The "gods " would then just be super-beings who will be born with this universe and die with it , e.i. dualistic in nature.
On May 3, 5:42 am, [email protected] wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
