On Jul 10, 6:51=A0pm, "Trailer-Trash Philosophe" <jpd...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> Namaste Ravi,
>
> "ravimpillay" <ravimpil...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:ee9a0c1d-64d7-4d6f-9e25-38cf07ef4dfd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Jul 10, 7:22 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Proper thought processes lead to the higher state you are referring
> > to, of sat-chit-ananda, or transcendental bliss, if suitable actions
> > are followed through. Thought is not a barrier to be removed, it is a
> > guide and a friend that leads to desired goals.
>
> Arindam has caught me up quite rightly on this one. =A0I think and speak
=
at
> disadvantage of my highly limited, typically Occidental, dialectical or
> dualistic style of reasoning. It's the old "Either/Or" dilemma so
eloquen=
tly
> elucidated by Kierkegaard, where in order to get some point across, it
se=
ems
> one must make bloody sacrifice of the opposite thing to bring what seems
> true about the first thing the more forcefully into view. And I had a
str=
ong
> sense of that error even as I was setting those thoughts down.
>
> Thought decidedly does have its place, beyond the merely practical,
secul=
ar
> business of day to day life, i.e. with respect to religious
consideration=
s,
> else we'd be at a complete disadvantage for any attempt to learn or
teach
> such things. However, there is a time for thought, and a time for
> not-thought, e.g. during meditation and as the Tantric Buddhists teach,
> during death. But won't some of the Zen Buddhist school argue that even
> during meditation, there is decidedly a need for thought, as the riddle
o=
f a
> Koan is contemplated?
>
> I won't go into that just here because it's an entirely different
discuss=
ion
> about a non-Indian Buddhist culture, whose emphasis is toward dealing
> skillfully with life, not with death. Satori is for the Living, Nirvana
f=
or
> the Dead. And little as I know about any of these things, one thing I do
> know is this: during those few moments of my passing from this life, as
I
> plummet through every conceivable hell of seemingly insurmountable fear,
> regret, fathomless grief and whatever physical agony my karma may hold
in
> store, the one thing I won't be thinking about is whether my dog has
Budd=
ha
> Nature, or what may be the sound of one hand clapping.
>
> No, because if Tantra and the Dalai Lama teach me anything, it is that
> thinking during the Death Meditation is the quickest route to Hell. My
po=
int
> was, as it remains, that you can't think your way to heaven. That's
dead.
> Never mind what I learned from LSD about it, because by a properly
dilige=
nt
> study of Oriental religion, I should have come upon this truth anyway,
an=
d
> by this time of my life, would have had far more memory to my ever so
few
> dwindling brain cells as I now have left, as that is the debt I pay for
m=
y
> earlier 'explorations' and 'experiments'.
>
> By a process of thought, I realize that the consciousness I will have
upo=
n
> and after death will not have a physical brain as its host, and this
"sub=
tle
> mind" as the Dalai Lama refers to it will not even be "my" mind; it will
=
not
> be under my control; it will be calling all the shots, one of which will
=
be
> this: If you turn, even for so much as an instant in an attempt to
> "remember" to grasp at where you were a moment ago back in the land of
li=
fe,
> like the wife of Lot leaving Sodom and Gomorrah, you will be turned to a
> pillar not of salt but of stone; or as it was with Orpheus turning back
f=
or
> a glimpse of his Eurydice during his rescue of her from Hades, by sin of
> that she will be forever lost to him.
>
> This is one good reason why a regimen of thoughtless meditation during
li=
fe
> makes for a good practice. What more might be gained from it, with
respec=
t
> to the demands of day to day life in the Samsara,
In the movie "Samsara", the demands of day to day life did provide a
"S****ty Spice" to the quondam Buddhist monk, who wasn't quite a hero,
though.
down here in the realm of
> Maya, I have no clue. Maybe it's good for developing the skill of
> concentration, of focus, and some do make that claim.
>
> By a process of thought, I realize something from what the Dalai Lama
has
> said about dreams, as to how there is such a thing as a "dreaming body"
> which has nothing to do with the physical body, but with a subtle body
th=
at
> is at one with the subtle mind. But as this mind and body have no host
in=
my
> physical mind and body, that is why I can't make my physical body do
> anything for me in a dream no matter how hard I strain to move it.
=A0Thi=
s is
> also why most of my dreams cannot be recalled by my physical mind,
seeing
> they did not originate from it in the first place.
>
> But now we are once again up against the devilment of the Either/Or
falla=
cy.
> It's just not so cut and dried as I've just indicated, because sometimes
=
I
> have nearly perfect recall of a dream, which tells me that sometimes my
> physical mind is active in a dream right with the subtle mind, and so it
> goes for the body because I know that on one occasion, during a high
feve=
r,
> I once walked in my sleep--a truly horrifying experience when I found
tha=
t I
> was caught between the realms of sleep and wakefulness; still seeing the
> images of my dream, of the flames that were coming at me from all
> directions, even there in the closet where my mother found me hiding,
> howling my head off, before she was able to get hold of me and guide me
b=
ack
> to my bed, soothe me, until at last, upon being told it was not real, I
w=
as
> able to drop back into sleep--just for an instant, long enough then to
> awaken to a normal state of consciousness.
>
> Nothing is ever all this or all that, all sleep, all wakefulness, all
> thought, or all not-thought, all life, all death. =A0But there are
rules,
> which thank all the billions of Buddhist gods, the Buddhists do teach,
wh=
ich
> make it possible for me to live joyously in the faith that there is a
Yog=
a
> of Death, a great challenge that awaits me, which if I may accept it
with
> courage and discipline, will reveal for me a few realities that
heretofor=
e I
> have only been able to approach via, pure analytical or dialectical
> syntheses of thought, for example the idea, as Einstein has developed
it,
> that there is no boundary between the dimensions of space and time, thus
> allowing the understanding that in the space of death, there is no
separa=
te
> existence of time; that is, of time going on without you.
Space and time are two entirely different things. Antenna theory in
the proper sense was not known in Einstein's time. Once you design
phased array antennas - few do, but I did - you get the relation****p
between space, time, frequency, etc. very clearly indeed. As I did.
=46rom that experience of over 8 years, I learnt that the Quantum theory
was bogus. Later on I proved that the postulates of the Special
Theory of Relativity were bogus, as they were derived from a faulty
analysis of the Michelson-Morley interferometry experiment. So how to
account for the atom bomb? It so happens that between the two
debunkings, I had derived a mathematical relation****p between energy
and mass, by a very slight modification to Newton's first law as
presently explained - by deleting the term "external" making
"internal" force for acceleration thus impllicitly possible. Now,
that equation based upon kinetics explains not just atom bombs, but
all explosions, and the energy from the sun, earth and all the
heavenly bodies. It also outs the law of conservation of energy,
which is a very good thing, though certain influential companies of
our time may not think so. Anyway, as a consequence, we can have
clean energy unlimitedly, and as a bonus, create ****ps that will
travel without friction or ejecting mass.
Very recently, I have come across experimental evidence for the
correctness of my ideas, that it is possible to move a body with
internal force. The answer is: rail gun! The rail gun's reaction is
much less than the force upon the projectile, and this effect is
easily explained with my equation. Wonderful it is, that my
description of the Internal Force Engine so long ago should match what
is being now foujnd out - albeit in a totally different context, that
of warfare and weapons design.
In my book "To the Stars!' available at
www.users.bigpond.com/adda1234/inde=
x.htm
I have given a drawing of the internal force engine and its analytical
explanation. The explanation was speculative, and not correct - the
body will move in the opposite direction to what I had written. But
the design was right. When a mass is accelerated by the rail gun, and
is stopped, it will move the whole body in the direction of its travel
as the reaction is less than the action. This will be the basis of
interplanetary and later, interstellar travel! In my lifetime I do
expect to see craft move with internal force.
Arindam Banerjee.
> The spacetime of dying and Death is infinite, as indeed so, ultimately,
i=
s
> the spacetime of life and everything in it, but at death, the issue is
> forced into reality of one's consciousness as at no other 'time'.
=A0Kant
> showed by his syntheses and analyses that both space and time are mere
> constructs of thought, a priori to be sure but one might say
'instinctual=
'
> or congenital, things that we know, no different than a cat knows to
bury
> its ****.
>
> Nobody teaches us to dream, nobody teaches us about time and space; our
> minds just do that thing, but there is no time you can lay your hand on,
> neither is there any space you can look at under a microscope--not a
damn=
ed
> thing there; nothing in the laws of Newton or the theories of Einstein
ca=
n
> we find to explain how or why a dream which physically is shown by
> psychologists to last but a few moments can be experienced by the
dreamer=
to
> last for hours, if not nearly the whole night. The main thing to be
gaine=
d
> from Einstein and his prime mentor Kant is that physically speaking
there=
is
> no such thing as "time" or "space": they are Maya, the pillars of
Samsara
> that either will pass away from consciousness at death or will be
grasped
> at, in fear, in a frenzy of aquisitional greed--and by that you will
lear=
n
> how truly illusory they really are, and have always been.
>
> In the theory of General Relativity, space and time form together as
> spacetime to one purpose or function only and that is to establish the
fo=
rce
> of gravity--which really ought to tell us something very grave: it's all
> downhill, around the wheel, and you don't want to get caught on that, it
> only takes you down through a thousand realms in the black hole of Hell
t=
ill
> you come screaming out from the womb of it again, and again, and again.
>
> Not only is there no such thing to the blissful subtle mind and body as
t=
ime
> and space (for they are no obstacle whatsoever in dreams) but there is
no
> such thing as Death as opposed to Birth. =A0Hindus have always known of
t=
he
> multitude of kalpas, of ages, of the cycles for the birth and death of
th=
e
> worlds, and the universes; they are nearly infinite, and very nearly
eter=
nal
> but not quite infinite and eternal enough to stop a being from being
born
> again; even as the same person born to the same life, same mother, same
> world, as one is condemned to do it all over again. There are that many
> throws of those dice that Einstein hated, among the nearly countless
> instants of non-existent "time" and limitless "space".
>
> Nirvana is the other thing entirely, about which no one knows, but of
whi=
ch
> we are told by the Dalai Lama that anything you can possibly imagine in
> terms of, as Arindam has said, "Romance" is yours where there is no time
=
or
> space to limit an imagination of the billions of beautiful blue gods
lock=
ed
> in eternal, fiery embrace with their shakti--or what will you have, as
yo=
ur
> reward for the one sacrifice that must be made--that you stop thinking
an=
d
> start =A0thanking your marvelous stars for all that is not you, nor
being=
kept
> from you by you?
>
> Is this where we get some gorgeous Bollywood production called "Nirvana"
> with a thousand sitars and sarods for the score, as a beautiful Hindu
Roy
> Orbison sings, "Blue Bayou?"
> --
> JMhttp://whosenose.blogspot.comhttp://jesu***egesis.blogspot.com
>
> --
>
> .............................................................
> =A0 > =A0 Posted thru AtlantisNews - Explore EVERY Newsgroup =A0<
> =A0 > =A0http://www.AtlantisNews.com=A0--
=A0Lightning Fast!!! =A0<
> =A0 > =A0 Access the Most Content * No Limits * Best Service =A0<
|
