“OM , most people don't want to die…” – RP While I don’t know ‘most people’ nor their wants and desires, the human organism as well as psyche does have a drive for life.
“… or have so many desires like psychic powers …” – RP Again, I have no experience with ‘most people’ so do not know what they want. As to psychic powers, it is true that I’ve heard precious little from most of the people that I do know about psychic powers. However, I cannot say the same about them having desires. It appears that most people I know have quite a set of passions and desires. . . attachments to all sorts of issues, things, attributes, hungers etc. I make no value judgment about such things other than that which I know…such thirsts do attract suffering. “…that they make so much of consciousness.” – RP And, my closer friends do have a focus on consciousness while my acquaintances do not share much about consciousness itself. “… In my view there is only God, Atma Or Pure Consciousness. We are all just his reflections or have emanated from him…” – RP When observing things ultimate, I’d say we are of like minds here RP… at the very least, have similar points of view. “… Maybe my reasoning is awry and you and others are right…” – RP If you are associating this response with my last post, I see no contradiction. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. The ‘reasoning’ I criticized had to do with how I interpreted your words “..It would be simply a state of coma.Go and ask for general anaesthesia for a few minutes, that would be your self- realisation. ..” – RP Now, perhaps here it is I who don’t quite interpret your meaning correctly. Only you will be the judge of that. Your above words, to me, imply no awareness when self-realized…only “a state of coma”. From what little experience I have here and what I have read from those who have taken this path over the millennia, while we are living and associated with a specific body (not dead), even though specific states of consciousness can come and go where one is not attached to ‘self’ nor appearances, there must be and is a consubstantial recognition of both the absolute (no words/concepts) as well as the “I”…that which thinks, has emotions etc. “… But in that case also I am right, You will become one with God when you get salvation and then there will be no individual I , as far as you will be concerned. If I am not mistaken , you at least believe in predeterminism , like me.” – RP Many issues in this small set of words RP…first, I’m not so sure that the issue of being ‘right’ is that important to me here. I wanted to discuss and share with you. We may not agree and this is fine. We in fact may be fully agreeing and don’t know it due to the use of subjective words and terms. There are many possibilities here. As to one becoming ‘one with god’…I find that to be the case for everyone … primarily demonstrated by divine omnipresence. Now, the term of salvation doesn’t seem to enter into the discussion for me…at least not when it comes to terminology. Perhaps you can elucidate here. As to an ‘individual I’, we are in agreement in one sense at least. I find that the common notion of ‘I’, ego etc., in any ultimate sense is not real. However, since I and apparently most other human beings do notice and recognize a ‘self’, whether it is mere appearances or not, to ignore ‘I’ doesn’t seem to be the proper path to take. Lastly, as to predeterminism, in one sense, yes, we share a similar view if not the same. That is such a large topic that I won’t delve into it at this time though. On May 1, 8:22 pm, RP <[email protected]> wrote: > OM , most people don't want to die or have so many desires like > psychic powers that they make so much of consciousness. In my view > there is only God, Atma Or Pure Consciousness. We are all just his > reflections or have emanated from him. Maybe my reasoning is awry and > you and others are right. But in that case also I am right, You will > become one with God when you get salvation and then there will be no > individual I , as far as you will be concerned. If I am not mistaken , > you at least believe in predeterminism , like me. > On May 1, 4:57 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > “…There would be no I as that also requires > > some sort of sense. There would be no thought as it would require a > > memory of words or sound. It would be simply a state of coma…” – RP > > > RP, thanks for responding to what I believe was my post. > > > With that assumption, the above part of your notes makes some very > > large assumptions that do not appear to be the case. Yes, I can > > understand how they make a kind of ‘sense’ on first glance; however, > > somehow you appear to assume that all of consciousness/awareness > > involves thought and/or sense perception. I and others do not find > > this to be the case. > > > On May 1, 8:45 am, RP <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Just contemplate for a moment what comprises consciousness. You are > > > conscious of sight, sound, scent, taste , your body through sense of > > > feeling. In your mind you are aware of these very things through your > > > memory of them. If your memory and the centres of these senses cease > > > to work for some time what would be there in your awareness. > > > Consciousness then would be aware of itself. There would be no shape > > > or a feeling of some object. There would be no I as that also requires > > > some sort of sense. There would be no thought as it would require a > > > memory of words or sound. It would be simply a state of coma.Go and > > > ask for general anaesthesia for a few minutes, that would be your self- > > > realisation. > > > > On Apr 30, 10:29 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > Consciousness observing itself is nothing new. Being able to find > > > > cultural analytical memes as correlates too is nothing new while > > > > looking at/for the truth. The process is at once complex (as in ‘the > > > > many’) and simple (as in ‘the one’). This is no contradiction. > > > > > On Apr 30, 9:20 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 30 Apr, 16:31, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > No pat you did not insult my intelligence as it is hard to insult > > > > > > someone who is, I actually have that in my profile here, Title; > > > > > > Working Slob... I must say that you are a true character, Yahoo, > > > > > > LMAO! > > > > > > I always thought it might be pronounced Yaowee, as in if you had > > > > > > touched a hot stove! Consequently, most people after doing so, > > > > > > scream, > > > > > > hollar and shout profanity while invoking the Lord's name as well. > > > > > > Having had this thought in my head for some time, I have developed > > > > > > quite a tolerance for pain and most times remain silent. lol! > > > > > > Well, SLOB could be an acronym for Specifically Lazy Old Bore. And, > > > > > again, I'm only saying that for laughter's sake, not that it's true. > > > > > It could equally be Secretly Latent Omnipotent Being. Don't worry, > > > > > I'm sure you're not the only poster here who's fluent in the ancient > > > > > tongue of Profanity. But, of course, that raises the question what is > > > > > 'fanity' and why, then, is swearing pro-fanity? > > > > > > Have a good weekend!! > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 5:44 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 29 Apr, 14:55, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I am a working slob, Pat but not an unlearned one! I did, in > > > > > > > > fact, > > > > > > > > know this about the name יהוה > > > > > > > > The pronunciation, however, is probably incorrect! More likely > > > > > > > > Yahwee > > > > > > > > than anything else but hard to tell since the language has > > > > > > > > evolved so > > > > > > > > much through the years. The pronunciation "Jehova", is likely > > > > > > > > to come > > > > > > > > from the names of the characters that form the name which are; > > > > > > > > Jod, > > > > > > > > He, Vau an He. > > > > > > > > Sorry, I didn't intend to insult you intelligence; but, there are > > > > > > > other readers that may NOT have known, so I feel obligated to take > > > > > > > them into account. The pronuciation of "Yehovah" (really sounds > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > like Yaa-hoe-vah [and DON'T forget to pronounce that final 'H' as > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > has a 'dagesh' in it {a dagesh is a small dot in the centre of the > > > > > > > letter that, in some letters, completely changes the > > > > > > > pronunciation. > > > > > > > For example, the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, 'Bet' is > > > > > > > pronounced like a 'V' without a dagesh but, with the dagesh, is a > > > > > > > 'B'} > > > > > > > that, when present, demands the speaker to actually finish the > > > > > > > word > > > > > > > with an aspiration!]) was the result of adding the vowels > > > > > > > associated > > > > > > > with the word "Adonai" (ADNY with the vowels: short 'a', long 'o', > > > > > > > short 'a'; the word Adonai means "Lord" or, when used > > > > > > > colloquially, > > > > > > > "my Lord", as the final 'Y' is the suffix that connotes the first > > > > > > > person singular possessive) and adding them to the letters YHVH. > > > > > > > That > > > > > > > was done after the REAL pronunciation was lost. Personally, I've > > > > > > > always hoped that the REAL pronunciation was 'Yahoo' and that the > > > > > > > search engine of the same name has led the world to commit the > > > > > > > sin of > > > > > > > 'taking the Lord's name in vain' to the point of common parlance. > > > > > > > 'Twould serve us right. ;-) > > > > > > > > > On Apr 29, 8:54 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 28 Apr, 17:07, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Pat, I am very impressed by your commitment and fortitude. > > > > > > > > > > I look for > > > > > > > > > > ward to your forthcoming book! I woner if you will be > > > > > > > > > > employing 11 > > > > > > > > > > dimensional M-teory to explain these concepts pertaining to > > > > > > > > > > the "One" > > > > > > > > > > or God as I like to call it? > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I'd be happy to spoil that one for you by telling > > > > > > > > > you now. > > > > > > > > > I'm opting for the very first 26-dimensional pure bosonic > > > > > > > > > string > > > > > > > > > theory as the most likely. That way, using only bosonic > > > > > > > > > fields, the > > > > > > > > > various fermions are, in essence, illusory resultant products > > > > > > > > > of the > > > > > > > > > interactions of the underlying bosonic fields. Thus, with the > > > > > > > > > original 26-dimensional theory, all 4 bosonic types (EM, > > > > > > > > > Gravity, > > > > > > > > > strong and weak atomic forces) stem from one generic force > > > > > > > > > and can > > > > > > > > > account for all that exists. My proposition is that 16 of > > > > > > > > > those 26 > > > > > > > > > dimensions act as the 1 extra dimension of M-Theory, the > > > > > > > > > remaining 10 > > > > > > > > > are the 4-D space-time and the 6-D Calabi-Yau space in which > > > > > > > > > consciousness exists (in 3 of the Calabi-Yau dimensions) and, > > > > > > > > > in a > > > > > > > > > Platonistic way, where and how the underlying abstract > > > > > > > > > concepts we use > > > > > > > > > are defined (in the remaining 3-D area of the Calabi-Yau). > > > > > > > > > It is my > > > > > > > > > proposition that that 1 extra dimension of M-Theory is, in > > > > > > > > > fact, a 16- > > > > > > > > > D reticulum that acts as the medium through which the other 10 > > > > > > > > > dimensions expand. > > > > > > > > > > Thus, I can have an M-Theory approach, but actually employ the > > > > > > > > > original, most mathematically complex 26-dimensional theory > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > explain how consciousness works and where ideas are 'kept'. > > > > > > > > > My > > > > > > > > > reasons are that I need to not only explain our 4-D tangible > > > > > > > > > space- > > > > > > > > > time, but also be able to explain 7 heavens and 7 hells and > > > > > > > > > how THEY > > > > > > > > > can expand (which is alluded to in various scriptures); and > > > > > > > > > only with > > > > > > > > > the original 26-dimensional theory can both 'the seen' and > > > > > > > > > 'the > > > > > > > > > unseen' be explained in a way that matches what God said He > > > > > > > > > did. And > > > > > > > > > it matches perfectly...but only by using 26 dimensions. I'm > > > > > > > > > not sure > > > > > > > > > if you knew or not but the ancient Hebrew name for God, YHVH > > > > > > > > > (commonly > > > > > > > > > pronounced as 'Jehovah'), has a numerical value of 26...and I > > > > > > > > > really > > > > > > > > > don't think that was by chance. > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 28, 10:10 am, Pat <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 28 Apr, 14:16, RP <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Energy is something whereas God is the source of > > > > > > > > > > > > something. You cannot > > > > > > > > > > > > explain God as he is above explanation. All attributes > > > > > > > > > > > > are manmade and > > > > > > > > > > > > useful only for our understanding which is limited. > > > > > > > > > > > > Omnipotent, > > > > > > > > > > > > Omniscient, etc. are meant for our finite understanding > > > > > > > > > > > > so that we can > > > > > > > > > > > > grasp an image of God. It is not good to bring any > > > > > > > > > > > > religion in this > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion as what we are trying is an exercise of > > > > > > > > > > > > logic and not a > > > > > > > > > > > > matter of faith. Religous people don't argue so much, > > > > > > > > > > > > they believe in > > > > > > > > > > > > what the scripture says and pray according to their > > > > > > > > > > > > faith. Some > > > > > > > > > > > > religions don't accept arguements and frown on such > > > > > > > > > > > > activities. I > > > > > > > > > > > > suggest that you close this topic here as it is too > > > > > > > > > > > > much above us and > > > > > > > > > > > > we may keep on arguing and yet yielding no mutual > > > > > > > > > > > > acceptance. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I bring religion in because I view it as a form of > > > > > > > > > > > evidence-- > > > > > > > > > > > open to us all. Whilst you can close this topic easily > > ... > > read more »
