As long as I am alive I am conscious of the world and myself , but when I am dead I reach a state of permanent unconsciousness , a state of supreme peace where nothing disturbs me , a sort of nirvana. that is the ultimate state from which nobody returns.
On Friday, March 9, 2012 3:32:12 AM UTC+5:30, Ash wrote: > > This does make some sense to me RP so I hope my question doesn't sound > critical. For me thinking in this way causes a massive amount of > difficulty, as it sounds like immutable truths, so I have to translate > away the language to get glints of my own thinking through. We could > easily call my predicament not seeing the forest for the trees, and > that would be a fitting if not limited statement. In my mind I prefer > to start with the will representing laws of nature which are dynamic, > and work more along an opportunistic heuristic. For me it is obvious > that some people talk about an n-dimensional entity, but n is an > aspect of scope in one's perspective. If n is potentially infinite, > then the truths may have strength but are more optimizations than > static ontology. I am wondering if there is some useful perspective > that can be used in my situation, or perhaps it is a hopeless case. > Perhaps you have something to help me? > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:21 AM, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > Neil , there is no difference. The universe is not nature but a > > manifestation of Nature or God. It is unconscious but not dead, as > > that would have meant no life , further it has to be unconscious as > > the conscious is always bound to certain limits and is dual. > > > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:57 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> That's a little bit different - and I'm in agreement. Some scientists > >> have suggested we could make a universe with life conditions in the > >> laboratory - still leaving us with issues about beginnings. Science > >> fiction wise one can imagine making such universes in order to travel > >> in time in them to discover more on how we were made - by occupying > >> earlier stages of them. I tend to think of the unconscious as what > >> isn't in rational consciousness, but I know this is inadequate as much > >> human consciousness in action is not known to the participants > >> rationally. > >> > >> On Mar 5, 2:59 am, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Life had to come from somewhere , why not from an unconscious Nature > >>> which would explain the presence of Laws behind every action and > >>> inaction. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:36 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > That doesn't help RP. Why this rather than a host of alternatives? > >>> > >>> > On Mar 4, 4:28 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> >> God is not made of fire , air , earth , water , ether and > consciousness , > >>> >> rather all these emanate from Him. God is unconscious and without > >>> >> attributes. > >>> > >>> >> On Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:51:49 PM UTC+5:30, RP Singh wrote: > >>> > >>> >> > God , Nature , Truth , Reality is unconscious and the Creation > which > >>> >> > emanates from it has no choice. You may think that you have > choice , but > >>> >> > whatever you think , feel and do is as certain as the trajectory > of the > >>> >> > celestial bodies. The entire universe , you included, is bound by > laws and > >>> >> > everyone is a slave to" Laws", that is , "The Will of God". > >>> >> On Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:51:49 PM UTC+5:30, RP Singh wrote: > >>> > >>> >> > God , Nature , Truth , Reality is unconscious and the Creation > which > >>> >> > emanates from it has no choice. You may think that you have > choice , but > >>> >> > whatever you think , feel and do is as certain as the trajectory > of the > >>> >> > celestial bodies. The entire universe , you included, is bound by > laws and > >>> >> > everyone is a slave to" Laws", that is , "The Will of God". >
