You see the reflection of the sun in water , but is that the sun ? God is immanent in you but that doesn't make you God.
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 9:32 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > Indeed, however we are taught that God is imminent throughout the > creation, can you hear the birds sing, the man talk or the child > laugh? Are you then not hearing God? > > Can you see trees change throughoput the seasons, the fish swimming in > the river, and humanity bickering? Are you then not seeing God > > On May 25, 4:32 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: >> God is not someone you can see or hear , but He is someone you can >> understand and for that you need a trained understanding. >> Understanding can be trained through years of study and deliberations >> and maybe not even then ,in which case you can rely on the words of a >> sage in whom you have faith. In any case only a man of faith gains >> knowledge because initially you have to have faith in someone or some >> scripture , to learn English you have to have faith in your teacher. >> Whoever God may be , good morals are a necessity for a virtuous life >> and towards that end a person must strive. >> >> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:32 PM, [email protected] >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Perhaps Rigsy, I guess that depends on who you want to define the word >> > perfect? >> >> > I like the idea that perfection meaning nothing else needing changing, >> > which means of course perfection is a stagnant thing. As we know >> > nowthing stays still all is in flux. >> >> > If you belive that the universe is equated with the body of God, then >> > it is clear that the universe is always moving, and so in this way we >> > can say that at least the body of God is not perfect. Umm perhaps >> > then when we say that God is perfect it is purely spirit we talk >> > about? >> >> > Yes indeed we can attain knowledge without experaince, what worth is >> > it though without the experiances? I think the old adage that >> > 'practice makes perfect' is very true. Us older people both 'know' >> > more about the workings of the world and have the 'expriances' to go >> > with the knowledge, this is wounderfull thing yes? >> >> > I'm still learning to play the guitar, I have read and am still >> > reading many books, tracts, downloaed bits and bobs, but it is the >> > practice that will eventualy make me a better guitar player. In a >> > very real way the practice or the experiancine of some endevour feeds >> > the knowledge of it, the more practical experiances of a sphere of >> > knowledge you grab, the better you are able to 'know' it. >> >> > Famouse writters when asked how to be a better writter offten simply >> > reply 'Just write' >> >> > As to why you would paint your roof a diffrant colour, well perhaps >> > you got bored with the old one? >> >> > I'm curious about many things, I have learnt over the years (through >> > experiance) to rein such curisotiy in, or risk my little mind >> > explodeing! >> >> > On May 25, 2:38 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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 -- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text -
