knowledge without direct experience.
Weren't you curious about why I would paint a roof a different
color? :-)
On May 24, 10:29 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com"
<l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> I'm reading a book of short stories at the mo, one called The all-at
> once man, by R A Lafferty has this concept of before the begining.
> Paraphrasing wildly then:
>
> Before the begining was a perfect sphere spinning at a ferocious rate,
> it didn't know any of this for there was nothing else by which to
> measure such things.
>
> An infantisimal speck appared and the sphere had now had something
> with which to relate, to measure it's own existance and dimenseons and
> movment, and thus time was born.
>
> The sphere found that is was not perfect and this was because it was
> spinning at such a rate as to deform, it soon deformed enough to
> explode and all that is comes for the broken sphere.
>
> A similar thought occours in the set of books called Conversations
> with God. The premise is that God is, and God is all knowing, but
> being all knowing God decided that knowledge without experiance is
> worthless, hence the creation of matter out of the spirit of God.
>
> I'm not sure on this idea, but you who know me, know I am taken with
> the idea of matter from spirit.
>
> On May 24, 1:49 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > We have one mortal life but our spirit lives on through our works and
> > relationships. Our body is like the transport that our spirit drives.
> > Why then, would God be lonely and create Adam and Eve in the flesh?
> > What did he lack with the angels? All myth, of course.
>
> > On May 23, 10:46 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > All matter and all individualities are emanations from the One Self
> > > and it is in the nature of emanations to be dualistic. I know it hurts
> > > our pride to accept that we are mortals and have only this life , but
> > > if we change our perceptions a little and identify ourselves with the
> > > One Self instead of this body, then we would be having the right
> > > perspective and really be the One and only Atman.
>
> > > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:31 PM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com
>
> > > <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> > > > I think perception is route to realisation perhaps.
>
> > > > Perception first, followed by evidance that such perceptions are valid
> > > > (if only subjectily in some cases) leading to realisations.
>
> > > > As to the Blake quote.
>
> > > > My and my oldest son where having a convo last night, I can't really
> > > > recall what it was about, but I asked him if he thought it at all
> > > > possible that a 'thing' can act outside of it's 'nature'.
>
> > > > Perhaps it is the nature of man to have blinkered perceptions. Like
> > > > the fly dog visualy percives in black an white, perhaps human kind
> > > > simply cannot percive any other realms than it is capable of?
>
> > > > On May 21, 12:12 pm, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> I see your point, a good one too. At what point does perception
> > > >> become realization. But I would say that there is much more to
> > > >> perception than sensory perception. As William Blake pointed out: "If
> > > >> the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man
> > > >> as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all
> > > >> things through narrow chinks of his cavern."[
>
> > > >> On May 19, 7:19 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
> > > >> wrote:
>
> > > >> > Hey Molly,
>
> > > >> > Is such a thing truely a perception or a realisation?
>
> > > >> > I used to live with a bloke who is colour blind, we rented our place
> > > >> > from two lesbians, and so his perception of the colour of his bedroom
> > > >> > was grey. The bedroom was to my eyes coloured pink, but he knows that
> > > >> > he is colour blind and although not sure of what colour I saw (until
> > > >> > he asked me) he realised that his perception was not correct.
>
> > > >> > So we can have a realiastion that our perceptions may not be correct.
>
> > > >> > On May 19, 12:09 pm, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > > How is it possible, from a non dual perspective, to perceive the world
> > > >> > > as dualistic in nature, and thus an illusion (and separate from
> > > >> > > self)? By definition, this view would remain dualistic. I do think it
> > > >> > > true that how we view the world forms our experience. From a
> > > >> > > dualistic view, some are right, some are wrong. From a non dual view,
> > > >> > > all views are the One/many paradox that is One. How we view (and
> > > >> > > experience) birth and death changes as we change. From a non dual
> > > >> > > perspective, they are only states of transformation and not a
> > > >> > > beginning or end.
>
> > > >> > > On May 17, 2:07 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > > > In duality there is the relationship of the observer and the observed
> > > >> > > > , the knower and the known , that is , there are two. In Non-Duality
> > > >> > > > there is only One and the world which is dualistic in nature , remains
> > > >> > > > what it is , just an illusion - i.e. subject to birth and death. God
> > > >> > > > ,Reality or Atman is Non-Dual and duality is just its expression.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment