“… I still find the apparent appearance of an 'I' in thoughts disturbing and incomplete. “ – Neil
Well said!...as do I. Perchance you have transcended into higher spiritual realms the last year or two? On May 25, 4:37 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Very apposite Bill. I'm more often reminded of the 'my big brother is > bigger than your big brother' stuff. I don't really go for making > guesses about bifurcations of reality myself. I still find the > apparent appearance of an 'I' in thoughts disturbing and incomplete. > > On May 25, 6:36 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Other than the obvious prejudice for men and against women in most > > cultures over the millennia, I’ve always wondered why god is > > attributed with the male gender. > > > Some ponderings include: > > If he is immaterial, how is the gender determined? > > Could such anthropomorphism and sex be attributed to a simple > > projection of the author’s gender in most holy books? > > Since more men are physically more powerful than most women, is it > > merely an attempt at a display of force? (even though we aren’t > > talking about a physical thing??...or are we?) > > > I suggest that when attributing gender to a god or gods one should > > remember as RP says that: “…Whoever God may be , good morals are a > > necessity for a virtuous life and towards that end a person must > > strive.” > > > This would include not excluding any gender when discussing god, > > especially not the *majority* gender! > > > Surely, ‘sage’s are not all men. Surely if one is to ‘understand’ this > > ‘person’ whom one can’t hear nor see, one would not wish to exclude a > > gender! And for sure not all ‘teachers’ are men…or am I missing > > something? > > >http://www.bluemantshirts.com/images/bfs_slogans/finished/god_bigger.png > > > On May 25, 8:32 am, 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 > > ... > > read more »
