But Gabby, I can see that it does as sure as your words, regardless of intent. This is, after all, MY experience. ;-) :))
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 4:37 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 » > >
