I was responding to your post about rudeness RP. Not sure where your emotion comes from or where it is going. Blessings to you as you figure it out.
On Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 11:51:14 AM UTC-4, RP Singh wrote: > > I have read the post to which you refer and have found that what was a > general statement that we should not engage ourselves in pursuit of reality > has been taken by you as referring to you. It was a general statement and > has not to do anything to how you run your life. If you are going to take > my words upon yourself I don't think there is any purpose in my continuing > in the group. It is now six years that I have been in this group and now > feel that my journey has come to an end. > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > Again, I will advise you to focus on your own behavior instead of mine for > the answer to your question. > > > On Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 10:50:45 AM UTC-4, RP Singh wrote: > > When you post something in an online conversation you have to be ready to > face criticism, which is necessary for an honest discussion, "it is as you > say RP" not that type of response The response must be honest for we are > not here to socialize rather to thrash out ideas, and if in that exchange > we are embarrassed we have to adjust to the situation because criticism in > these matters is not personal rather of the viewpoint in question. If I > have hurt you somewhere it is unintentional and to be understood as > conversational banter. > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > I gave you a list of rude statement in my last post to you, RP. Why are > you asking Neil about it now (how rude)? I suggest you look to your own > behavior if you want to discover your own rudeness. > > > On Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 5:26:21 AM UTC-4, RP Singh wrote: > > Where have I been rude to Molly can anyone tell me, it was just a clash of > viewpoints and in discussions you have to come out strongly which both of > us did. If there was sarcasm it was from both sides, and in discussions in > the modern world chivalry won't do. This is an online conversation and most > of the time you don't even realize that you are talking to a lady. So, > Neil, will you point out to me where I was rude? > > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 1:02 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well, now we know Molly is just regressing to a foetal state on the > 'basis' on 9 LSD case studies, we can safely dismiss mysticism and become > slaves of RP's non-mystic unconscious god, naively suffering misery and > euphoria concerning achievements not ours. This is science but not as we > know it Jim. > > I'm off for an adult conversation with Charlie Brown. Doesn't Lucy do > some character assassination psychoanalysis? The mystic bit is not in the > bickering. It would concern the superordinate, not dropping concrete block > absolutes as the only answer to everything.. > > > On Friday, March 20, 2015 at 6:37:11 PM UTC, Allan Heretic wrote: > > RP even your Hindu say there is a soul. You are saying it does not exist. > Which is right? > I know I have a soul it is not a best guess as your statements are. I know > God is real far beyond best guess.. Your reality is nothing more than best > guess of what you think you have seen. > Do you know what I have experienced to the point you can exclude my > experiences as invalid dismissing them with the wave of your hand claiming > superior knowledge, which to me is little more than a guess. > I can understand your point of view and how you arrived at your conclusion > including why you feel they are valid.. From your perspective they are > valid. > > The problem is you are only in possessions of partial perspective. Now the > real question is can you truly understand the perspective of others. > Fortunately your perspective does not effect my soul or the souls of > others. Each soul is responsible for only it's perspective. It is a matter > of free will. Sorry but I did not forget that to you free will does not > exist. Sadly apparently you have already made your choice. > > تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين > Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others > > -----Original Message----- > From: RP Singh <[email protected]> > To: Minds Eye <[email protected]> > Sent: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 6:25 PM > Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Einstein and the Mystics > > Man easily accepts what is appealing and that is why people believe in an > after-life. It is the survival instinct that stops us from accepting what > is evident and obvious. Death is certain yet we escape it by taking on the > non-dual perspective, but we are far from the non-dual and always in > duality. It is not the case of one Molly but thousands of others talking > about all-in-one and one-in-all and a non-dual perspective. I don't think > that they even have an idea of what is non-dual, taking an experience of > awareness to be the absolute state. > My view might be disturbing because death is certainly so, but you cannot > escape it by imagining to be the non-dual. We are always responsible > people, yet we are fettered by bonds not recognizable as such, and so the > arrogance and depression. Truth remains what it is and yet we find it > painful, so what else but spirituality to cloak it in just to have a > delusion of immortality. > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:03 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't take you any other way RP than straight. One must bend in the > wind from time to time. I have known nuns be a bride of god one day and > have given it up the next. Millions have converted with changes in > empire. Most religionists keep the religion they were born with, > suggesting thought has little to do with it. We might envisage 'Molly' as > a good Islamic girl and so on if born in another culture - some are so > racist they can't envision such - though I would have another explanation > of this particular Molly and wouldn't want to bother with explanation at > all. I doubt you can escape superiority by essentialist biological claims > about being a slave of nature, something you are anyway not. Now you have > supernatural agents working in the world instead of responsible people, who > can now only feel under delusion. > > Mysticism is all over the place in history and science. I don't know > whether I want more of it or to understand how to get rid of it (as in > constructor theory and rainbow gravity). I ' > > ... -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
