both at once.
On Aug 11, 11:45 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
