are so solid that they are unchangeable though.
I have spent a great deal of time over the years looking at the
seemingly contradictions inherant in religous dogma, my belifes are
part of my conclusions.
On May 5, 11:13 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lee , your belief is founded in faith and hence is unshakeable.
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 2:45 PM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com
>
>
>
> <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> > Yes indeed RP we have been over these ground before.
>
> > 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment