Guest guest Posted October 18, 2003 Report Share Posted October 18, 2003 I sincerely apologize for the emails I sent, I am extremely sorry to have hurt people's feelings.Mr. S.V. Swamy, kindly forgive me for making those hurtful accusations.Sincerely,Milind.Nisargadatta , "S.V.SWAMY" wrote:> I certainly agree with your views that a true scientist should first start> with some assumptions, and then test them and correct his set of> assumptions. If one makes judgements without research, it is certainly not> scientific, though the person may call himself a scientist (it simply means> he has chosen science as his means of livelihood!).> > Milind's reply to my posting is certainly not scientific. He seems to have> made up his mind, which is quite OK with me. And as far as his personal> insinuations about my scientific caliber, I simply prefer not to react. I> am sufficiently mature to understand the provocative nature of such> repsonses and the intention behind. > > Welcome to the group. I too joined only recently.> > Swamy SV> > > > At 12:05 23/09/02 -0000, bardsley wrote:> >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2003 Report Share Posted October 19, 2003 Nisargadatta , Milind B <asdl09872003> wrote: > > I sincerely apologize for the emails I sent, I am extremely sorry to > have hurt people's > feelings. ..... kindly forgive me for making those hurtful accusations. > > Sincerely, > Milind. > ---------------------------- 4 entries found for grovelling. grov·el <IMG:lnk>Audio pronunciation of " grovelling " ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gr<IMG>v<IMG><IMG>l, gr<IMG>v<IMG>-) intr.v. grov·eled, also grov·elled grov·el·ing, grov·el·ling grov·els, grov·els 1. To behave in a servile or demeaning manner; cringe. 2. To lie or creep in a prostrate position, as in subservience or humility. 3. To give oneself over to base pleasures: " Have we not groveled here long enough, eating and drinking like mere brutes? " (Walt Whitman). .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2003 Report Share Posted October 19, 2003 Dear Svamy, you wrote in part: I certainly agree with your views that a true scientist should first start with some assumptions, and then test them and correct his set ofassumptions. sk: That is a classic view of a part of scientifical work. But, to discuss assumptions, i.e. hypothesis, is often necessary before someone begins to test what he/she has observed. Sometimes, in discussion with others, some may learn that even the preliminary observations could be so subjective that even colleagues can not agree with it. Biases and prejudices are other things. If one makes judgements without research, it is certainly not scientific, though the person may call himself a scientist sk: That happens often and not only among scientist and should be taken as an advice for all. Think about the Iraq-crisis, for example. Scientist are humans like everyone and commit mistakes. Another thing is to mislead people consciously to profit in one or another way. (it simply means he has chosen science as his means of livelihood!). sk: Simply? This simple view could apply to everyone on this planet, who does something to feed him/herself and to sleep under a roof when it rains. I do not agree with you on judging an activity only by the means of what it contributes to subsistence. If you are not concerned, why do you care about their means for livelihood? Milind's reply to my posting is certainly not scientific. He seems to have made up his mind, which is quite OK with me. And as far as his personal insinuations about my scientific caliber, I simply prefer not to react. I am sufficiently mature to understand the provocative nature of suchrepsonses and the intention behind. sk: Congratulations!... A riddle is not supposed to have a solution! It may at the most provoke our thinking, which is good. If it is solvable, it is not a riddle and onlyappeared to be a riddle because we couldn't think keenly enough! sk: That is a healthy attitude towards riddles. Consciousness is not an illusion if we are talking of Universalconsciousness. Limited consciousness (the feeling ofI, you etc.,) is an illusion. sk: Can you say what Universal consciousness is? Is limited consciousness a part of the Universal consciousness? If the part, the limited consciousness, is illusory, how can be the supposed whole, the "Universal consciousness" not an illusion? Similarly, our individual consciousness is but a limted projection of theUniversal consciousness through Maya, Illusion. If we go deep enough in ourconsciousness, we realise that the apparent separateness is an illusion andthat we all are connected. sk: I agree with that and if I go a little deeper even that apprehension of interconnectivity appears as another game-variety of Maya. Even the capability to apperceive simultaneously separateness and universal interconnectivity is, in my opinion, a projection. The "spiritual hop" is literally the end of all illusions.What could be said then...nothing. Karl Jung, the psychologist contemporary with Sigmund Freud, called it collective subconscious. sk: I think there is a difference with what Jung meant with **collective** subconsciousness and the sense in which universal consciousness is used for example in advaita. Even the collective subconsciousness is nothing else as a part of an, in my opinion, projected universal consciousness. It doesn't really matter if it is one consciousness or the consciousness of an collective. Does this change the dignity of consciousness? The feeling of separation is an illusion, but with a definite purpose. sk: The feeling of unity is an illusion, too. If there is a definite purpose it would be the definite purpose in itself. There would be no differences between the parts of this purpose and the purpose. Separateness is an illusion but, even to wallow in a feeling of universal unity is elusive, based on the underlying 'optical' fraud of separateness. To consider the opposite of an observation less incorrect than the observation itself is, in my opinion, to transpose the same inherent bias just into another frame of references. Both visions are correct or incorrect, and inherently associated, connected, otherwise we wouldn't be able to separate them. I can just separate what is aggregated, unified or combined but, as well as the separated is elusive, the whole is it, too. Going a step further it could be considered as separating the inherently inseparable in limited fragments (which is the the elusive component, like you discribe it) and I'm saying that the notion of an inherently inseparable is based on that elusive process of fragmentation and ergo as correct or incorrect as the oppsosite. If I say that every fragment comprehends the whole, I'm continuing to talk about fragments and the whole(s)... It would be a horrible universe, if it would have a definite purpose, if it would be a riddle, too as you define a riddle. Because a riddle, with or without solution, is always definite. The purpose would be a riddle and the riddle the purpose. Infinity expresses itself in a constantly and infinite change of riddles and apparently definite purposes as part of an illusion, a dream. The incredible comfort of Awareness and its eternal presence in the here and now, knows nothing about riddles and purposes, fragments or universality, questions and answers...no more illusion, no more explantions are necessary; nothing more, nothing less...infinitely surprised and immensly grateful, I'm sitting here writing this on a sunday morning. A bow to you, from Sweden sk The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.