Believing in delusional experiences of others is gullibility and mistaking a trance-like state to be a self-realized state is stupidity. When asleep it is you as an organism that is asleep . Don't mistake awareness with yourself , it is simply a state of an organism just as the dream and sleep states.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > James, ignorance is never the issue; it will correct itself, now or in > some decades. > > But stupidity is the issue and its first manifestation is disrespect > for diversity, in general. In particular, stupid people are closed to > diversity of knowledge and experiences that others have. > > For instance, miracles can always happen... quite as a near improbable > event can. What it means is another matter. I feel hearing out that > out, from one who has experienced, is more interesting than the > pontificating babble on the same matter from someone who has not had > the wondrous experience. > > So too, knowledge of any kind... if someone can build it up from the > empiricals, physical or mental, to realisations that have wider-space > longer-time scale validity. It is the absolutist general statement, > having no relationship with the empiricals and their truths, that seem > so stupid. > > Human beings have a responsibility to knowing themselves first, before > speculating about dimensions and what-not. Just now, a cause and > effect relationship was stated between brain and mind. And, I do not > see why or how. I do see the physical qualifying what is in the mind, > as emotion or thought. But they are in the mind, and are not the mind > itself. The brain is there while we are asleep, and alive too, so why > do not "have" a mind then ? In fact, why are we ourselves "absent" > then ? > > All in all, there is a need on our part to be less glib about facts > and truths. Untill then, it would be a good idea to go on some > adventure, or at least long walks, or make a man or woman happy, or > treat another person to happiness, or taste our way to pleasure, or > write down one's thoughts and see for oneself what it actually is... > > > On Mar 18, 9:39 am, James Lynch <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 4:37 PM, 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 ! >> >> I read "not" the first time and had to do a double take on your >> correction. Your concerns are the reason I use the term 'nature', when >> I use it romantically I try to make it clear that I am taking >> liberties. In general I agree with the last part, which gives me a >> large pause on words like 'absolute' and 'infinite', as I prefer to >> see that which is outside the boundary of my vision as a mystery full >> of potential or perhaps containing probabilities given the degree of >> my experiences. This reconciles easily with me between pursuits of >> science, philosophy and human nature. >> >> > 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 " ? >> >> Nature, to me, is all there is, whatever that may be. Notions such as >> God I include within 'romantic liberties' but that is a preference >> within my personal philosophy. Others use it differently in diverse >> ways, some of which I find appealing. >> >> > I sincerely believe such threads are started on account of something >> > diseased within us ! >> >> What point would there be to a pursuit of knowledge or truth without >> ignorance? Denying the latter sounds robotic. IMO approximation is >> implicit. >> >> > Healthy people should be talking of matters they know or have >> > experienced. One can then opine, extrapolate, theorise... and still be >> > understandable. >> >> A good general policy, not sure if all this was for both RP and I but >> I for one admit failure on every term above at some time or other. >> "What if?" >> >> Call me a masochist but I enjoy the diversity of thought, meanderings, >> responding to your message, pestering RP's wisdom, etc.. :) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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".
