cosmo-logy/gony from a man if they are looking to understand his
perspective. It should suffice to find one's own need to understand and
seek fulfillment, that merely agreeing or disagreeing is not enough for
this task.
Is there more to your belief you could share? You may be surprised by
the reflection, or not..
On 5/27/2011 11:39 AM, RP Singh wrote:
> I am familiar only with the ancient Hindu Upanisads and the
> Bhagvadagita , besides I have read a little Psychology. I don't think
> you would reach the same conclusions on reading them , It took me
> three decades to formulate my belief and I know it is hard to digest
> but it is still better than the athiestic view that the majority is
> accepting nowadays.
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Ash<ashkashal@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Panta re ouden menai RP. I understand that it would be ignorant to ask for
>> a science of mysticism but I am connecting the dots between everything
>> anyway. As I see it absolutes are models to help us conceive of systems,
>> metaphysical archetypes, a cross-section of imaginary points to reduce the
>> flow of patterns into something we can grasp. I prefer starting with
>> overlapping spheres at times but that is irrelevant, a dismissable geometric
>> aid. No matter how many times I've experienced spiritual insight I
>> repeatedly reformulate from the bottom up, I suppose that is restless. I
>> digress.
>>
>> On 5/26/2011 11:17 PM, RP Singh wrote:
>>> Ash , as far as we are concerned we are all real , we are neither
>>> inside nor outside the One . The One is immanent in us. When we say
>>> the world is an illusion it is because it is changeable and
>>> destructible. It is not permanent.
>> I agree our experiences and nature cause misconceptions, some are valuable
>> some not because they fit needs to an extent of limited perceptions. I
>> believe that all things are polymorphic in theory, and I think this
>> indicates that there is infinite potential explanation for things as they
>> are, and their interrelations. Fractal geometry grows from the egg, or such.
>> Everything changes with a spark, which is the culmination of forces driving
>> a substance to an extreme until critical mass and bam, noetic volition
>> (previously assumed to be spontaneous combustion or likewise concepts).
>> Between permanence and impermanence there is everything in between we cannot
>> see due to limited perspective, and apparent dichotomies dissolve, leaving a
>> permanence of change. The creative and conservative forces, and their
>> archetypal children become One and creation and destruction become the
>> illusion. Maybe.
>>
>>> Space and all that is in it has
>>> sprung from the One , and the One itself is pure Spirit. Our
>>> individual identities are for a time being only , in actuality the One
>>> is our real self. There is no such thing as my spirit or your spirit ,
>>> there is only the One Spirit and it is the Absolute.
>> If there are published works on the school(s) influencing these ideas could
>> you reference them, or preferably your own work online (free)? Seeing it all
>> at once helps.
>>> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Ash<ashkashal@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> But then either the phenomenal experience granted by this 'corporeal'
>>>> (apparently) state is occuring within or without or some x-position in
>>>> relation to One. Something is without a doubt occuring in some fashion,
>>>> as
>>>> we wouldn't be holding this conversation. If we are not within one, we
>>>> are
>>>> outside of one? Absolutes give me much trouble so I won't be diving into
>>>> the
>>>> essence at this time looking to verify our claims. From what state does
>>>> this
>>>> perspective come from, to what or whom am I speaking (that this knowledge
>>>> you propose comes from)? Maybe that is a better start, I apologize for
>>>> taking the infuriatingly dense student route.
>>>>
>>>> On 5/25/2011 11:50 PM, RP Singh wrote:
>>>>> If we think that we are part of the " Whole " we are sort of dividing
>>>>> up God. He then is no longer an entity but a composite of parts. The
>>>>> truth is that we are not parts but emanations which make His existence
>>>>> identifiable to our understanding.
>>>>> The reflection of the sun is a proof of the sun ;similarly the world
>>>>> is a proof of the Self.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Ash<ashkashal@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Our consciousness makes us think that we are special , far removed
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> matter , but in reality we are mortal and it is the One Spirit in all
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> is immortal. "
>>>>>> I don't think that this must necessarily be the whole truth. What if
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> sees that all things are a part of the whole, that is the world and/or
>>>>>> nature's way, and we perceive diverse phenomena by our natures
>>>>>> inextricably?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I find it interesting that you would say the reflection of the sun in a
>>>>>> puddle is not the sun, what else is the sun but the forces of nature
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> are the same as in the puddle? Our focus may be pointed at a less
>>>>>> brilliant
>>>>>> and direct portion in comparison to the sun but it is shining through
>>>>>> nonetheless in everything if you know how or where to look.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/19/2011 10:04 AM, RP Singh wrote:
>>>>>>> It is not a matter of perspective but the very nature of things. The
>>>>>>> world is dualistic by nature and God is Non-Dual.The world changes
>>>>>>> over time and is never in a constant state , whereas God remains the
>>>>>>> same always and is unborn , primeaval and indestructible--the same
>>>>>>> cannot be said of the world. It is so easy to say that I am the One ,
>>>>>>> but when a needle pricks you you grimace , how can you be the " One "
>>>>>>> when you feel pleasure and pain , happy and depressed. Our
>>>>>>> consciousness makes us think that we are special , far removed from
>>>>>>> matter , but in reality we are mortal and it is the One Spirit in all
>>>>>>> that is immortal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Molly<mollyb363@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.
>>
0 comments:
Post a Comment