This would indicate God is imperfect, lee. Even humans can attain knowledge without direct experience.
Weren't you curious about why I would paint a roof a different color? :-) On May 24, 10:29 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm reading a book of short stories at the mo, one called The all-at > once man, by R A Lafferty has this concept of before the begining. > Paraphrasing wildly then: > > Before the begining was a perfect sphere spinning at a ferocious rate, > it didn't know any of this for there was nothing else by which to > measure such things. > > An infantisimal speck appared and the sphere had now had something > with which to relate, to measure it's own existance and dimenseons and > movment, and thus time was born. > > The sphere found that is was not perfect and this was because it was > spinning at such a rate as to deform, it soon deformed enough to > explode and all that is comes for the broken sphere. > > A similar thought occours in the set of books called Conversations > with God. The premise is that God is, and God is all knowing, but > being all knowing God decided that knowledge without experiance is > worthless, hence the creation of matter out of the spirit of God. > > I'm not sure on this idea, but you who know me, know I am taken with > the idea of matter from spirit. > > On May 24, 1:49 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > We have one mortal life but our spirit lives on through our works and > > relationships. Our body is like the transport that our spirit drives. > > Why then, would God be lonely and create Adam and Eve in the flesh? > > What did he lack with the angels? All myth, of course. > > > On May 23, 10:46 am, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > All matter and all individualities are emanations from the One Self > > > and it is in the nature of emanations to be dualistic. I know it hurts > > > our pride to accept that we are mortals and have only this life , but > > > if we change our perceptions a little and identify ourselves with the > > > One Self instead of this body, then we would be having the right > > > perspective and really be the One and only Atman. > > > > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:31 PM, [email protected] > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I think perception is route to realisation perhaps. > > > > > Perception first, followed by evidance that such perceptions are valid > > > > (if only subjectily in some cases) leading to realisations. > > > > > As to the Blake quote. > > > > > My and my oldest son where having a convo last night, I can't really > > > > recall what it was about, but I asked him if he thought it at all > > > > possible that a 'thing' can act outside of it's 'nature'. > > > > > Perhaps it is the nature of man to have blinkered perceptions. Like > > > > the fly dog visualy percives in black an white, perhaps human kind > > > > simply cannot percive any other realms than it is capable of? > > > > > On May 21, 12:12 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I see your point, a good one too. At what point does perception > > > >> become realization. But I would say that there is much more to > > > >> perception than sensory perception. As William Blake pointed out: "If > > > >> the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man > > > >> as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all > > > >> things through narrow chinks of his cavern."[ > > > > >> On May 19, 7:19 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > Hey Molly, > > > > >> > Is such a thing truely a perception or a realisation? > > > > >> > I used to live with a bloke who is colour blind, we rented our place > > > >> > from two lesbians, and so his perception of the colour of his bedroom > > > >> > was grey. The bedroom was to my eyes coloured pink, but he knows > > > >> > that > > > >> > he is colour blind and although not sure of what colour I saw (until > > > >> > he asked me) he realised that his perception was not correct. > > > > >> > So we can have a realiastion that our perceptions may not be correct. > > > > >> > On May 19, 12:09 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > How is it possible, from a non dual perspective, to perceive the > > > >> > > world > > > >> > > as dualistic in nature, and thus an illusion (and separate from > > > >> > > self)? By definition, this view would remain dualistic. I do > > > >> > > think it > > > >> > > true that how we view the world forms our experience. From a > > > >> > > dualistic view, some are right, some are wrong. From a non dual > > > >> > > view, > > > >> > > all views are the One/many paradox that is One. How we view (and > > > >> > > experience) birth and death changes as we change. From a non dual > > > >> > > perspective, they are only states of transformation and not a > > > >> > > beginning or end. > > > > >> > > On May 17, 2:07 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > In duality there is the relationship of the observer and the > > > >> > > > observed > > > >> > > > , the knower and the known , that is , there are two. In > > > >> > > > Non-Duality > > > >> > > > there is only One and the world which is dualistic in nature , > > > >> > > > remains > > > >> > > > what it is , just an illusion - i.e. subject to birth and death. > > > >> > > > God > > > >> > > > ,Reality or Atman is Non-Dual and duality is just its > > > >> > > > expression.- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
