Some people believe in an after-life because some people claim to remember past births , experience is on their side , they say. You might as well believe in ghosts and ghouls because some people claim to have experienced them. So much for experience !
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > How do you know that, RP, when your dead ? Have you ever died before ? > > We all have a body and a mind. Based on its capabilities, or > incapabilities, what are we talking about ? Nature ? We hardly know > what, how much, how far, in what ways... it works, in all the 10 to > power 22 star worlds. What we know of it can hardly determine what we > do know about it, quite as the past can hardly define the future ! > > Likewise, God. WTF are we talking about ? Now this could seem rude but > should make perfect sense in the context. As in what is this God ? > What constitutes it ? How does it relate to that other fog word " > Nature " ? > > I sincerely believe such threads are started on account of something > diseased within us ! > > Healthy people should be talking of matters they know or have > experienced. One can then opine, extrapolate, theorise... and still be > understandable. > > On Mar 17, 11:26 pm, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: >> Good >> Allan >> On Mar 17, 2012 5:28 PM, "RP Singh" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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".
