Ifpure consciousness transcends human awareness then as Kant saysthe assertion of unity is only a hypothesis believed as an article offaith. What if the pre Greeks are righter about the nature of realitywith their notion of multiple "gods" a multiplicity of realities?
-----Original Message----- From: RP <[email protected]> To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, May 3, 2010 8:05 am Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: God and I Pure Consciousness, God, Atma , or the Self is non-dual and above awareness. Awareness implies dualism as it is not possible otherwise. The entire creation which is dualistic in nature springs from the non- dual and is like a hen coming out of an egg. i.e. all predetermined. I know that I have no company in this view , yet I have expressed it as basically I am truthful in nature. On May 2, 8:14 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > “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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
