" What we know of it can hardly determine what we do NOT know about
it..."
On Mar 18, 2:37 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How do you know that, RP, when your dead ? Have you ever died before ?
>
> We all have a body and a mind. Based on its capabilities, or
> incapabilities, what are we talking about ? Nature ? We hardly know
> what, how much, how far, in what ways... it works, in all the 10 to
> power 22 star worlds. What we know of it can hardly determine what we
> do know about it, quite as the past can hardly define the future !
>
> Likewise, God. WTF are we talking about ? Now this could seem rude but
> should make perfect sense in the context. As in what is this God ?
> What constitutes it ? How does it relate to that other fog word "
> Nature " ?
>
> I sincerely believe such threads are started on account of something
> diseased within us !
>
> Healthy people should be talking of matters they know or have
> experienced. One can then opine, extrapolate, theorise... and still be
> understandable.
>
> On Mar 17, 11:26 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Good
> > Allan
> > On Mar 17, 2012 5:28 PM, "RP Singh" <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > As long as I am alive I am conscious of the world and myself , but when I
> > > am dead I reach a state of permanent unconsciousness , a state of supreme
> > > peace where nothing disturbs me , a sort of nirvana. that is the ultimate
> > > state from which nobody returns.
>
> > > On Friday, March 9, 2012 3:32:12 AM UTC+5:30, Ash wrote:
>
> > >> This does make some sense to me RP so I hope my question doesn't sound
> > >> critical. For me thinking in this way causes a massive amount of
> > >> difficulty, as it sounds like immutable truths, so I have to translate
> > >> away the language to get glints of my own thinking through. We could
> > >> easily call my predicament not seeing the forest for the trees, and
> > >> that would be a fitting if not limited statement. In my mind I prefer
> > >> to start with the will representing laws of nature which are dynamic,
> > >> and work more along an opportunistic heuristic. For me it is obvious
> > >> that some people talk about an n-dimensional entity, but n is an
> > >> aspect of scope in one's perspective. If n is potentially infinite,
> > >> then the truths may have strength but are more optimizations than
> > >> static ontology. I am wondering if there is some useful perspective
> > >> that can be used in my situation, or perhaps it is a hopeless case.
> > >> Perhaps you have something to help me?
>
> > >> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:21 AM, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > Neil , there is no difference. The universe is not nature but a
> > >> > manifestation of Nature or God. It is unconscious but not dead, as
> > >> > that would have meant no life , further it has to be unconscious as
> > >> > the conscious is always bound to certain limits and is dual.
>
> > >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:57 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> That's a little bit different - and I'm in agreement. Some scientists
> > >> >> have suggested we could make a universe with life conditions in the
> > >> >> laboratory - still leaving us with issues about beginnings. Science
> > >> >> fiction wise one can imagine making such universes in order to travel
> > >> >> in time in them to discover more on how we were made - by occupying
> > >> >> earlier stages of them. I tend to think of the unconscious as what
> > >> >> isn't in rational consciousness, but I know this is inadequate as much
> > >> >> human consciousness in action is not known to the participants
> > >> >> rationally.
>
> > >> >> On Mar 5, 2:59 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >>> Life had to come from somewhere , why not from an unconscious Nature
> > >> >>> which would explain the presence of Laws behind every action and
> > >> >>> inaction.
>
> > >> >>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:36 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >>> > That doesn't help RP. Why this rather than a host of alternatives?
>
> > >> >>> > On Mar 4, 4:28 pm, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >>> >> God is not made of fire , air , earth , water , ether and
> > >> consciousness ,
> > >> >>> >> rather all these emanate from Him. God is unconscious and without
> > >> >>> >> attributes.
>
> > >> >>> >> On Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:51:49 PM UTC+5:30, RP Singh wrote:
>
> > >> >>> >> > God , Nature , Truth , Reality is unconscious and the Creation
> > >> which
> > >> >>> >> > emanates from it has no choice. You may think that you have
> > >> choice , but
> > >> >>> >> > whatever you think , feel and do is as certain as the trajectory
> > >> of the
> > >> >>> >> > celestial bodies. The entire universe , you included, is bound
> > >> by laws and
> > >> >>> >> > everyone is a slave to" Laws", that is , "The Will of God".
> > >> >>> >> On Sunday, January 29, 2012 8:51:49 PM UTC+5:30, RP Singh wrote:
>
> > >> >>> >> > God , Nature , Truth , Reality is unconscious and the Creation
> > >> which
> > >> >>> >> > emanates from it has no choice. You may think that you have
> > >> choice , but
> > >> >>> >> > whatever you think , feel and do is as certain as the trajectory
> > >> of the
> > >> >>> >> > celestial bodies. The entire universe , you included, is bound
> > >> by laws and
> > >> >>> >> > everyone is a slave to" Laws", that is , "The Will of God".
0 comments:
Post a Comment