RP... Your replies really do not surprise me at all. There are very may wise and professional people in this group that have great is insight, I am not counting myself among them. You have attacked and belittled personal experiences of other and I really do not see why.. they are just experiences..
What I read behind the statements is a person that is envious of others. A person that apparently want others to go ga ga goo over your great wisdom. sorry I do not see it as that.. Allan On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:44 AM, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > 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". > -- ( ) |_D Allan Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
