I have been waiting for something understand able for a long time now.. But RP is so far beyond my limited intelligence I have no hope ( oh whoa is me, whoa is me, ) Allan
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 22, 7:07 am, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > You are the organism... > > Who knows me, my-SELF better ? You or I ? > > I know I am the organism but more like " I am the hand, the leg, the > tongue..." There's more to me than. Much more. In fact, quite like I > can live without a hand or leg, what I am can live without 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. > > Refer above. It is the organism that is asleep, not I. I only let it > sleep because it needs to. I, in fact, go nowhere. I only withdraw my > attention and awareness from issuing without and, instead turn it to > the mind. In it I create all things, without as much as moving my > little finger, so to say... the mountains, the glades, the trees, > flowers, women, great food, the hurt and throbbing pain, the tiger > ready to pounce on me, the sky travel, visits to the moon... All of > these I experience in my dream. > > Then, I tire of even these and withdraw my attention and awareness > from the mind. People who are not trained in the art of negotiating > their way through the "inner" process they have nothing more to see or > be in respect of. They then rest identified with the vitality which > keeps the body alive... in the beating heart, the moving breath, > neurons at minimum activity, without anything in their awareness. > > > As for the Unconscious I speak of it is Nature or God... > > How can a source which raises consciousness, and matter that is > unconscious, be only unconscious. We never see unconscious rocks > create intelligent robots. The logical conclusion is to posit a > faculty that includes both unconsciousness and consciousness, as we > understand these two terms, even though we might not have any idea of > what such a faculty could be. That is our limitation... we can > recognise unconsciousness and consciousness, but not a third that > includes both. > > > ... 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. > > There is to discuss in the rest of your outpourings above. You are > welcome to beliefs and opinions. You speak of an understanding which > is entirely absent in what you wrote. You could try again; I would > definitely add to the discussion when I find something I can > understand. > > > > 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? > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป -- ( ) |_D Allan Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
