They see now how your concept of people does not include James' 3-year old son. That's very sad evidence, to speak in Allan's terminology.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > Good. Period. I will not question even what I find presumptuous. > > Now we can go on with what we know or experience or declare our > fantasy with laughter, without feeling small because the other guy > knows " so much " and disapproves. > > James, it's not what the 3-year old says or believes... what I'd love > to see is the expression that accompanies, which takes us to the heart > of the matter. And, how soon and easily the next diversion engages the > being so completely ! > > We all can say yes to what makes people honest, happy, peaceful, > better informed, empowered, smiling and accepting of others. > > On Mar 23, 8:48 am, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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, > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป
