We can live without some organs but not without the vital ones. I , the self-sense, is centered somewhere in the brain , it is a particular part of the brain and if that is not rendered dead somehow or the other , it exist. To my understanding we are that part of the brain and being mortal die when it dies. According to thinkers through the ages this body is just a vehicle and individual souls are separate from it and exist even after its death . To them souls are different from God or rather separate from Him. According to your stream of thinkers the Self is one but the self-sense lives for birth after birth until it realizes its true nature and becomes one with the Self. I don't ascribe to this view but being finite with a limited understanding I might be wrong , but so could be you.You were talking about a wondrous experience but an experience none the less , which is called Turiya avastha by some yogis , I find it to be just a state of the organism just like the awake-dream-sleep states. That it can be attained by use of entheogens further diminishes its spiritual value but I will not argue with you on this count as your belief about this experience has become quite ingrained in your psyche.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:31 AM, 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 »
