Yep Yep RP, I'm with you all the way on this one. When asked (normaly by uneducated atheists) if God created everything and creatd himself how i s that possible?
I explain it thusly. Before the begining there was only God, God in spirit, God created all out of Godself, created matter, that which can be measured, seen, heard, smelt, touched or otherwise contemplated out of the essance or spirt of Godself. Spirt and matter are two differant things, both exist but you can really only experiance matter, heh that is unless you reconise the spirit within your self. On 20 Aug, 14:54, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > *By nothing I mean the exclusion of all material things and not the spirit > that is Atman. > * > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 6:17 AM, DarkwaterBlight > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > That does not imply that everything has come from nothing RP, but > > rather, all that is, came from SOMETHING that is beyond our > > comprehension! I do understand how you could view it as you do but you > > interpretation is exclusively your own. > > > On Aug 19, 2:22 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > When a little boy asked his guru what is Brahman , the guru said , O..k. > > > son tell me all that you know one by one what you know and I will tell > > you > > > what is Brahman. The pupil said , Is it the sun ? Guru 'not this' The > > boy > > > said , 'the river Guru , 'not this. and one by one the boy counted out > > all > > > that he knew and he received the same answer. Ultimately the boy said , > > Sir > > > I have counted out all that I knew and now what is left? Guru smiled at > > the > > > boy and said , Son, it is the one where there is no other.Awareness > > involves > > > duality , whereas the truth is non-dual ; where existence or > > intelligence > > > is alone the illusion of the world is not there. > > > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:19 AM, ashok tewari <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > Yes, RP, I would. > > > > > Neti - Neti ... Not this, Not this ... means all that catches my fancy, > > in > > > > the material or mental or intellectual world, which I come to regard as > > ' > > > > God,' as in what I feel or think, what idea or settled knowledge I come > > to > > > > conclude as it, is NOT IT ! > > > > > It is not about the universe ... but about about our attachments and > > > > limitations. Shankar(acharya) and the Upanishads say ... this very > > universe > > > > is Brahman ( sarvam khalvidam brahman ... all this is Brahman ) ... > > this > > > > very ego is Brahman ( aham brahmasmi ... I am Brahman ). > > > > > Please do not ask for more. I am not a teacher, except to a student, > > which > > > > you are not. > > > > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 8:41 PM, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> Ashok , you are a Hindu and from what I have gathered of the advaita > > fold. > > > >> What is neti neti > > > >> Will you please explain to me what it means? > > > > >> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:54 AM, ashok tewari <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > >>> " ... whole universe ... " > > > > >>> Which would include what is known to YOU and all that YOU do not > > know. > > > > >>> I'd find it very foolish if I were to negate something I know nothing > > > >>> about ! That would be what children are likely to do, wishing in and > > wishing > > > >>> away ... rather meaninglessly ! > > > > >>> When Nietzsche found " God is dead," he negates the God in our > > knowledge, > > > >>> belief and imagination. Which then becomes meaningful. > > > > >>> What does your negation of the " whole universe " mean ? To YOU ? > > > > >>> It is easy to talk, RP. It means nothing, if it means nothing to YOU > > ! > > > > >>> On Aug 19, 2010 at 7:44 PM, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>> Everything means the whole universe and if you exist separately from > > the > > > >>>> universe , I , of course , don't include you. > > > > >>>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 6:49 AM, ashok tewari < > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > >>>>> " By everything is meant everything ..." > > > > >>>>> What is " everything " to a child is not the same as what ' > > everything > > > >>>>> ' would mean to an adult ... it is only what YOU conceive of the > > inclusions > > > >>>>> ! > > > > >>>>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 4:47 PM, RP Singh <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > >>>>>> I cannot perceive the distant parts of the universe and I can't > > even > > > >>>>>> imagine what they are , but someone out there sees them and > > doesn't see me. > > > >>>>>> Does that mean that there are many perceptions and many negations > > ., does > > > >>>>>> it mean you see and I do not see? And I see and you do not see? > > Vam , you > > > >>>>>> are being ridiculous and I am speaking for the idea and not for > > you. By > > > >>>>>> everything is meant everything , all the elements which have a > > rudimentary > > > >>>>>> type of consciousness they also are not.The entire universes are > > alive in > > > >>>>>> the sense that there is vibration everywhere and by nothing is > > meant total > > > >>>>>> absence of vibration meaning nothing , just the abstract > > intelligence and > > > >>>>>> existence. > > > > >>>>>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 3:46 AM, ashok tewari < > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> " When we say that the universe came out of nothing we mean the > > > >>>>>>> negation of everything." > > > > >>>>>>> Correction : Everything ... limited to what YOU perceive, > > experience, > > > >>>>>>> imagine or know, or can in future. > > > > >>>>>>> That would still leave much else ... all that you do not or > > cannot > > > >>>>>>> feel, think, imagine or know. Why is it so difficult to accept > > this truism > > > >>>>>>> ? > > > > >>>>>>> Search yourself. How can YOU negate what you do not perceive, > > > >>>>>>> experience, feel, think of, imagine or know ? > > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:36 AM, RP Singh <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>> When we say that the universe came out of nothing we mean the > > > >>>>>>>> negation of everything. And what is the intelligence which is > > nothing or the > > > >>>>>>>> negation of everything , it is existence. You cannot call > > existence to exist > > > >>>>>>>> because it is the basis of that which exist. You read the > > ancient upanisads > > > >>>>>>>> and maybe you will have the groundwork that goes into > > understanding God , > > > >>>>>>>> Reality , Truth or Atman. I prefer Atman before Brahman because > > I don't > > > >>>>>>>> believe in individual souls. To me we are all just ahamkaras or > > egos and > > > >>>>>>>> have just this lifetime and it is Atman who is in everything > > animate and > > > >>>>>>>> inanimate and it is existence and intelligence itself. > > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:27 PM, facilitator < > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>>> I am back for a bit. Just thought I would give everyone a > > heads > > > >>>>>>>>> up. > > > >>>>>>>>> Something I have allowed to bolster my understanding of the > > human > > > >>>>>>>>> condition.....People are messed up. > > > > >>>>>>>>> "Philosophy is good for nothing, that's good, since nothing > > doesn't > > > >>>>>>>>> exist". > > > >>>>>>>>> (Murray) > > > > >>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>> ASHOK TEWARI > > > > >>>>> -- > > > >>>>> ASHOK TEWARI > > > > >>> -- > > > >>> ASHOK TEWARI > > > > > -- > > > > ASHOK TEWARI- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
