"Take the 4 for example. You need four points to make a square. If you can make a square, you have access to the space dimension, you can own land. A traditional "male" number."-gabbydot
Ah gabby, dont you know that all numbers are male? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/science/03comm.html On May 4, 9:48 am, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > "Not necessarily. The multiple gods could act like adjectives to a > noun."-gabbydot > > Very well said and this seems to be the case with angels and demons. > Though they are not by any stretch, gods but from our very finite > perception they appear 'as gods'. This could account for the multiple > gods also. > > On May 4, 4:09 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Take the 4 for example. You need four points to make a square. If you > > can make a square, you have access to the space dimension, you can own > > land. A traditional "male" number. > > > On May 4, 8:06 am, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I am sure there would be but I am not aware except for 3, the > > > trinity ... could you enlighten ? > > > > On May 4, 1:24 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > One can find numbers and nouns in western learning structures, too, > > > > Vam! > > > > > On 3 Mai, 21:47, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I do know why the number is important in eastern religions. There are > > > > > chants that are nothing but 108 names of the same supreme ... > > > > > > On May 3, 9:39 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Not necessarily. The multiple gods could act like adjectives to a > > > > > > noun. > > > > > > > On 3 Mai, 16:14, RP <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
