Sad, so sad. Allan On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:07 AM, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote:
> You are the organism and when asleep it is you the organism that is > asleep , you don't go anywhere but in a state of sleep like the > dream-state and awakened-state it is still you in totality. As for the > Unconscious I speak of it is Nature or God and I don't want your seal > on my beliefs, for your reasoning is shallow and has no depth. You are > confusing yourself to be something separate from and above the body > but I can understand your stupidity because people across the ages > have believed so without any solid ground and against all evidence to > the contrary , I am happy you will live through the ages and make many > people happy ,but I am satisfied that I will not ascribe to your > stupidity and on my deathbed will be satisfied in knowing that I will > reach the peaceful stage which people like you feign to attain while > all the while desiring worldly pleasures for eons and eons. > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 21, 10:44 am, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Believing in delusional experiences of others is gullibility... > > > > And who is to pronounce on your "wisdom," RP ? > > > >> mistaking a trance-like state to be a self-realized state is > >> stupidity. > > > > And, why should inclusive self-realisation have to be trance-like, > > RP ? I really wonder where or from whom did you pick up such narrow > > associations through your growing up ! > > > >> When asleep it is you as an organism that is asleep. > > > > You mean to say now that the organism ( the body ) is different from > > your self ? If yes, who and what is this self, and how do you know if > > it so ? You've said it is unconscious, where as you are conscious. So, > > being of diametrically opposite, opposed and contrary nature, are you > > the self or the non-self ? > > > > You could choose to begin all over again and review the true nature of > > the self and what constitutes it. Then, what is your true nature ? > > > > Or, are you saying that, when asleep, you are the organism and there > > is no self ? > > > >> Don't mistake awareness with yourself , it is simply a state of an > organism > >> just as the dream and sleep states. > > > > Don't worry about my mistakes. It is time you worried about yours ! > > > > I am not exactly excited about having a response from you. But I'm > > open to surprise ! > > > > > >> 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.
