The soul and the ego
cosm
Does anyone here believe in the soul? I'm looking for a definition.
Christians, to my knowledge, believe that we have an eternal spirit (either
created ex nihilo by God or breathed into Adam (by God) to give him physical
life) This is supposedly the part of man that mirror's God..."In God's image
made he them". (I always thought it meant that God had arms and legs and a
nose etc...but why the hell would he?? He doesn't need to walk or breathe!!
He's GOD!!)
Hindus believe in Atman, which I suppose is the individualised aspect of
Brahman, God, or the All. I'm not sure if they believe that mind/ego is
completely separate from Atman or just Atman in a confused state, unaware of
its inherent divinity.
The latter would probably make more sense, because if ego is separate from
the soul, then the soul must have consciousness also (or else how would it
wake up to its godhood and immortality?). If Atman identifies with the body
and five senses, then maybe it "becomes" mind/ego....even though this
identification would be based on an illusion. It could never actually become
what it is not, it would merely misidentify itself. But why? To Buddhists,
the answer would be obvious....it cannot directly see itself, just as an eye
cannot look back on itself. So it would identify with what it Can see...ie
the mortal body. It would create an image of the body (our self-image/ego)
and believe that this was all that it was, this image.
But if God is everywhere/infinite then he MUST also be EVERYTHING, including
our body, and ego, just as it is, right now. If we believe in God,
should we not, too, believe in the divinity of the ego and body? If God is
not the ego, then he cannot be infinite/everywhere and therefore (cannot be
God). If this is so, then, the lesson is that we are already perfect, that
we don't have to do anything to become divine or find ourselves. We do not
have to 'spiritualise' our ego or body. We are IT, baby!! Just as we are.
All we have to do is accept it. Have faith. We should not try to become
divine because we already are divine, so that trying to is failing to,
because we cannot gain what we have never lost etc etc. Blah blah.
Sir Frederick
>
> Does anyone here believe in the soul? I'm looking for a definition.
>
My personal "reality" reference for what the ancients were trying to get at
with soul is qualia, including the qualia of "feelings", the qualia of "consciousness",
the qualia of "person hood", thus qualia in general is "soul".
People live in a sea of stories, nature doesn't care as long as we survive and
propagate as a tribe. We live in a sea of information called stories, we have come to
need our stories as much as we need food. Stories come in all sizes and shapes
for different peoples. All of us practice our stories and they become
our practiced truths. That's part of the human condition. Hence your story
collection.
--
Best,
Martin
sir freddie the unique near sd,ca
*************************
Phrase of the week :
" Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
-- Shakespeare(? - ?)
:-))))Snort!)
*************************
Miller
"cosm" <inj...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:a9bdu3$2ko$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
But all this blah, blah is what allows us to believe in a mind/ego,
soul/self, atman/God, id/ego/super ego, five skhandas, etc. That's what
blah, blah is all about. No blah, blah, no over-intellectualizing ourselves
and our place in the world. All religion, philosophy becomes pointless.
What fun would that be?
Scott
cosm
is the main character in our own stories. Other characters are God, the
soul, the devil, DNA. Each new culture produces new characters, new yet
timeless themes. Evolution itself is just another story, an epic with a
conflict-ridden plot created by the collective ego to make sense of the
senseless. Our characters only exist as long as we believe in them. What,
afterall, is the 'soul' when we extract it from the story, strip it of the
accrued religious meanings of a thousand milennia, and re-insert it in a
story with a new scientific name ---------- (insert name). What is 'soul' in
itself, given that nothing exists in-itself, but only in our minds and
stories, alongside other concepts, other characters?
Sir Frederick wrote in message <3CB94FB0...@fuzzysys.com>...
cosm
There's no purpose in any of this; that's what's so cool. We can make up any
story we want, and it's still true, because the world isn't this way or
that. Zen, yoga, God, the soul -- who cares? All these things exist only in
a nexus of realtionships, spun out of a mind that doesn't exist, that is
literally nothing, not there. It's all a big game, or can be if you look at
it the 'right' way.
Miller wrote in message ...
Sir Frederick
>
> Yes, Sir Frederick. We talk to ourselves, about ourselves, all the time. 'I'
> is the main character in our own stories. Other characters are God, the
> soul, the devil, DNA. Each new culture produces new characters, new yet
> timeless themes. Evolution itself is just another story, an epic with a
> conflict-ridden plot created by the collective ego to make sense of the
> senseless. Our characters only exist as long as we believe in them. What,
> afterall, is the 'soul' when we extract it from the story, strip it of the
> accrued religious meanings of a thousand milennia, and re-insert it in a
> story with a new scientific name ---------- (insert name). What is 'soul' in
> itself, given that nothing exists in-itself, but only in our minds and
> stories, alongside other concepts, other characters?
>
"I" is a story, it may be a genetic based (built in the brain) story, but a story.
As for your question I can only tell another story :
"Soul" as "qualia" is as basic as "matter", both "qualia" and "matter" are separate
and independent information projections from some higher dimension. As I have said
before, kind of like "God's" holodeck, see the book " The Bit and the Pendulum"
for more development of this story.
Walter E.
(irrational) people believe in the existence of a soul, does not vouch for
its existence.
Nobody has ever provided any objective proof of the existence of god, gods
or a soul. Where do all those souls go after we die? With more than 8
billion people dead over the last 2000 years, it must be getting awfully
crowded wherever they are.
Ludicrous and infantile
--
Walter
Smile and the world smiles with you
The Happy Iconoclast: www.rationality.net
-
"cosm" <inj...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:a9bdu3$2ko$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
Miller
Yes, and the play's the thing. True, most belief systems make a point, one
way or the other, of saying there perspective on life, the universe, and
everything is the ONLY Way, the ONLY Truth, the ONLY Reality, the ONLY
whatever. After all, exclusivity makes us all feel part of something bigger
than what the other is part of! But there are also some that say it is all
a game. The only meaningful proof is in the mind (or soul!) of the
individual believer.
Scott
"cosm" <inj...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:a9bmsn$958$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
cosm
proof of the soul (although I've heard they're actually our astral or
etheric bodies....when they dissolve, the soul is finally revealed...hmmph!!
so many layers!!) Also, why WOULD u expect proof of a soul, if it's
non-physical? It would be too subtle for scientific instruments to detect.
Walter E. wrote in message <85lu8.47429$zN.20...@twister.socal.rr.com>...
The Snore
Soul/Spirit - the metaphysical aspect of a form that implies a justification
for it's existence while maintaining unique qualities of the form.
Souls/spirits can exist almost independent of the form yet still alter or
change other forms. The most unique fact about souls/spirits is that their
metaphysical aspect travels with a minimal amount of material form.
Souls/spirits are often projected and combined with imagination to create
'ghosts'.
Note that the definition can apply to inanimate as well as animate objects.
The Snore
"The Snore" <brianh...@remove.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Sasu8.35150$de1.1...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> "cosm" <inj...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:a9bdu3$2ko$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> >
> > Does anyone here believe in the soul? I'm looking for a definition.
>
Soul/Spirit - the metaphysical aspect of a form that implies a justification
for it's existence while maintaining unique qualities of the form.
Souls/spirits can exist almost independent of material form yet still alter
Robert Epstein
"Walter E." wrote:
> There is no such thing as a soul.
how do you know? have you checked?
souls etc etc refer to structures that exist on earth or on etheric levels.
the point is not that they don't exist as you think by closing your eyes,
but that they are not permanent and are not a 'self'.
the soul is a structure like the body is a structure.
It is part of the amalgam of creation.
> Just because a lot of religious
> (irrational) people believe in the existence of a soul, does not vouch for
> its existence.
>
> Nobody has ever provided any objective proof of the existence of god, gods
> or a soul. Where do all those souls go after we die? With more than 8
> billion people dead over the last 2000 years, it must be getting awfully
> crowded wherever they are.
space is infinite
8 billion souls take up the space of a grain of sand
of course, since they are part of the realm beyond space and time
they don't take up any space anyway,
and eventually transform into the awareness from which they spring
robert
====================
Robert Epstein
cosm wrote:
> Indeed, Scott. What fun WOULD it be?
> There's no purpose in any of this; that's what's so cool. We can make up any
> story we want, and it's still true, because the world isn't this way or
> that.
not so. all the stories point imperfectly to the same reality.
stories abound.
reality is.
cosm
I was under the impression that the soul was an eternal, permanent entity.
Cosm (Old Mu's unenlightened alter-ego)
Robert Epstein wrote in message <3CBA59BC...@verizon.net>...
Robert Epstein
cosm wrote:
> Is there anything in us that IS permanent, Robert?
> I was under the impression that the soul was an eternal, permanent entity.
I know, My sense of it is that it is a structure of higher spirit levels of
the created self,
and is only permanent up to a point, not one we'll experience for a while
however.
what is permanent is the base awareness or primordial nature from which all
structures are created.
in the realms of etheric being/soul etc., this level is sometimes called
'formless form'.
but the basic idea is that things can exist for aeons, but nothing that has
form is permanent.
robert
========================
Mike Dubbeld
>
> Christians, to my knowledge, believe that we have an eternal spirit
(either
> created ex nihilo by God or breathed into Adam (by God) to give him
physical
> life) This is supposedly the part of man that mirror's God..."In God's
image
> made he them". (I always thought it meant that God had arms and legs and a
> nose etc...but why the hell would he?? He doesn't need to walk or
breathe!!
> He's GOD!!)
That would be more like man creating God in his own image. The soul is the
same as God - same essence. Indestructable/Immortal/all-knowing/Perfection/
Bliss/Truth - probably forgot something. As Purusha or Atman (not Jiva)
>
> Hindus believe in Atman, which I suppose is the individualised aspect of
> Brahman, God, or the All. I'm not sure if they believe that mind/ego is
> completely separate from Atman or just Atman in a confused state, unaware
of
> its inherent divinity.
Thats easy enough. The mind and ego are subtle matter. Matter belongs to the
universe but the soul does not. The mind/ego/emotions as well as a copy of
the
physical body form the astral body which is composed of subtle matter. It is
also known as the dream body. In this non-physical (but still matter) body
is
the Causal Body of the soul - which is not matter of any sort. So there are
3 bodies. One within the other. The physical body is the result of the
astral
body and the astral body result of the Causal body. The astral body with
the Causal body reincarnates into new physical bodies as they do not last
long enough to serve the purpose of the souls entanglement in matter to
start
with.
>
> The latter would probably make more sense, because if ego is separate from
> the soul, then the soul must have consciousness also (or else how would it
> wake up to its godhood and immortality?).
You are confused with the necessity of having a mind - only as a physical
manifestation is the mind necessary. The soul uses intuition. Intuition is
not
part of nature like the mind and ego. It does not operate in time and space
at all. It is not limited by time and space as is the mind. But the mind
does
go with you at death just like always - in fact you will not really notice
any
break in continuity - just like sleep.
If Atman identifies with the body
> and five senses, then maybe it "becomes" mind/ego....even though this
> identification would be based on an illusion.
Woah - jumping to conclusions. Atman does not become anything. Atman
never changes - ever. At all times it is only the universe that changes.
Atman
animates the astral and physical bodies. The illusion is the soul mistakenly
identifying itself as the mind and ego. In such a state the soul is known as
Jiva (bound soul) not Atman. It is the mistaken notion of the soul
identifying
itself as the mind that is the illusion. The ego is a reflection of Atman.
It is
runs the show and has convinced the soul that it is merely the mind.
It could never actually become
> what it is not, it would merely misidentify itself. But why? To Buddhists,
> the answer would be obvious....it cannot directly see itself, just as an
eye
> cannot look back on itself. So it would identify with what it Can see...ie
> the mortal body. It would create an image of the body (our self-image/ego)
> and believe that this was all that it was, this image.
You are asking in a round about way how the soul became ensnared in
matter. There is no total agreement on this but the most popular 2 notions
are that God is playing hide and go seek. Because God (Brahman) is
all-knowing
this is hard to do. How can you have a game if you already know everything?
Every story has to have a drama/plot. So God (as Shakti) created Maya (the
universe/nature) from 7 lokas/planes/dimensions - the last of which is the
gross
physical universe and is the densest and is what we as incarnated physical
beings identify with our senses. Souls were afforded the opportunity to
'play'
in 'the garden' on some accounts and the deeper the involution of the soul
through the planes into denser and denser matter the more ensnared it
became.
So Gods 'game' is the drama of the soul dientangling itself from matter. It
is
also said that this is the only way for a soul to recall its almighty
power -
remember its greatness and indestructability. Second guessing God is
tricky business at best. Most agree it was a game. Most agree of the drama
being the souls quest for freedom from matter. Beyond that the stories
differ.
>
>
> But if God is everywhere/infinite then he MUST also be EVERYTHING,
including
> our body, and ego, just as it is, right now. If we believe in God,
> should we not, too, believe in the divinity of the ego and body?
You just hit on what I call the classical Tantric argument. If God put this
universe
out here - it must be for us as souls to enjoy. The Tantric wants his cake
and to
eat it too. While I myself should hope to be as good as the spiritual
Tantric,
this is quite false. Yoga holds quite correctly that the universe is nothing
but pain
and suffering. All incarnations inhibit the soul one way or another. The
soul never
can express itself as a God-like entity within the confines of nature. The
universe
(Prakritti)/Maya is to be used as a tool to liberate the soul from the
bondage of
nature. It is a cosmic learning game. The soul must go through 100's of
thousands
of experiences deluded by Maya/the external phenomenal universe before it
recognizes the fact that there is no satisfaction/peace/truth to its
ever-changing
ephemeral state. When the soul realizes this it turns inward from sheer
exhaustion
for a fresh set of experiences as external experiences have failed life
after life
after life. At that time the man is said to have 'awakened' in yogic terms
and
men of the world call him spiritual or a truth seeker. A great struggle
ensues
for years for this search of truth. Yoga offers the means to liberation of
the
soul from matter. It is not for everyone. In fact it is for very few. Most
of
the world must yet learn the mistaken idea of chasing after things in the
external
world for their desires created by ego.
If God is
> not the ego, then he cannot be infinite/everywhere and therefore (cannot
be
> God).
This sentence makes no sense whatsoever. From the preceeding sentence the
ego as a creation of God is not good or bad from the point of view of Atman.
From the point of view of Atman the mind and ego are like childrens toys -
not
to be taken seriously. The ego - the 'I-maker' is the so-called devil. The
ego
is literally 'that which separates you from God'. The ego leads us to
believe that
we are separate distinct entities and along with the mind create the dream
of
duality ups and downs/backs and forths/you and me/etc. This senses of
separation
is the cause of 'hell'. The ego is the cause of all our suffering. The mind
is simply
a contraption - like your toaster. It is nothing unless it is animated by
the soul -
the exact same thing is true of ego. The ego is merely a reflection of the
soul.
As such it thinks it is Perfect/Immortal/All-knowing etc. It has us chase
after one
outrageous thing after the next trying to convince us of how happy we will
be
upon attaining it. It is the 'master deceiver' because it plays this game
and gets
away with it countless number of times after countless failures to bring all
but
the most fleeting of happiness. Upon having gotten something difficult that
took
years of striving for we get it and are happy for awhile and then not - then
the
ego says things have changed- now you need a new pool to go with your new
house to be happy - and away we go - life after life after life.
If this is so, then, the lesson is that we are already perfect, that
> we don't have to do anything to become divine or find ourselves.
Yes - but just exactly is it that 'you' are calling perfect here? Your ego
and
mind? NOOOOTTTTT! The soul is perfect at all times but is deluded.
There is no evil - only ignorance. The soul is covered with the astral and
physical bodies and mistakenly identifies with them.
We do not
> have to 'spiritualise' our ego or body. We are IT, baby!!
So would your mind and ego have 'you' believe. The only way to know that
you are not your mind and ego is to transcend them. This is done by losening
the grip of mind and ego on external things by selfless service and
concentration
and meditation. Mind can not understand mind. Trying to understand mind
using mind is like trying to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.
"While the dream action is taking place, it is impossible to remove the
illusion by any action within the dream. One must step outside the
dream to see it clearly." Step outside Maya. (by concentration and
meditation)
"The illusion of time and space vanish with Self-Realization".
Swami Vishnudevanada Meditation and Mantras.
Just as we are.
> All we have to do is accept it. Have faith. We should not try to become
> divine because we already are divine, so that trying to is failing to,
> because we cannot gain what we have never lost etc etc. Blah blah.
Good dream - Your mind and ego are in full agreement. Blah Blah Blah.
Mike Dubbedl
>
>
>
>
Miller
"Mike Dubbeld" <mi...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:a9e55b$8v6$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Lots of blah, blah in this thread, including yours, Mike.
Scott
dean-O-matic
cosm wrote:
> Does anyone here believe in the soul? I'm looking for a definition.
Yeah sure. The Soul - a nice fluffy idea we carry around in our heads that has
no real bearing on the true nature of our lives.
Dean
GeneIn
"Walter E." <we...@bsan.rr.com> wrote in message
news:85lu8.47429$zN.20...@twister.socal.rr.com.
..
> There is no such thing as a soul. Just because a
lot of religious
> (irrational) people believe in the existence of
a soul, does not vouch for
> its existence.
well walter one could also say that a soul may
well exist and because some people (who can be
considered irrational) do not believe it exists,
it does not follow that it does not..
>
> Nobody has ever provided any objective proof of
the existence of god, gods
> or a soul. Where do all those souls go after we
die? With more than 8
> billion people dead over the last 2000 years, it
must be getting awfully
> crowded wherever they are.
i would imagine a universe that cannot be measured
may accommodated 1,000 times a 1,000 and would not
fill a corner of it....and who is to say how much
space a soul may occupy? but hey, we all can
believe what we wish...no one holds the truth in
his back pocket....
g.
> Walter
> Smile and the world smiles with you
cry and the world still smiles at you..
GeneIn
"dean-O-matic" <de...@dingoblue.com.au> wrote in
message news:3CBAA502...@dingoblue.com.au...
>
>
> cosm wrote:
>
> > Does anyone here believe in the soul? I'm
looking for a definition.
>
> Yeah sure. The Soul - a nice fluffy idea we
carry around in our heads that has
> no real bearing on the true nature of our lives.
.....and the true nature of our lives is????? (a
fluffy drum roll please)...
g.
Walter E.
The issue focuses on the nature of existence.
Anything that is claimed by human beings to exist, must manifest itself to
human beings otherwise it cannot be said to exist..
Since souls, gods or ghosts do not manifest themselves to humans, they do
not exist for purposes of human beings. These things may or may not exist in
a fifth dimension or somewhere else, but as far as human beings are
concerned, they do not exist.
Can you find a flaw in this reasoning?:
--
Walter
Smile and the world smiles with you
The Happy Iconoclast: www.rationality.net
-
"cosm" <inj...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:a9d1a8$612$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Miller
>
> > Does anyone here believe in the soul? I'm looking for a definition.
>
> Yeah sure. The Soul - a nice fluffy idea we carry around in our heads
that has
> no real bearing on the true nature of our lives.
>
> Dean
Obviously it has a lot of "bearing" for most people. What point to letting
all this hubris show through?
Scott
Roger Johansson
>.....and the true nature of our lives is????? (a
>fluffy drum roll please)...
That is a good question.
My answer is that it is up to us to find out, and it is up to us to
create, as we come out of our historical heritage of cultural violence
and start taking care of ourselves instead of being moved by forces
outside our control.
Internet is a great help in that process, it is the main tool for
serious discussions about our future and our history and our present.
One of the great advantages of internet is that people can debate from
the stillness of their homes instead of having to shout to be heard in
the middle of a city.
It allows views from people who do not have great social strength to
be heard just as easily as the views of the socially, economically or
politically strong people.
Internet allows the best arguments to win over less good arguments and
in the end mankind will find the best solutions and we will be able to
agree upon the way to choose.
I see that your question is crossposted to a zen newsgroup, and I
added the alt.society.futures group, so I can give my views on zen.
Zen is about the same social processes as the society in general, zen
is just more concentrated on these processes.
The classic story about the zen master who was always attacking his
pupil until the pupil was prepared and could defend himself
automatically is the same process which goes on in society, we are
trained to be ready to defend ourselves in every situation.
The culture we live in is very concerned with creating strong selfs,
every individual is expected to be mentally strong, and in this kind
of society we need great mental strength too.
But we also want to be soft and sensible and be able to relax and open
up naturally to each other.
There are basically two forces which tear us apart, the need to be
strong and have strong minds, and the need we feel to be loving,
natural and soft.
It is like time and eternity, being and nothingness, yin and yang, the
ego and the soul, Salieri and Mozart, the historically determined
culture and the biological brain, and we are all torn apart between
these two forces.
The culture we live in is the basis for one of the forces, the
toughness of the society which demands so much mental strength from us
as individuals.
We could get out of this seemingly eternal struggle between the two
forces if we can overcome our historical cultural heritage and create
a better way to organize our world.
Roger J. http://utopianow.cjb.net
Anthony
I believe in a concept which may be called the 'soul.' In my opinion, the
soul is our own cognitive mind and nature. Spiritual development is, then,
development of the mind and its awareness, moving away from all traits which
spawn from negativity (such as hate, egotism, delusion, etc.)
>
> Christians, to my knowledge, believe that we have an eternal spirit
(either
> created ex nihilo by God or breathed into Adam (by God) to give him
physical
> life) This is supposedly the part of man that mirror's God..."In God's
image
> made he them". (I always thought it meant that God had arms and legs and a
> nose etc...but why the hell would he?? He doesn't need to walk or
breathe!!
> He's GOD!!)
The part of man that mirrors God is the fact that mankind has reason and
intellect, while animals and other beings have only instinct to guide them.
>
>
> But if God is everywhere/infinite then he MUST also be EVERYTHING,
including
> our body, and ego, just as it is, right now.
I highly disagree. When we are speaking of God, we are speaking of an
entity which retains absolute purity and is infinite in nature. The only
way which something may be infinite is if it is not manifested within
existance as we are. Anything which is brought into existance tends towards
corruption, but more importantly, it is finite and mortal. Since God would
be immortal (infinite) and pure, God must be an unmanifested being, a purely
abstract concept. The only part of mankind which resembles God is the
cognitive mind, and this is made finite by the fact that we are in physical
existance; therefore, God would be purely metaphysical while we are
dualistic, both spiritual and physical.
Being infinite does not mean being everywhere, as this would imply God
exists within dimensions and space. The very fact that God is an abstract
state of being/being shows that God is infinite, yet is 'nowhere.' Our body
is physical, governed by the laws of the physical which are largely random
chance and natural selection. Our ego (ourselves, our identity) is not God,
since we are dualistic (both positive and negative). If a being is
dualistic, that being can not be either fully pure nor can it be infinite.
Infinity, in this use of the term, would imply clarity, truth (correct
logic), and meaning. All things which are negative (which spawn from
falsehood) are the polar opposites of the above; therefore, God would be
positive, not dualistic as we are, in our limited and somewhat flawed
existance.
>If we believe in God,
> should we not, too, believe in the divinity of the ego and body?
Why would we be divine when we are mortal, finite beings? We are in a
process of development, of our attitudes, personalities, and mental
level/perception. God would not be mortal, nor finite.
>If God is
> not the ego, then he cannot be infinite/everywhere and therefore (cannot
be
> God).
I disagree. Our cognitive minds are active, while God is largely passive in
being. Our minds/spirits would exist within the infinite nature of God,
which is the spiritual model of existance; therefore, our spirits exist
within the realm of this being we call God, which is infinite. Being
infinite, as I have said before, does not imply that one is 'everywhere,'
since the term 'everywhere' refers to actual space and direction, which is
physical and not metaphysical.
> If this is so, then, the lesson is that we are already perfect, that
> we don't have to do anything to become divine or find ourselves.
If we are already perfect, why are we not immortal? Why are we not
all-knowing? Why is the human race, as a whole, absorbed in their own
affairs without being concerned with others (which is compassion and
altruism)? Why do humans harm other humans? Why are people egotistical,
hateful, vengeful, etc? These things do not exist within perfection, but
within imperfection. To say that we do not have to do anything to become
'divine' is akin to Christians saying we do not have to do anything to enter
heaven except use the murder of an innocent teacher to our own advantage,
attempting to enter a place we don't belong on his virtues and merit. It is
a simple way out of bettering ourselves.
>We do not
> have to 'spiritualise' our ego or body. We are IT, baby!!
Our body is not spiritual, but physical, carnal. Our minds are of the basic
nature of the spiritual, but this is not the point. In order to rise in the
spiritual model, we must rid ourselves of all things negative which base
around selfishness, thereby gaining the traits and attributes which comprise
altruism. To say that we are all selfless therefore divine is a
contradiction in itself, since it ignores the state of affairs in the world,
and uses this theory in order to satisfy our own needs and wants to be
better than we truly are, without effort.
Anthony
>
>
>
>
>
cosm
Mike D...
>> Hindus believe in Atman, which I suppose is the individualised aspect of
>> Brahman, God, or the All. I'm not sure if they believe that mind/ego is
>> completely separate from Atman or just Atman in a confused state, unaware
>of
>> its inherent divinity.
>
>Thats easy enough. The mind and ego are subtle matter. Matter belongs to
the
>universe but the soul does not. The mind/ego/emotions as well as a copy of
>the
>physical body form the astral body which is composed of subtle matter. It
is
>also known as the dream body. In this non-physical (but still matter) body
>is
>the Causal Body of the soul - which is not matter of any sort. So there are
>3 bodies. One within the other. The physical body is the result of the
>astral
>body and the astral body result of the Causal body. The astral body with
>the Causal body reincarnates into new physical bodies as they do not last
>long enough to serve the purpose of the souls entanglement in matter to
>start
>with.
What do u mean The result?? How does the astral body result in in the
physical body. Does it create DNA or something? How does the causal body
create/result in, the astral??
>>
>> The latter would probably make more sense, because if ego is separate
from
>> the soul, then the soul must have consciousness also (or else how would
it
>> wake up to its godhood and immortality?).
>
>You are confused with the necessity of having a mind - only as a physical
>manifestation is the mind necessary.
What do u mean by this?
The soul uses intuition. Intuition is
>not
>part of nature like the mind and ego. It does not operate in time and space
>at all. It is not limited by time and space as is the mind.
Then what the hell is it?? Hoe does it (intuition) 'operate' at
all....operate is a verb, implying an action, doing, time, change...
intuitive flashes happen in our brain..or at least we (our ego etc.) is
conscious of them
>If Atman identifies with the body
>> and five senses, then maybe it "becomes" mind/ego....even though this
>> identification would be based on an illusion.
>
>Woah - jumping to conclusions. Atman does not become anything. Atman
>never changes - ever. At all times it is only the universe that changes.
>Atman
>animates the astral and physical bodies. The illusion is the soul
mistakenly
>identifying itself as the mind and ego.
How does this identification take place...how is it possible for ego to
convince atman that atman is ego/mind??
But you have not explained how god can be everywhere..including the space
occupied by ego...and not BE everything, INCLUDING that ego
>
>If this is so, then, the lesson is that we are already perfect, that
>> we don't have to do anything to become divine or find ourselves.
>
>Yes - but just exactly is it that 'you' are calling perfect here? Your ego
>and
>mind? NOOOOTTTTT! The soul is perfect at all times but is deluded.
then, if it is deluded, it cannot be perfect
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Raan
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
(_¸.·' Raan
"cosm" <inj...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:a9bdu3$2ko$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
Raan
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
(_¸.·' Raan
"Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3CBA5A21...@verizon.net...
Raan
>
>
> cosm wrote:
>
> > Is there anything in us that IS permanent, Robert?
> > I was under the impression that the soul was an eternal, permanent
entity.
>
> I know, My sense of it is that it is a structure of higher spirit levels
of
> the created self,
> and is only permanent up to a point, not one we'll experience for a while
> however.
> what is permanent is the base awareness or primordial nature from which
all
> structures are created.
> in the realms of etheric being/soul etc., this level is sometimes called
> 'formless form'.
>
> but the basic idea is that things can exist for aeons, but nothing that
has
> form is permanent.
>
> robert
Maybe it is eternal without permanence because it time itself.
Meanwhile what the hell are you blathering about here?
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
(_¸.·' Raan
> > Cosm (Old Mu's unenlightened alter-ego)
cosm
cosm
Raan wrote in message ...
Mike Dubbeld
The physical body is the result of the astral body. The causal body is
within
the astral body. The desires in the astral body pull the soul/causal body
into
a birth. The genetic encoding is the physical result of the necessary
blueprint
for the creation of a body suitable to enable the desires left over from a
previous death to be manifested. The physical body is selected on the basis
of what needs to be done by the left over desires.
The first involvement of the causal body of the soul into matter came with
the
involution of intellect. Intellect (Buddhi or Mahat) is the highest form of
matter.
From the intellect came the ego (Ahamkara - the 'I-maker') and the mind
(Manus).
Manus is also only matter as is the ego. But they are subtle matter - not
gross
physical matter. Gross physical matter is normally the only thing perceived
by
the 5 senses. Subtle matter normally is not. The astral body is composed of
the mind/ego/emotions and a copy of the physical body as subtle matter. It
is also called the dream body and hovers just above the physical body in
sleep. At death the soul exits the physical body at Brahmarandra - 'Hole of
Brahman' at the crown of the head where a baby's soft spot is. The astral
body goes with it. In a flash a person is judged by the soul examining all
of
the experiences in that life. A 'judgement' is made that forms the basis of
what happens next. What happens next varies with the circumstances of
death. For which there are many. If a person has been spiritual (performed
selfless deeds and so forth) they may go to what the Christians call
'Heaven'
for a very long time. But they can not stay as the Christians also say
because
all left over desires eventually result in being pulled back into another
birth
to have those desires/causes worked out/effected. This is the law of karma.
All causes have their effects. (like Newtons 3'rd law). The astral body is
much more durable than the physical body and can last for 10's of thousands
of years - but that is a funny sort of way to talk because time in the inner
planes is not the same as in the physical universe. Things happen at higher
rates of 'vibration' in these dimensions. There are 7 dimensions between
the physical universe and the soul. Each dimension is successively denser
than the preceeding one until the densest dimension is reached. This is
the physical universe. All of this is straight out of yoga 101 and my own
personal experience. Death is nothing particularly special in itself. It
is traumatic in the sense that pain is associated with the event and also
pain comes with birth. But death itself is not particularly special. There
is
no break in continuity- like going to sleep. It is much like the movie
'The Sixth Sense' inasmuch as Bruce Willis does not even know he is
dead.
>
>
>
> >>
> >> The latter would probably make more sense, because if ego is separate
> from
> >> the soul, then the soul must have consciousness also (or else how would
> it
> >> wake up to its godhood and immortality?).
> >
> >You are confused with the necessity of having a mind - only as a physical
> >manifestation is the mind necessary.
>
> What do u mean by this?
The mind operates in time and space and has a physical counterpart of the
brain.
The soul has no such limitations. The soul uses intuition which does not
take
time at all. The answer comes in a 'flash' or it 'dawns' on you from 'out of
the
blue'. 1 + 1 = 2 is done using reason and takes time. This is not something
the
soul needs to deal with because it is not part of time and space. The mind
on
the otherhand is. The mind is simply subtle matter. Subtle - but still
matter and
as such operates in time and space and obeys the laws of the universe.
>
>
> The soul uses intuition. Intuition is
> >not
> >part of nature like the mind and ego. It does not operate in time and
space
> >at all. It is not limited by time and space as is the mind.
>
> Then what the hell is it?? Hoe does it (intuition) 'operate' at
> all....operate is a verb, implying an action, doing, time, change...
> intuitive flashes happen in our brain..or at least we (our ego etc.) is
> conscious of them
>
>
>
>
> >If Atman identifies with the body
> >> and five senses, then maybe it "becomes" mind/ego....even though this
> >> identification would be based on an illusion.
> >
> >Woah - jumping to conclusions. Atman does not become anything. Atman
> >never changes - ever. At all times it is only the universe that changes.
> >Atman
> >animates the astral and physical bodies. The illusion is the soul
> mistakenly
> >identifying itself as the mind and ego.
>
> How does this identification take place...how is it possible for ego to
> convince atman that atman is ego/mind??
The Atman is no different than God. That God created man in His own essence
does not mean God has 2 arms and 2 legs etc - that is more like man creating
God in his own image. Man is of the same essence as God.
Indestructable/Immortal/
All-knowing/Truth/Bliss - never can remember them all.
The ego is a reflection of the Atman through rajas (activity) and tamas
(inertia).
These 2 qualities are basically the 'Goddless qualities'. The light of the
Atman is
reflected through them and is 'tarnished' or distorted. The ego mistkenly
identifies
itself as the Atman. Just like when white light passes through a prism it
breaks it
out into different colors. Those colors are like qualities of God above. But
they
are only a reflection of the real thing. Just like the sun is millions of
miles away
and millions of degrees hot and trillions of times as large as a mirror -
the ego
is not the real thing either and is not equipped to handle the things that
the real
soul can.
When we go to the store we do not want to stand in line. Our ego wants us
not
to have to wait. It tells the mind we should not have to wait. With our will
we
must control the ego and not butt in line. But no one questions why it is
that the
ego thinks it should not have to wait. The ego as a reflection of God thinks
that
it is perfect. (perfection being a color/quality of the prism of the white
light).
When someone tells us we are wrong we do not like this. Why? Because the
ego can not understand this - as a reflection of the soul - the attribute of
all-knowledge is reflected in it also so the ego mistakenly thinks it is
all-knowing.
The ego is a tarnished reflection of the light of the real soul. The real
soul has
in its compassionate nature been deluded by ego into believing it is the
mind.
The ego is the boss - the soul is the slave. So the soul is in bondage to
matter.
Liberation in yoga is defined as freedom of the soul from the bondage of
matter. (God is the result of the reflection of Brahman (or Atman) through
Sattva (purity). As such God is at all times not deluded by Nature/the
universe
at all. God (Shakti) is the Creator of Nature. The universe sprang from
Shakti
(God as the original Divine Energy) causing the Gunas (satva/rajas/tamas)
as being held in check in equilbrium in the form of Avyakta. Unmanifest
Creation) Shakti/God disturbs this balance and basically all hell breaks
loose/the universe comes into being. (Yogic cosmology 101 - with a little
Vedanta sprinkled on top).
All suffering is the result of the misplaced identification of the ego. The
soul
is at all times free and perfect in potential. It never changes. Only the
universe changes. We were never born and can not die. The ego
constructs desires for the mind to chase after life after life for us to
acquire this house or that car or whatever. Every time we get some of
these things we are happy for a short time. Then the ego tells us that
things have changed - now we need a new pool with our new house
to make us happy. And we chase endlessly after one external desire
after the next through the lives until a point is reached from the soul
having experienced everything in the external world as king and queen,
as rich and famous as smart and whatever - that it tires of chasing
after external things and conditions in the world for happiness.
The man from sheer frustration turns inward and seeks happiness
inwardly for a fresh set of experiences to be happy (having done
all else and suspicious of the ego). At that time yoga says a man has
'awakened'. Men call him spiritual. A great struggle ensues as the
man tries to find truth - which takes years. Then when he has found
it he tests it by making sense out of the world in terms of the truth
he has found - adjusting accordingly. Yoga is for the man that is
awakened. At any given time in history there are only very few souls
that are awakened. Yoga is therefore not for many people because
it is only when a person goes inward that yoga is there as a tool.
Selfless service is used as a practical tool in yoga to diminish the
ego and mind. You are not your mind because you can control your
mind with your will. Yoga is not the only means to Liberation. But
it is one of the few systematized methods available. There are
several forms of yoga also but they all have the same goal. To gain
Liberation from matter concentration and meditation are necessary
to attain samadhi. First comes Self-Realization (which is as far as
I got) and much harder still is Enlightenment which is Liberation
from the universe. In all of history you can probably count the
number of Enlightened beings on your fingers. Jesus/The Buddha/
Krishna etc. To reach Self-Realization requires concentration and
meditation. In other religions this is more difficult (in the West) but is
achieved by intense devotion and fixation on the Creator.
God is in everything. Not 'thing' can exist without God. The ego exists and
therefore is God. From a Divine perspective the ego is neither good nor
bad. Childrens toys are not taken seriously by adults.
>
> >
> >If this is so, then, the lesson is that we are already perfect, that
> >> we don't have to do anything to become divine or find ourselves.
> >
> >Yes - but just exactly is it that 'you' are calling perfect here? Your
ego
> >and
> >mind? NOOOOTTTTT! The soul is perfect at all times but is deluded.
>
> then, if it is deluded, it cannot be perfect
The Atman is Perfect. The Jiva/bound soul is deluded by God through Maya
as ego reflected through rajas and tamas. As such the distorted reflection
results in the appearance of imperfection. One does not call a rock
imperfect.
The rock is simply a rock until compared to another rock. It is the mind
alone
that must understand one thing in terms of another perfection/imperfection -
hot and cold - good and bad etc. Duality. It is more accurate to talk about
distortion. If you can not see yourself in a mirror because there is smoke
in
the room from incense burning - you do not say - Oh! that evil incense
causing me to look imperfect. Nor is the ego 'evil' or imperfect. It is only
a rock and the mind throws it into one word bucket or another to attempt
to assign meaning to the experience.
These things may appear to be complex but I can assure you that is is very
simple for me to recount yogic metaphysics simply because it is so simple.
Individual cases can get complex and there is many things I don't know.
Comming up next week!
Who am I?
Where did I come from?
Where am I going?
What happens when I die?
What is the purpose of life?
Just kidding - the above questions were the basis of yoga thousands of
years ago and is what yoga is based. Much of Greek philosophy was
stolen from India and the West proceeded to utterly butcher it as it
did not fit in Western culture.
Mike Dubbeld
>
>
>
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Mike Dubbeld
trouble with Quantum Mechanics also. But I suspect they have
trouble beliving in atoms also - cause they never saw one.
Walter is his brain.
Mike Dubbeld
"Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3CBA59BC...@verizon.net...
cosm
So what exactly is the difference between mind (manas?) and intellect?
I thought they were the same thing. Is there a kind of 'mind stuff' and is
intellect like 'ripples or waves in that mind stuff?
So soul does not reincarnate? only causal/astral bodY?
I like your idea of why ego doesn't like waiting in line. That was really
cool, and makes a lot of sense. Thanks. :)
Mike Dubbeld wrote in message ...
GeneIn
> I guess atheists don't believe in other
dimensions and have a lot of
> trouble with Quantum Mechanics also. But I
suspect they have
> trouble beliving in atoms also - cause they
never saw one.
> Walter is his brain.
atoms can be seen mike.....
g.
>
> Mike Dubbeld
GeneIn
"Roger Johansson" <no-e...@home.se> wrote in
message
news:prcmbuoqv2cmuglnc...@4ax.com...
> "GeneIn" <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >.....and the true nature of our lives is?????
(a
> >fluffy drum roll please)...
>
> That is a good question.
>
> My answer is that it is up to us to find out,
and it is up to us to
> create, as we come out of our historical
heritage of cultural violence
> and start taking care of ourselves instead of
being moved by forces
> outside our control.
yes it is up to us to find our true nature and do
what we can to control that which is in our power
to control....there are forces of course that are
beyond our control......
>
> Internet is a great help in that process, it is
the main tool for
> serious discussions about our future and our
history and our present.
it's a great tool....but few take advantage of it.
mostly garbage, a way of screaming out at the
world.
>
> One of the great advantages of internet is that
people can debate from
> the stillness of their homes instead of having
to shout to be heard in
> the middle of a city.
roger that was good....i like it without actually
believing in it....
> It allows views from people who do not have
great social strength to
> be heard just as easily as the views of the
socially, economically or
> politically strong people.
yes it can......
> Internet allows the best arguments to win over
less good arguments and
> in the end mankind will find the best solutions
and we will be able to
> agree upon the way to choose.
i must disagree here....the best arguement is in
the mind of the beholder...
> I see that your question is crossposted to a zen
newsgroup, and I
> added the alt.society.futures group, so I can
give my views on zen.
it's always open season for zen....
>
> Zen is about the same social processes as the
society in general, zen
> is just more concentrated on these processes.
such as?
>
> The classic story about the zen master who was
always attacking his
> pupil until the pupil was prepared and could
defend himself
> automatically is the same process which goes on
in society, we are
> trained to be ready to defend ourselves in every
situation.
not quite.......
> The culture we live in is very concerned with
creating strong selfs,
> every individual is expected to be mentally
strong, and in this kind
> of society we need great mental strength too.
why?
>
> But we also want to be soft and sensible and be
able to relax and open
> up naturally to each other.
sounds good..
>
> There are basically two forces which tear us
apart, the need to be
> strong and have strong minds, and the need we
feel to be loving,
> natural and soft.
>
> It is like time and eternity, being and
nothingness, yin and yang, the
> ego and the soul, Salieri and Mozart, the
historically determined
> culture and the biological brain, and we are all
torn apart between
> these two forces.
>
> The culture we live in is the basis for one of
the forces, the
> toughness of the society which demands so much
mental strength from us
> as individuals.
>
> We could get out of this seemingly eternal
struggle between the two
> forces if we can overcome our historical
cultural heritage and create
> a better way to organize our world.
we are doing the best we can given the conditions
we find ourselves in....resources are drying up
all over our planet, the fight for arable land
will become more intense, the better way to
organize our world is a stumbling step by
stumbling step process, no magic formula is
available at this time...
g.
>
>
> Roger J. http://utopianow.cjb.net
>
Roger Johansson
>
>"Roger Johansson" <no-e...@home.se> wrote in
>message
>news:prcmbuoqv2cmuglnc...@4ax.com...
>> "GeneIn" <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >.....and the true nature of our lives is?????
>(a
>> >fluffy drum roll please)...
>>
>> That is a good question.
>>
>> My answer is that it is up to us to find out,
>and it is up to us to
>> create, as we come out of our historical
>heritage of cultural violence
>> and start taking care of ourselves instead of
>being moved by forces
>> outside our control.
>
>yes it is up to us to find our true nature and do
>what we can to control that which is in our power
>to control....there are forces of course that are
>beyond our control......
You are probably thinking about the stupidity of some people which is
hampering the development.
Maybe they could realize their true nature faster if we create optimal
conditions instead of going by old rules.
If the best could guide the less intelligent, instead of the ones who
are in power in society today, the less intelligent might develop a
lot faster.
>> Internet is a great help in that process, it is
>the main tool for
>> serious discussions about our future and our
>history and our present.
>
>it's a great tool....but few take advantage of it.
>mostly garbage, a way of screaming out at the
>world.
The world usually doesn't give much intelligent response back, maybe
that is why they feel a need to scream.
>> One of the great advantages of internet is that
>people can debate from
>> the stillness of their homes instead of having
>to shout to be heard in
>> the middle of a city.
>
>roger that was good....i like it without actually
>believing in it....
Internet is a great equalizer, it makes it equally possible for most
people to partivcipate in the debates. That could remove some
obstacles which earlier hampered the intellectual development.
For example if the intellectual leadership of this planet lies in the
hands of a really stupid and uneducated group of people because they
have the economic power, and others are a lot more intelligent, the
internet will make it possible to develop a lot faster as the
intelligent people can take the lead instead of the rich but stupid
people.
>> It allows views from people who do not have
>great social strength to
>> be heard just as easily as the views of the
>socially, economically or
>> politically strong people.
>
>yes it can......
>
>> Internet allows the best arguments to win over
>less good arguments and
>> in the end mankind will find the best solutions
>and we will be able to
>> agree upon the way to choose.
>
>i must disagree here....the best arguement is in
>the mind of the beholder...
No, the best arguments are those which are more convincing to the
majority and which give an optimal evolution for mankind.
>> I see that your question is crossposted to a zen
>newsgroup, and I
>> added the alt.society.futures group, so I can
>give my views on zen.
>
>it's always open season for zen....
>>
>> Zen is about the same social processes as the
>society in general, zen
>> is just more concentrated on these processes.
>
>such as?
I go on to explain that in the rest of my message, just read on.
>> The classic story about the zen master who was
>always attacking his
>> pupil until the pupil was prepared and could
>defend himself
>> automatically is the same process which goes on
>in society, we are
>> trained to be ready to defend ourselves in every
>situation.
>
>not quite.......
So what is your interpretation?
Or do you think that statements without arguments are useful?
>> The culture we live in is very concerned with
>creating strong selfs,
>> every individual is expected to be mentally
>strong, and in this kind
>> of society we need great mental strength too.
>
>why?
The most intelligent leaders must win over the less intelligent
leaders to be able to help the less intelligent.
I can hear you have been influenced by some doomsday prophets.
There is no problems with drying up resources.
We only need better systems for distribution of the resources.
That is one example of how badly informed people spread less than
optimal views which hamper the development.
Roger J. http://utopianow.cjb.net
Robert Epstein
cosm wrote:
Thanks, Mike...
So what exactly is the difference between mind (manas?) and intellect?
I thought they were the same thing. Is there a kind of 'mind stuff' and is
intellect like 'ripples or waves in that mind stuff?
robert
Miller
mechanics?!
Scott
"Mike Dubbeld" <mi...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:a9gskl$k62$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
dean-O-matic
GeneIn wrote:
> "dean-O-matic" <de...@dingoblue.com.au> wrote in
> message news:3CBAA502...@dingoblue.com.au...
> >
> >
> > cosm wrote:
> >
> > > Does anyone here believe in the soul? I'm
> looking for a definition.
> >
> > Yeah sure. The Soul - a nice fluffy idea we
> carry around in our heads that has
> > no real bearing on the true nature of our lives.
>
> .....and the true nature of our lives is????? (a
> fluffy drum roll please)...
Well if we just look it as thought then its just another fluffy idea.
The point is to experience it for yourself, then its not fluffy thought,
its a knowing from experience. Which is basically what Roger also said
"My answer is that it is up to us to find out".
Dean
dean-O-matic
Miller wrote:
> "dean-O-matic" <de...@dingoblue.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3CBAA502...@dingoblue.com.au...
> >
> >
> > cosm wrote:
> >
> > > Does anyone here believe in the soul? I'm looking for a definition.
> >
> > Yeah sure. The Soul - a nice fluffy idea we carry around in our heads
> that has
> > no real bearing on the true nature of our lives.
> >
> > Dean
>
> Obviously it has a lot of "bearing" for most people. What point to letting
> all this hubris show through?
The concept of soul for most people has a lot of bearing because its the only
rational explanation they can come up with at that time based on their
interpretation of their experience of life at the time. Basically its a case of
"they don't know better". I know that sounds really arrogant but its the most
succinct way of saying it. Really because of the lack awareness they have about
life they lack that insight into a more thorough understanding about what life
really is and what we are.
Dean
Miller
"dean-O-matic" <dean....@dingoblue.com.au> wrote in message
news:3CBCB143...@dingoblue.com.au...
Yes, it could be that. Or it could be that some of us are so centered on
our own experiences that we cannot easily imagine that someone else's point
of view of life may be just as valid.
Scott
cosm
it's there, somehow 'intuit' it's existence, prior to any experience
Rob Epstein seems to believe in something called awareness. He thinks u can
have pure awareness, without that awareness being aware of anything.
Awareness just 'is'...
But that, to me, seems impossible.
How can we know we have awareness, unless we're aware of being aware...and
aware of being aware of our awareness etc.
How can we know that awareness, just 'is', unless awareness is aware of its
own 'just is-ness'...and in that case, awareness isn't just
awareness-in-itself...it's awareness OF something (ie itself in the process
of being aware of itself)
Miller wrote in message ...
>
Robert Epstein
Raan wrote:
try sitting in soul light sometime, then you tell me.ah, just because you don't get it, doesn't mean it doesn't communicate
robert
Robert Epstein
but reality is not a view
telling the difference between the many views of reality
and the solitary fact of existence
has some value.
what do you think?
Robert
============================
Robert Epstein
Walter E. wrote:
Enjoyed your response
The issue focuses on the nature of existence.
Anything that is claimed by human beings to exist, must manifest itself to
human beings otherwise it cannot be said to exist..
Since souls, gods or ghosts do not manifest themselves to humans,
Are they not humans?
Or is your opinion of their experience more valid than theirs?
robert
Robert Epstein
cosm wrote:
Maybe 'I' can peer into my own mind and see the soul. Or maybe I just 'know'
it's there, somehow 'intuit' it's existence, prior to any experience
Rob Epstein seems to believe in something called awareness. He thinks u can
have pure awareness, without that awareness being aware of anything.
Awareness just 'is'...
But that, to me, seems impossible.
How can we know we have awareness, unless we're aware of being aware...and
aware of being aware of our awareness etc.
How can we know that awareness, just 'is', unless awareness is aware of its
own 'just is-ness'...and in that case, awareness isn't just
awareness-in-itself...it's awareness OF something (ie itself in the process
of being aware of itself)
to me, awareness is glimpsed in the midst of other things happening,
when they become peripheral,
rather than trying to make phenomena disappear,
which makes them more important
robert
Robert Epstein
deep soul experience such as that experienced by the christian mystics
is not a concept like it is for lay people in the church.
it is another way of describing the experience of the divine source that exists beyond the ego.
what you say is true for someone who is centered in religious beliefs, but not for true mystics
who are grounded in direct experience of the divine.
robert
=============
dean-O-matic
Miller wrote:
Yeah, that too. I had something like that happen last night. My partner just
moved to a new place and as such there are still lots of boxes around the
house. Now I basically see her everyday and spent most of my time around
there. Yesterday she cleaned up the bathroom and unpacked it all. I said to
her "Gee, I'm glad that's done. I was wanting that done". She found it strange
that I said that because it was her bathroom. She couldn't understand why I'd
*want* it done when its not my place. I asked her why she wanted it done and
she gave her reasons. And I said well they are similiar for me, only just its
not my house, but the desire is similar and reasoning is similar. It was as if
she couldn't understand the principle of desire in someone else even though she
experienced the same in herself.
Dean
dean-O-matic
cosm wrote:
> Maybe 'I' can peer into my own mind and see the soul. Or maybe I just 'know'
> it's there, somehow 'intuit' it's existence, prior to any experience
>
> Rob Epstein seems to believe in something called awareness. He thinks u can
> have pure awareness, without that awareness being aware of anything.
> Awareness just 'is'...
>
> But that, to me, seems impossible.
>
> How can we know we have awareness, unless we're aware of being aware...and
> aware of being aware of our awareness etc.
>
> How can we know that awareness, just 'is', unless awareness is aware of its
> own 'just is-ness'...and in that case, awareness isn't just
> awareness-in-itself...it's awareness OF something (ie itself in the process
> of being aware of itself)
What you've typed here is your own confusion about how such a thing can be
possible. Reading what you wrote you can see that you have a hard time fitting
that understanding into your current model of understanding about the nature of
reality. You attempt to jam it into your current model using the same
principles and same thought processes and wonder why it doesn't work. Don't
think I'm having a go at you, this is normal, we all do this. But be careful
not to cast wisdom aside just because your current way of thinking doesn't
support it.
Its strange you know, most people want to know more and ask questions but when
given the answer they don't expect their principles of thinking, or their
current understanding to change in the process.
Dean
dean-O-matic
Dean
cosm
verify the logic behind them. I've experienced a state that I would
definitely call non-dualistic, and I can now access that state at will, but
I want to be sure I'm not deluded. By no means do I claim to be enlightened.
(I think it's obvious I'm not) In fact, I know the experience of
enlightenment is itself impermanent. All I'm trying to do on this ng is get
to the bottom of my experiences and resolve certain logical problems I still
have. I believe in a lot of things right now, and although I've been
involved in zen for years, I still have many doubts and a whole lot of
incongruent beliefs that I can neither justify or get rid of. I'm caught up
in the same subjective, dualistic world as everyone else, and I don't like
it. I have a burning desire for liberation and spiritual freedom that few
would understand.
dean-O-matic wrote in message <3CBCF150...@dingoblue.com.au>...
Wordsmith
> it's more complicated than that, dean.
> deep soul experience such as that experienced by the christian mystics
> is not a concept like it is for lay people in the church.
>
> it is another way of describing the experience of the divine source that
> exists beyond the ego.
> what you say is true for someone who is centered in religious beliefs,
> but not for true mystics
> who are grounded in direct experience of the divine.
>
> robert
All mystics were at one time lay folk, right? At what point does a lay
person become a mystic? Must a mystic belong to a religious order?
Wordsmith :)
>
> dean-O-matic wrote:
>
> >
> >Miller wrote:
> >
> >>"dean-O-matic" <de...@dingoblue.com.au> wrote in message
> >>news:3CBAA502...@dingoblue.com.au...
> >>
> >>>
> >>>cosm wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Does anyone here believe in the soul? I'm looking for a definition.
> >>>>
> >>>Yeah sure. The Soul - a nice fluffy idea we carry around in our heads
> >>>
> >>that has
> >>
> >>>no real bearing on the true nature of our lives.
> >>>
> >>>Dean
> >>>
> >>Obviously it has a lot of "bearing" for most people. What point to letting
> >>all this hubris show through?
> >>
> >
> >The concept of soul for most people has a lot of bearing because its the only
> >rational explanation they can come up with at that time based on their
> >interpretation of their experience of life at the time. Basically its a case of
> >"they don't know better". I know that sounds really arrogant but its the most
> >succinct way of saying it. Really because of the lack awareness they have about
> >life they lack that insight into a more thorough understanding about what life
> >really is and what we are.
> >
> >Dean
> >
>
>
> --
dean-O-matic
cosm wrote:
> Dean, all I want to do is confirm certain spiritual experieces i've had and
> verify the logic behind them. I've experienced a state that I would
> definitely call non-dualistic, and I can now access that state at will, but
> I want to be sure I'm not deluded. By no means do I claim to be enlightened.
> (I think it's obvious I'm not) In fact, I know the experience of
> enlightenment is itself impermanent. All I'm trying to do on this ng is get
> to the bottom of my experiences and resolve certain logical problems I still
> have. I believe in a lot of things right now, and although I've been
> involved in zen for years, I still have many doubts and a whole lot of
> incongruent beliefs that I can neither justify or get rid of. I'm caught up
> in the same subjective, dualistic world as everyone else, and I don't like
> it. I have a burning desire for liberation and spiritual freedom that few
> would understand.
Trust me, I understand. :-)
You mentioned that you've had a non-dualistic experience that you can access at
will an that enlightenment is in itself impermanent. From the sounds of it I'd
say its not enlightenment completely oooooor quite possibly the fullness of the
realisation of the your enlightenment hasn't sunk in yet. If its enlightenment
great for you, I'm not one to drag another down. Just giving you the feedback
that you seem to be wanting to know. Enlightenment is everlasting, its the
delusion that's impermanent and constantly changing. If the realisaiton comes
and goes remember its not the enlightenment that's coming and going but the
impermanent layer of delusion that changes over the top and obscures the
inherent realisation that is always there. :-)
Hope that is helpful and possibly clarifies a few things.
Dean
Raan
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
(_¸.·' Raan
"Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3CBCD89E...@verizon.net...
Raan
> >
> try sitting in soul light sometime, then you tell me.
>
> robert
Plain everyday light is sufficient for me.
We all have dreams but this commonality does not make them substantial or
enduring or objective in any way. Best to wake up completely than to be
confused by dreams.
Now you have been told.
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
(_¸.·' Raan
Raan
Had it been both your place would she then understand?
dean-O-matic
Raan wrote:
Most likely yes, within her own mind that would make sense. But she couldn't
understand why I'd want it with it not being my place.
Dean
Mike Dubbeld
"GeneIn" <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:MhVu8.28169$Rw2.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Doesn't it follow then that if you can't see it you can't prove
it so the world is flat and atoms are imagination?
Mike Dubbeld
>
> g.
>
> >
> > Mike Dubbeld
>
>
>
Mike Dubbeld
> Thanks, Mike...
> So what exactly is the difference between mind (manas?) and intellect?
The intellect is the very first thing created in the universe. It is the
highest
form of matter. 'Seated in Divine Presence'. Ego is made from intellect.
Mind is made from ego. Mind/manas is like a filter the ego sets for
experiences.
If a red corvett is seen - alert me and the intellect. The ego programs the
mind to take notice. What we see is what we expect to see. The experience
arrives from the senses to the mind which filters it according to how ego
has preset it to. The filtered experience is passed up to ego and intellect
to make a judgement on. When you identify the experience 'I know' happens
the filtered experience and the flash of egoism as 'I know' as a reaction is
the object perceived by the soul - the true experiencer.
> I thought they were the same thing. Is there a kind of 'mind stuff' and is
> intellect like 'ripples or waves in that mind stuff?
Yes you are referring to Patanjali's chitta - 'mind stuff'. The chitta is
composed
of the Internal Instrument (Antahkarana) which is itself as individual
awareness,
ego (Ahamkara), mind (Manus), and intellect (Buddhi or Mahat). The waves
in the mind stuff are called Vrittis. The external world is unknown and
unknowable. The senses replicate the sensations and send the information to
the thalamus where it receives cortical representation as manus has been
programmed by ego. We see a tree. An image is formed on the retina of the
eyeball. This image is sent to the vision center in the brain by the optic
nerve.
Manus deciphers the raw data according to how ego has programmed it
to decipher the experience. (there are other inputs as well such our innate
ability to do grouping and constancy and so forth) Whether the image
receives cortical representation in the brain depends on what ego and
intellect are doing at the time. Manus assigns a priority code to the
experience
and this determines whether it will receive cortical representation
(cortical
representation means that even though cars are going by on a street and
your ears hear them and the sound is carried to the organ of hearing in
the brain - you still don't hear them because you are not listening to it)
Then ego and intellect evaluate it and adjust the manus filter as necessary.
The world is unknown and unknowable because all we ever know are
the representations of the actual things our senses perceive - not the
actual things themselves. As Vivekananda says 'these vrittis are our
universe'. Meaning these waves of sensory data presented to the
internal instrument and soul are all we know. That is why I am so
interested in Quantum Mechanics - waves - these waves are our
universe. (one of the reasons)
> So soul does not reincarnate? only causal/astral bodY?
The soul is in the Causal body which is within the astral body. It is
pulled into a birth along with the desires in the astral body. (kicking
and screaming) Birth is not fun. The desires in the astal body cause
the soul to be pulled into and animate a body. Without the soul the
body would be lifeless. The astral body moves first and then the
physical body. When you move your arm you first have the thought
of moving it. then you move the astral counterpart of the arm and
the physical arm follows. These 3 bodies cover the soul in the
7 dimensions of density and cause ignorance of our true nature.
The soul is like a light and it is like a series of lampshades put over
it until there is so much covering it the light is no longer seen.
Yoga is the process of removing the lampshades.
> I like your idea of why ego doesn't like waiting in line. That was really
> cool, and makes a lot of sense. Thanks. :)
>
Thanks - but these aren't my ideas at all. This is all the most elementary
yoga and Vedanta. I have to keep saying Vedanta but the truth is that
the 2 are so similar it is probably worth it to just drop Vedanta until
someone asks something in which there actually is a difference between
the 2. I am just afraid someone will point out that it is Vedanta and not
yoga to which I am referring but that hasn't happened so far. People
in other groups that know a lot about this stuff would be quick to catch
me so I am in the habit of referring to both of them now.
It may appear that I know a lot about this - and I do but I know a whole
lot more - no one has actually pressed me in alt.philosophy. This stuff
can get pretty intricate. I study the brain also and that also is quite
interesting. Yoga metaphysics is pretty simple/straight forward so I
entertain myself by expressing the same things in different ways.
I made plans a few hours ago to go to a famous Buddhist temple in
Poolsville Sunday with some old friends. Buddhism has a lot in common
with yoga and is much more popular.
see ya!
Mike Dubbeld
>
>
> Mike Dubbeld wrote in message ...
> >
> >"cosm" <inj...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:a9fn87$jn0$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> >>
> >> Mike D...
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Hindus believe in Atman, which I suppose is the individualised
aspect
> >of
> >> >> Brahman, God, or the All. I'm not sure if they believe that mind/ego
> is
> >> >> completely separate from Atman or just Atman in a confused state,
> >unaware
> >> >of
> >> >> its inherent divinity.
> >> >
> >selfless deeds and so forth) they may go to what the Christians call
> >> >> The latter would probably make more sense, because if ego is
separate
> >> from
> >> >> the soul, then the soul must have consciousness also (or else how
> would
> >> it
> >> >> wake up to its godhood and immortality?).
> >> >
> >> >If Atman identifies with the body
> >> >> and five senses, then maybe it "becomes" mind/ego....even though
this
> >> >> identification would be based on an illusion.
> >> >
> >it is one of the few systematized methods available. There are
> >several forms of yoga also but they all have the same goal. To gain
> >Liberation from matter concentration and meditation are necessary
> >to attain samadhi. First comes Self-Realization (which is as far as
> >I got) and much harder still is Enlightenment which is Liberation
> >from the universe. In all of history you can probably count the
> >number of Enlightened beings on your fingers. Jesus/The Buddha/
> >Krishna etc. To reach Self-Realization requires concentration and
> >meditation. In other religions this is more difficult (in the West) but
is
> >achieved by intense devotion and fixation on the Creator.
> >
> >>
> >> In such a state the soul is known as
> >> >Jiva (bound soul) not Atman. It is the mistaken notion of the soul
> >> >identifying
> >> >itself as the mind that is the illusion. The ego is a reflection of
> >Atman.
> >> >It is
> >> >runs the show and has convinced the soul that it is merely the mind.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >It could never actually become
> >> >> what it is not, it would merely misidentify itself. But why? To
> >> Buddhists,
> >> >> the answer would be obvious....it cannot directly see itself, just
as
> >an
> >> >eye
> >> >> cannot look back on itself. So it would identify with what it Can
> >> see...ie
> >> >> the mortal body. It would create an image of the body (our
> >> self-image/ego)
> >> >> and believe that this was all that it was, this image.
> >> >
> >> >> But if God is everywhere/infinite then he MUST also be EVERYTHING,
> >> >including
> >> >> our body, and ego, just as it is, right now. If we believe in God,
> >> >> should we not, too, believe in the divinity of the ego and body?
> >> >
> >> >If God is
> >> >> not the ego, then he cannot be infinite/everywhere and therefore
> >(cannot
> >> >be
> >> >> God).
> >> >
> >> >This sentence makes no sense whatsoever.
> >>
> >> But you have not explained how god can be everywhere..including the
space
> >> occupied by ego...and not BE everything, INCLUDING that ego
> >
> >God is in everything. Not 'thing' can exist without God. The ego exists
and
> >therefore is God. From a Divine perspective the ego is neither good nor
> >bad. Childrens toys are not taken seriously by adults.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >If this is so, then, the lesson is that we are already perfect, that
> >> >> we don't have to do anything to become divine or find ourselves.
> >> >
Mike Dubbeld
"Robert Epstein" <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:3CBCA014...@verizon.net...
cosm wrote:
Thanks, Mike...
So what exactly is the difference between mind (manas?) and intellect?
I thought they were the same thing. Is there a kind of 'mind stuff' and is
intellect like 'ripples or waves in that mind stuff?yeah, except that this is also a myth, ultimately
Sorry to hear your lack of experience. Maybe someday you will get lucky.Mike Dubbeld
Noah Sombrero
>>
>>we are doing the best we can given the conditions
>>we find ourselves in....resources are drying up
>>all over our planet, the fight for arable land
>>will become more intense, the better way to
>>organize our world is a stumbling step by
>>stumbling step process, no magic formula is
>>available at this time...
>
>I can hear you have been influenced by some doomsday prophets.
>There is no problems with drying up resources.
Sounds like you think you live in a world of unlimited resources.
Not so. Every resource we use will run out one day. It might
not be for another 100 years or so, but there is no escape.
>We only need better systems for distribution of the resources.
We need resources removed from the hands of people whose
fundamental concern is greed. If that were to happen, distribution
would not be a problem.
>That is one example of how badly informed people spread less than
>optimal views which hamper the development.
Ask not for whom the bell tolls...
Noah Sombrero
Miller
"Now you have been told"! What a bunch of comedians you all are!
Scott
"Raan" <ra...@one.org> wrote in message
news:mW7v8.10060$132.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Miller
> Maybe 'I' can peer into my own mind and see the soul. Or maybe I just
'know'
> it's there, somehow 'intuit' it's existence, prior to any experience
>
> Rob Epstein seems to believe in something called awareness. He thinks u
can
> have pure awareness, without that awareness being aware of anything.
> Awareness just 'is'...
>
> But that, to me, seems impossible.
>
>
> How can we know we have awareness, unless we're aware of being aware...and
> aware of being aware of our awareness etc.
>
> How can we know that awareness, just 'is', unless awareness is aware of
its
> own 'just is-ness'...and in that case, awareness isn't just
> awareness-in-itself...it's awareness OF something (ie itself in the
process
> of being aware of itself)
>
Slow down a bit..
One can have an awareness of something without necessarily reflecting upon
it with another, "volitional" act of consciousness. But in both cases, we
are conscious of something--either another thing or our own awareness of our
consciousness. The latter is what we speak of when we refer to
self-consciousness. But I agree that there is no such thing as a
consciousness, self, soul, whatever, that sits and waits to become conscious
"of something".
Scott
Miller
Scott
Miller
You illustrate my point about spiritual self-centeredness well.
Scott
Tanked Up
GeneIn
>
>
> GeneIn wrote:
>
> > "dean-O-matic" <de...@dingoblue.com.au> wrote
in
> > message
news:3CBAA502...@dingoblue.com.au...
> > >
> > >
> > > cosm wrote:
> > >
> > > > Does anyone here believe in the soul? I'm
> > looking for a definition.
> > >
> > > Yeah sure. The Soul - a nice fluffy idea we
> > carry around in our heads that has
> > > no real bearing on the true nature of our
lives.
> >
(a
> > fluffy drum roll please)...
>
> Well if we just look it as thought then its just
another fluffy idea.
> The point is to experience it for yourself, then
its not fluffy thought,
> its a knowing from experience. Which is
basically what Roger also said
> "My answer is that it is up to us to find out".
and i agree......but i always prefer the direct
approach.....why fool with basics, come out and
say what you mean right up front and you will not
get static from fools such as myself......it is up
to *us* to find out and man (intelligent man) has
been "finding out" since the dawn of
civilization....the problem of course is there are
many thoughts on the *true* nature of our lives,
many are plausible, some downright stupid, and
others we let hang around because they smell nice,
a precious few make the hairs on the back of our
necks rise if only momentarily......can you see
this? in addition can you see that the *absolute*
truth cannot be known only guessed at, and so what
to do?....let us practice the art of getting
along....(ethics) while we inhabit this rather
crowded planet....easy to learn, hard to do and
beneficial to all.....the dhammapada is a book of
ethics and if followed can go a long way to curing
some of our ills.....
questions: what is the *true* nature of our lives?
what do we base this truth on? what do we hope to
gain from this truth? or lose?....
g
>
> Dean
>
GeneIn
did i not say "atoms can be seen mike"?....prior
to the proving which took many decades, most did
not believe they existed, but great minds worked
on the theory that they did indeed exist
eventually proof followed and so what does this
little lesson teach us?
g.
GeneIn
"Roger Johansson" <no-e...@home.se> wrote in
message
> >yes it is up to us to find our true nature and
do
> >what we can to control that which is in our
power
> >to control....there are forces of course that
are
> >beyond our control......
>
> You are probably thinking about the stupidity of
some people which is
> hampering the development.
that too....but there are many other forces that
act on our lives that are not within our
control...
>
> Maybe they could realize their true nature
faster if we create optimal
> conditions instead of going by old rules.
what would be the optimal condition for all 6
billion inhabitants? (served equally of course?)
> If the best could guide the less intelligent,
instead of the ones who
> are in power in society today, the less
intelligent might develop a
> lot faster.
as far as i know anyone who applies to a college
will be allowed entry, our system bends backwards
so those living in squallier can become
educated....it benefits society as a whole since
there are less (hopefully) welfare checks to
sign.)
> >> Internet is a great help in that process, it
is
> >the main tool for
> >> serious discussions about our future and our
> >history and our present.
> >
> >it's a great tool....but few take advantage of
it.
> >mostly garbage, a way of screaming out at the
> >world.
>
> The world usually doesn't give much intelligent
response back, maybe
> that is why they feel a need to scream.
in some cases that can be true, but sadly in most
cases you are dealing with the "less intelligent".
> >> One of the great advantages of internet is
that
> >people can debate from
> >> the stillness of their homes instead of
having
> >to shout to be heard in
> >> the middle of a city.
> >
> >roger that was good....i like it without
actually
> >believing in it....
>
> Internet is a great equalizer, it makes it
equally possible for most
> people to partivcipate in the debates. That
could remove some
> obstacles which earlier hampered the
intellectual development.
anyone may enter and say what they will.......i
agree to that.....
>
> For example if the intellectual leadership of
this planet lies in the
> hands of a really stupid and uneducated group of
people because they
> have the economic power, and others are a lot
more intelligent, the
> internet will make it possible to develop a lot
faster as the
> intelligent people can take the lead instead of
the rich but stupid
> people.
if it were that simple........those who are in
power today are far from stupid...they are
intelligent but some use their intelligence to
benefit themselves...if you were able to push a
button and get rid of everyone in power today...in
a generation or less, the same type of people will
be in control.....history tells me so.
> >> It allows views from people who do not have
> >great social strength to
> >> be heard just as easily as the views of the
> >socially, economically or
> >> politically strong people.
> >
> >yes it can......
> >
> >> Internet allows the best arguments to win
over
> >less good arguments and
> >> in the end mankind will find the best
solutions
> >and we will be able to
> >> agree upon the way to choose.
> >
> >i must disagree here....the best arguement is
in
> >the mind of the beholder...
>
> No, the best arguments are those which are more
convincing to the
> majority and which give an optimal evolution for
mankind.
the majority in any nation can be easily led with
slogans and promises...and so the best arguments
need not be "best" in the sense that you are
discribing....but i what i had in mind were the
arguements presented in newsgroups......each
believes his or hers to be the best with few
exceptions.
>
> >> The classic story about the zen master who
was
> >always attacking his
> >> pupil until the pupil was prepared and could
> >defend himself
> >> automatically is the same process which goes
on
> >in society, we are
> >> trained to be ready to defend ourselves in
every
> >situation.
> >
> >not quite.......
>
> So what is your interpretation?
> Or do you think that statements without
arguments are useful?
sometimes "statements" (of the quick intutive
typw) can be....
>
> >> The culture we live in is very concerned with
> >creating strong selfs,
> >> every individual is expected to be mentally
> >strong, and in this kind
> >> of society we need great mental strength too.
> >
> >why?
>
> The most intelligent leaders must win over the
less intelligent
> leaders to be able to help the less intelligent.
unfortunately the most intelligent are in charge
and with few exceptions the less intelligent work
for them.....all we can do is keep an eye on them
(to speak further on this subject requires
specifics)
> >we are doing the best we can given the
conditions
> >we find ourselves in....resources are drying up
> >all over our planet, the fight for arable land
> >will become more intense, the better way to
> >organize our world is a stumbling step by
> >stumbling step process, no magic formula is
> >available at this time...
>
> I can hear you have been influenced by some
doomsday prophets.
> There is no problems with drying up resources.
> We only need better systems for distribution of
the resources.
i don't know where you get your information, but
we are indeed running out of resources....i agree
better distribution will be of some help, but time
is running out, there are far too many people
chasing fewer and fewer resources......
>
> That is one example of how badly informed people
spread less than
> optimal views which hamper the development.
roger i sympatize with your arguement, but i am a
realist and what i see is not a fabrication but a
reality, not a doomsday account but a time to look
see what is before us without flinching....
g.
Roger Johansson
>that too....but there are many other forces that
>act on our lives that are not within our
>control...
You are rather mysterious about what those forces might be.
Why not tell us about what forces you are talking about?
>> Maybe they could realize their true nature
>faster if we create optimal
>> conditions instead of going by old rules.
>
>what would be the optimal condition for all 6
>billion inhabitants? (served equally of course?)
My answer is at http://utopianow.cjb.net
>if it were that simple........those who are in
>power today are far from stupid...they are
>intelligent but some use their intelligence to
>benefit themselves..
No, they are not. They think they are doing the best for mankind, but
they are uninformed about better strategies, we just need to develop
better thinking and it will be applied.
>i don't know where you get your information, but
>we are indeed running out of resources
Again you are mysterious istead of telling us what problems you are
thinking of.
>....i agree
>better distribution will be of some help, but time
>is running out, there are far too many people
>chasing fewer and fewer resources......
>>
>> That is one example of how badly informed people
>spread less than
>> optimal views which hamper the development.
>
>roger i sympatize with your arguement, but i am a
>realist
No, you are ill-informed and a pessimist :-)
Roger J.
Mike Dubbeld
>
> "Mike Dubbeld" <mi...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:a9j3ki$536$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >
> > "GeneIn" <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> message
> >
> news:MhVu8.28169$Rw2.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.wor
> ldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > "Mike Dubbeld" <mi...@erols.com> wrote in
> message
> > > news:a9gskl$k62$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > > > I guess atheists don't believe in other
> > > dimensions and have a lot of
> > > > trouble with Quantum Mechanics also. But I
> > > suspect they have
> > > > trouble beliving in atoms also - cause they
> > > never saw one.
> > > > Walter is his brain.
> > >
> > > atoms can be seen mike.....
> >
> > Doesn't it follow then that if you can't see it
> you can't prove
> > it so the world is flat and atoms are
> imagination?
>
> did i not say "atoms can be seen mike"?...
Atoms can be seen is not the same as being seen.
.prior
> to the proving which took many decades, most did
> not believe they existed, but great minds worked
> on the theory that they did indeed exist
> eventually proof followed and so what does this
> little lesson teach us?
Atheists that see atoms believe they exist? Sorry my sour
humour is not appreciated. Since you seem to take what
I say literally - I literally have have nothing further to
to tell you. Thats what this little lesson teaches me.
Mike Dubbeld
>
Mike Dubbeld
> g.
> >
> > Mike Dubbeld
> >
> > >
> > > g.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Mike Dubbeld
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
The Snore
And Mike gracefully dances away, "too-da-loo" he says.
Put 'im to bed, g.
Raan
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
(_¸.·' Raan
"Miller" <chuml...@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:ubqftcp...@corp.supernews.com...
Raan
sunyata is tathata
tathata is sunyata
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
(_¸.·' Raan (see post)
GeneIn
> "GeneIn" <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >that too....but there are many other forces
that
> >act on our lives that are not within our
> >control...
>
> You are rather mysterious about what those
forces might be.
> Why not tell us about what forces you are
talking about?
nothing mysterious, anyone aquainted with
philosophy understands the meaning of it....it
stems from epictetus.."know the difference between
that which you can control and that which you
cannot control" there are many things we cannot
control. need i list them?
>
> >> Maybe they could realize their true nature
> >faster if we create optimal
> >> conditions instead of going by old rules.
> >
> >what would be the optimal condition for all 6
> >billion inhabitants? (served equally of
course?)
>
> My answer is at http://utopianow.cjb.net
>
> >if it were that simple........those who are in
> >power today are far from stupid...they are
> >intelligent but some use their intelligence to
> >benefit themselves..
>
> No, they are not. They think they are doing the
best for mankind, but
> they are uninformed about better strategies, we
just need to develop
> better thinking and it will be applied.
why are they uninformed? they who are at a greater
advantage than you or i in gathering knowledge
throughout the world....you sell them short....a
grave mistake.
>
>
> >i don't know where you get your information,
but
> >we are indeed running out of resources
>
> Again you are mysterious istead of telling us
what problems you are
> thinking of.
again nothing mysterious....read time magazine,
science digest or any number of worthwhile sources
and discover the "mysterious"....finite resources
are arable land for one...the fish in our once
vast ocean are fewer in number than any time in
history....rain forests which effect our weather
patterns are diminishing, deserts are
growing.....(btw roger who is "us"? as far as i
can tell there is only you and i )
>
> >....i agree
> >better distribution will be of some help, but
time
> >is running out, there are far too many people
> >chasing fewer and fewer resources......
> >>
> >> That is one example of how badly informed
people
> >spread less than
> >> optimal views which hamper the development.
> >
> >roger i sympatize with your arguement, but i am
a
> >realist
>
> No, you are ill-informed and a pessimist :-)
but doesn't that remark make you the pessimist in
regard to your fellow poster? ;-)
g.
>
>
> Roger J.
>
GeneIn
>
> "GeneIn" <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
message
>
news:xukv8.31435$Rw2.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.wor
now you have my attention.....please explain..
>
> .prior
> > to the proving which took many decades, most
did
> > not believe they existed, but great minds
worked
> > on the theory that they did indeed exist
> > eventually proof followed and so what does
this
> > little lesson teach us?
>
> Atheists that see atoms believe they exist?
Sorry my sour
> humour is not appreciated. Since you seem to
take what
> I say literally - I literally have have nothing
further to
> to tell you. Thats what this little lesson
teaches me.
ok mike perhaps another time....
g.
Emma Buchanan
GeneIn wrote:
If I was to feed the very direct responses to these questions they would
at this stage seems unsatisfying. As such we feed responses that are
most satisfying to that person, enough their own hunger drive them to
their own liberation (ultimate satisfaction). The people that make our
hairs stand up on end do just that because the VERY direct answers for
themselves would be different to what they tell us. :-)
Feed a man what he needs, not what you need. :-)
Dean
Emma Buchanan
tara wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 1:49:10 -0400, dean-O-matic wrote
> (in message <3CBD0CD5...@dingoblue.com.au>):
> Dean, do the particulars of who's place is whoe's, & what really matters. Can
> you not give her what she needs.? Give it all to her.
>
> humbly and not knowing your circumstanses, but knowing what really matters, I
> think. Just give her whatever she wants?
> Gee Dean, I may be antiquated (only 30+) but I do know that what a woman
> wants' is - "I love you, whatever I have is yours, always!!! She will, if she
> really believes you, give you back whatever it is that you need, & more than
> you ever had dreamed.
>
> Give to her all, she will be all to you.
>
> tara
>
> tara
> >
Trust me Tara, I am this type of person. She knows I would give her my life if
that would help. She is the most important thing in the world to me. I just got
made redundant from my job and so we are going on a holiday, all expenses paid by
me because as a single mum she definitely can't afford it. That's what I want to
do for her (and me) because we both need a holiday. Money when it comes to this is
irrelevant. :-)
Dean
Emma Buchanan
Miller wrote:
Care to explain what you mean?
Dean
Emma Buchanan
Raan wrote:
Do you call a teapot a shoe, a shoe a teapot? People would think you crazy to
say this. Let commensense be your guide.
Sunyata is sunyata,
tathata is tathata,
a mountain is a mountain,
a rock a rock.
Dean
GeneIn
"Emma Buchanan" <skippin...@yahoo.com.au>
wrote in message
news:3CBECF30...@yahoo.com.au...
at this stage a direct response can be likened to
a full pitcher of ice water to the desert
traveler...the hair raising people are rare and
not to be found but perhaps once a millennium and
so us common folk such as you and i are found
poking about in newsgroups must take up the
slack....all here are teachers and students rolled
into one...the questions posed will afford great
insight as to what can be expected in any given
thought...some shirk this for reasons best
ignored.....to those who attempt a response i
cannot promise anything but it seems to lend
itself to a better understanding of what it is we
are attempting to grasp....
> Feed a man what he needs, not what you need.
:-)
we injest the same pap.....mostly regurgitated
however. :-)
>
> Dean
>
Miller
The gross presumption! To think one "knows" what another needs! How
wonderful to think of oneself as a savior!
Scott
Miller
Sez you!
Scott
Miller
No. Lets see if we can talk about something else besides what you have been
talking about.
Scott
Roger Johansson
>> Why not tell us about what forces you are
>talking about?
>
>nothing mysterious, anyone aquainted with
>philosophy understands the meaning of it....it
>stems from epictetus.."know the difference between
>that which you can control and that which you
>cannot control" there are many things we cannot
>control. need i list them?
Yes, please.
Don't you know how newpapers always try to find catastrophies and
write upsetting articles to sell more?
Most horror stories you read are actually false or horrendously
exagerated, there are no big problems in the resources side of the
equation.
There is enough and more than enough of both food and energy, for
example, even though lots of people are led to believe the contrary.
Roger J.
dean-O-matic
Miller wrote:
Maybe another way to look at this is that I know what I need. That is, even
if I was to give my direct answer they would prove unfulfilling to you. To be
ultimately fulfilling for you have to find your own answers. That is moreso
what I meant by that.
Dean
dean-O-matic
Miller wrote:
Funny, you didn't say "Sez goldfish!"
DEan
dean-O-matic
tara wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 9:54:25 -0400, Emma Buchanan wrote
> (in message <3CBED011...@yahoo.com.au>):
> Forgive my pompous presumptions. And I believe (as if that matters), your
> description of yourself. I think my response has more to do with my knee jerk
> reaction to your describing the details of your exchange with your
> girlfriend. I don't think I would like it if I knew I was being discussed in
> a public forum. But that's just me.
>
> I'm sorry to hear of your troubles and I'm sending good thoughts for you.
>
> tara
Troubles?!!! What the?! No troubles here. Me and my partner are fantastic. I'm
going to marry this girl! I was just sharing an interesting situation that
happened between us, a difference in us. Doesn't mean there are problems. We are
great!
Dean
Miller
"dean-O-matic" <blue_s...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
news:3CBEE235...@dingoblue.net.au...
Hmmm, then why aren't you already married? And where to you get off
refering to this person as a mere "girl"? Look how defensive you are about
this "partner" of yours. Do we detect some resentment here? Hmmm? Hmmm?
Scott
dean-O-matic
Miller wrote:
Why aren't I already married? Hmmmm, well lets see, two reasons. One is we've
only known each other for about 6 months - a little early to go rushing into
marraige just yet but I know I'm going to. After knowing her for about a month
we were in a cab one night and I told her I was going to marry her. She was
suprised (nicely) at the time but she also knows she wants to marry me too.
Secondly, she's still married and hasn't got her divorce yet. Have to wait for
her divorce to come through.
Defensive? Haha! Rather not. I think you are reading into things a little too
much Scott. I have no reason for resentment when I love someone. I think you
might be reading it like that because of the way I responded. I was just
suprised Tara thought me and my g/f were going through hard times. It was funny
how people read into things.
Dean
Miller
Yes! Now you seem to get it!
Scott
The Snore
"Noah Sombrero" <somb...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:jjaqbu4k76877via3...@4ax.com...
>
> We need resources removed from the hands of people whose
> fundamental concern is greed. If that were to happen, distribution
> would not be a problem.
How would it be possible to remove the resources from the greedy hands?
Bruce
why is it so important for you?
--
BUDDHA EZINE
http://the-eternal-buddha.com
((((((IN LIVING COLOR)))))))
((((((IN TRUE STEREO)))))))))
"But Dad, you're giving in to mob mentality!" "No I'm not, I'm hopping on
the bandwagon. Now come on son, get with the winning team!"
---Bart & Homer Simpson
"cosm" <inj...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:a9bdu3$2ko$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
> Does anyone here believe in the soul? I'm looking for a definition.
>
The Snore
"dean-O-matic" <blue_s...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in
>
> Maybe another way to look at this is that I know what I need. That is,
even
> if I was to give my direct answer they would prove unfulfilling to you.
To be
> ultimately fulfilling for you have to find your own answers. That is
moreso
> what I meant by that.
>
> Dean
>
Then they are pretty much pointless to write, aren't they?
dean-O-matic
The Snore wrote:
No, amongst other things it provides motivation for one to see the path
through to the end.
Dean
Noah Sombrero
>>>> We need resources removed from the hands of people whose
>> fundamental concern is greed. If that were to happen, distribution
>> would not be a problem.
>
>How would it be possible to remove the resources from the greedy hands?
It is not impossible, but it will surely not happen. It does not help to seek
more changeable but unrelated causes.
Noah Sombrero
The Snore
The 'end'?
The Snore
What can I do to help?
Raan
Speaking of Saviours.. Isn't that "The Golden Rule" ?
Raan
Dean is Emma
Emma is Dean
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
(_¸.·' Raan (see "sunyata is tathata" thread)
GeneIn
"Roger Johansson" <no-e...@home.se> wrote in
message
news:qumtbuohs2l5is2n1...@4ax.com...
> "GeneIn" <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >> Why not tell us about what forces you are
> >talking about?
> >
> >nothing mysterious, anyone aquainted with
> >philosophy understands the meaning of it....it
> >stems from epictetus.."know the difference
between
> >that which you can control and that which you
> >cannot control" there are many things we cannot
> >control. need i list them?
>
>
> Yes, please.
death
how we are regarded by others (no you can't)
the kind of body we have.
whether we are born into wealth or poverty.
those within our control:
our opinions
aspirations
desires
and things that repel us
yes, (worked for a newspaper for a short time)
some play up catastropohies (tabloids) but others
such as the washington post or the new york times,
wall street journal are known for their sensible
editorials whether you may agree with them or
not.....
> Most horror stories you read are actually false
or horrendously
> exagerated, there are no big problems in the
resources side of the
> equation.
not certain what sort of newspaper you read but i
am afraid what you have stated is a gross
exaggeration....
>
> There is enough and more than enough of both
food and energy, for
> example, even though lots of people are led to
believe the contrary.
if you believe this then what can i say?
g.
>
>
> Roger J.
>
>