That is not my belife I'm afraid.
When we look at religion as a whole, and by that I mean if we look at
the dogma of as many religions as we can, it seems clear to me that
God says 'Come to me, choose me'. Both of which hold conertations of
free will or freedom of choice.
If we have free will, then I must ask who's will is it that is free,
who has the power of choice?
The answer must be that each of us has this power, that you have a
Self that is differant from my Self, which in turn is differant from
God's Self.
Yes I agree that there exists an illusion of seperation from God, but
before that seems to contradict what I say above let me explain
further.
A tree is a whole being, yet a leaf and a bud are not the same, part
ofthe same yes, but differant form each other. Imagine then God being
the whole tree and all else being part of the tree. Further imagine
that God has granted each leaf of the tree freedom of choice. To drop
in the autum or to cling to God's branches.
Getting back to time for a sec, and retaining the tree anology.
Before the tree exisited there existed only the idea of the tree, or
God in spirit. For whatever reasons God thought, let the be all kinds
of matter, let matter experiance itself, and lo from just the idea or
spirit of God, God manifested itself as matter, matter made from
spirt.
On May 4, 6:04 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lee , the Self of every individuality is One and He continues in
> eternity. Eternity is because of the Self and not vice versa. If you
> remove the illusory coatings of individualities the one Self shines
> through and whether I know it or not I will continue in eternity. I am
> the Self and this RP Singh or Lee or Orn are just illusions because
> these are but identities whereas The real I or Self is unborn ,
> primeaval and indestructible. The self-sense has a beginning and an
> end , the Self or Atman or God is the core of all individualities and
> is One and is Eternal.
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 8:42 PM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com
>
>
>
> <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> > Indeed RP, as we know that is part of my belife structure also. Yet
> > unless you have reached God in what ever manory your faith defines for
> > you, can it be said that you, mean you RP Singh of here and now, will
> > continue into eternity?
>
> > On May 4, 3:22 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Lee, eternity to my mind is no imagination but a fact. This universe
> >> came to be and will disintegrate but that is not the end of Creation ,
> >> there have to be other universes in parallel and there is a continuity
> >> in Creation-- I mean that no matter how many universes disintegrate
> >> there are still other universes.God is incomplete without Creation and
> >> so the concept of eternity is valid and a " fact ".
>
> >> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:32 PM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com
>
> >> <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> >> > Hey OM.
>
> >> > I guess what we are talking about are forces. I see that perhaps you
> >> > do not count time a s force, or that perhaps our understanding of what
> >> > time is must be constrained by the type of being we are.
>
> >> > Yes I agree that the reality maynot be wholey how we percive it to be,
> >> > as you know this has been my stance for a long while now.
>
> >> > Back to forces though. We still don't know how gravity works, but we
> >> > are sure that such a thing exists, we see it's effects all around us
> >> > and can apply sciences to measure it. Like time we can see the
> >> > effects of it. Now I'll not discount the idea that the effects of
> >> > time may be down to something else entirly.
>
> >> > The thing with imagining enternity or existing within it, is that it
> >> > is just imaginagtion isn't it. I can also imagine that I'll a tall
> >> > man with broad shoulders, but the reality of the situation is I am
> >> > not.
>
> >> > On May 4, 10:34 am, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> Lee, I sense that what we perceive as being 'external' - energy and
> >> >> movement - is that. However, beyond this, our notions of what things
> >> >> are...even the letters and associated words for SETI... only exist in
> >> >> thought...no where else.
>
> >> >> As an aside, for those who may have missed it, SETI has been defunded.
>
> >> >> And, no, I didn't miss your caveat. I just disagree and suspect that
> >> >> having thought about what one thinks is real, which does include the
> >> >> concept of time, all one's lifetime...the notion of time becomes so
> >> >> ingrained in one's world view that it is assumed to be an actual thing
> >> >> rather than merely a thought.
>
> >> >> Yes, when one *thinks* about such things, they appear to be real. The
> >> >> operative words here are "appears to be". As a mental exercise Lee,
> >> >> I'll ask you to do your very best to imagine existing in
> >> >> eternity...that which has no beginning and no end.
>
> >> >> Got the vision?.....from this perspective (the actual 'reality'), time
> >> >> just is meaningless... especially if one also imagines no perceiver(s)
> >> >> involved anywhere at all.
>
> >> >> On the other hand, I do know that there is life and that we, as human
> >> >> beings do think and project our understandings upon the fabric of what
> >> >> we project as being 'external' to ourselves. I don't deny this...it is
> >> >> obvious that we do. It's just that what we project comes from mind and
> >> >> not from whatever is actually there. What is actually there is not
> >> >> what we perceives as time...it isn't color (except clear light as TTS
> >> >> notes...something I've been contemplating for years now...something
> >> >> that to the rational/thinking mind just can't be grasped)...it isn't
> >> >> SETI...it isn't shape...it isn't anything that human senses perceive
> >> >> and then apply some sort of belief about what is being
> >> >> perceived...based upon previously attached beliefs. We don't in our
> >> >> everyday mode perceive reality as it actually is. We do use
> >> >> conventions mind agrees upon...for practicality's sake...its just that
> >> >> in any ultimate sense, these conventions are nothing more than
> >> >> that...they are not what is actually there. Remove the observer (and
> >> >> associated senses) and what exists? Get it? No thinking...no
> >> >> thoughts...no concepts...no words...no notions of reality....
>
> >> >> No, this isn't the conventional approach to things ontological nor
> >> >> epistemological....yet, the exercise can be of enormous value in my
> >> >> experience. No, I'm not attempting to impose a belief system upon you
> >> >> or anyone else...in fact, it is almost like a diminution of belief if
> >> >> anything at all!
>
> >> >> So, yes, how does one think about not thinking!!!
>
> >> >> Well...we have gone down this road quite often Lee...and you stop
> >> >> after only a couple of paces which is fine.
>
> >> >> For me, I hunger to know beyond my own set of beliefs...which are
> >> >> almost all things that I've attached to long ago and were formed based
> >> >> upon words...and, not having created those words...there is little
> >> >> that I actually know associated with these terms fed to me by others.
>
> >> >> To do this search, deconstruction [of beliefs] seems to be one method.
> >> >> It isn't a road often traveled nor does it seem to be for everyone. So
> >> >> be it!
>
> >> >> On May 4, 1:47 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> > Hey Om,
>
> >> >> > Don't be shocked mate you might have missed this bit:
>
> >> >> > ' I must though disagree with you about concepts not existing without
> >> >> > somebody to concive of them. Sure I could probably think of a concept
> >> >> > or two where this is applicable, time though is not one of them.'
>
> >> >> > I like you exanples OM, but we know in a scientific way what colours
> >> >> > are, and yes without the eyes to sense them, they still exist. The
> >> >> > same with sound waves, yes of course with out the ears to hear and the
> >> >> > brain to make sense of them, we can ask do they really exist, but the
> >> >> > answer must be yes.
>
> >> >> > Think of it like this. SETI have been listening to radio waves from
> >> >> > space for many years now, prior to SETI being setup, where these radio
> >> >> > signals simply not there? Yes of course they where, we just didn't
> >> >> > have the now how to listen to them.
>
> >> >> > There is a valid reason why we call somethings inventions and others
> >> >> > discoverys.
>
> >> >> > I'm trying hard to Grok yoru meaning but you know that old fashioned
> >> >> > reasoning keeps interfearing.
>
> >> >> > On May 4, 5:43 am, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > "…Naaaa I do not think that is what you are saying. " – Lee
>
> >> >> > > Lee, in many ways, it is exactly what I'm saying.
>
> >> >> > > First, a few examples: Color – we perceive color(s)…and different
> >> >> > > people perceive colors differently for one another too. And I'm not
> >> >> > > even thinking about the color blind nor the totally blind here. With
> >> >> > > no human brain, what we know as color just will not exist. There may
> >> >> > > be some sort of vibration/movement in the universe but there will be
> >> >> > > no color because it takes a human being to see them. Please don't add
> >> >> > > other life forms to the equation, the principle is the same. No
> >> >> > > perceiver, no color.
>
> >> >> > > That is only one thing. How about country music? Again, while there
> >> >> > > may be vibrations/movement, without a person to 'translate' these
> >> >> > > vibrations into what we call country music, there just isn't any such
> >> >> > > thing. It is a concept (country music) and doesn't exist without mind.
>
> >> >> > > I really was shocked when you said that you disagreed with me about
> >> >> > > concepts not existing without a perceiver/thinker! Just how could say
> >> >> > > a concept of 'freedom' exist without mind? It just doesn't.
>
> >> >> > > Adding a little more, when you bring in 'labels', yes, all concepts/
> >> >> > > words (labels) are subjective and without mind they just don't exist.
> >> >> > > Even when there *is* mind things like say the earth can be
> >> >> > > deconstructed into atoms and/or molecules etc…stuff that is not what
> >> >> > > we think about as being the planet. I haven't gone into this very
> >> >> > > deeply but hope you grok.
>
> >> >> > > On May 3, 9:36 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
> >> >> > > wrote:
>
> >> >> > > > Hahahah OM old chap, you and I have been round and around on manny
> >> >> > > > matters, as you say though this is just fine.
>
> >> >> > > > Yes of course the perception of time is a construct of human thought,
> >> >> > > > it is as I say the way we measure decay.
>
> >> >> > > > Yes of course if we do not project time upon the eternity then time
> >> >> > > > cease to have any meaning.
>
> >> >> > > > Yet all that we know is contained in the universe and it is clear that
> >> >> > > > within this universe time exists independant of human thought.
>
> >> >> > > > All that is physical, all that is matter is subject to decay at a
> >> >> > > > certian rate, this is time working.
>
> >> >> > > > Do you belive then that whatever is apart from the universe does not
> >> >> > > > come under the juristriction of time? Are you saying that this thing
> >> >> > > > we call God in some places is not subject to time, and that this is
> >> >> > > > also true of
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment