and will try to glean answers from the blog. Read thru May 2010 now and
I have many of the same questions.
On 5/27/2011 2:43 PM, RP Singh wrote:
> I have been talking about my philosophy for quite sometime now , you
> may have been following it , if not you can read all that I have said
> in my blog
> rp-space.blogspot.com
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Ash<ashkashal@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I would not advise anyone to demand a hermetic conception of 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