Guest guest Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 In a message dated 3/2/05 6:43:21 AM, ombhurbhuva writes: > Hi Pete, > Yajnavalkaya is asked when all the > aids to navigation that exist for a man > viz. sun, moon, light, fire, speech are > all gone out or are in abeyance; what is > it that exists for a light for a man or > what is it that allows him to be conscious > inwardly in dreams. > > " We see also that the purpose of a light > is served in dreams, as, for instance, > meeting and parting from friends, and > going to other places etc; and we awake > from deep sleep with the remembrance that > we slept happily and knew nothing. > Therefore there exists some extraneous > light. " (from Shankara's Commentary on > Brh.Up.: IV.iii.6) > > My C.O.D. has a defn. of 'oxymoron' as > (rhet) Figure of sppech with pointed > conjunction of seeming contradictories > (e.g. faith unfaithful kept his falsely > true) > > The point is that by themselves, in their > root meaning, the words that are brought > into conjunction are opposed in meaning. > However once united they have a new > meaning and intelligibility and do not fly > from each other. eg. Wordsworth's truant > schoolboys - and as they run they look > behind and snatch a fearful joy. > > The opposition in their root meaning that > must exist in the elements of the oxymoron > unfortunately disqualifies some of > Sarloji's top 50. > > airline food, government organisation, > sanitary landfill, legally drunk, British > fashion, business ethics, military > intelligence, New York culture, software > documentation, child proof, Christian > Scientist, Temporary Tax increase, > political science, religious tolerance, > microsoft works. > > Pete you yourself stand in doubtful > certainty on the matter of consciousness. > I would urge you to look in on the variety > of opinion amongst the White Coats on a > list called jcs-online. It's > associated with the Journal of > Consciousness Studies which I don't take > but you will be aware of what they are at. > Does a bacterium represents its world? > What's the difference between its > representation of its world and that of a > thermostat. Is consciousness an > epiphenomenon and so on, the binding > problem, hard boiled eggs and chicory > salad. > > Michael > > > Michael. I think your posts shows you are a believer out to proselytize. what are you trying to sell, Michael, your borrowed ideas, or your apperception? Is the existence of unconscious consciousness your apperception? Everyone is offering all this sites, as if they encapsulated the truth. Sites are only the opinions of others. Why would I accept the opinion of another, even a jnani, about my own consciousness, of which no one can have a better view than me. And even if you tell yours is the seven wonder of the world, and much superior to mine, and able to know itself even when unconscious (which is the summit of absurdity) what good will that do for me. I'm stock with mine. And not get me wrong, I'm quite happy with mine, but I also know is perishable. And that the ground of being if given a name, should not be called consciousness. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 Pete wrote: And the two Number one top Oxy-Moron: ) 1a. Microsoft Works 1aa. Consciousness of being unconcious. ********************** Hi Pete, Yajnavalkaya is asked when all the aids to navigation that exist for a man viz. sun, moon, light, fire, speech are all gone out or are in abeyance; what is it that exists for a light for a man or what is it that allows him to be conscious inwardly in dreams. " We see also that the purpose of a light is served in dreams, as, for instance, meeting and parting from friends, and going to other places etc; and we awake from deep sleep with the remembrance that we slept happily and knew nothing. Therefore there exists some extraneous light. " (from Shankara's Commentary on Brh.Up.: IV.iii.6) My C.O.D. has a defn. of 'oxymoron' as (rhet) Figure of sppech with pointed conjunction of seeming contradictories (e.g. faith unfaithful kept his falsely true) The point is that by themselves, in their root meaning, the words that are brought into conjunction are opposed in meaning. However once united they have a new meaning and intelligibility and do not fly from each other. eg. Wordsworth's truant schoolboys - and as they run they look behind and snatch a fearful joy. The opposition in their root meaning that must exist in the elements of the oxymoron unfortunately disqualifies some of Sarloji's top 50. airline food, government organisation, sanitary landfill, legally drunk, British fashion, business ethics, military intelligence, New York culture, software documentation, child proof, Christian Scientist, Temporary Tax increase, political science, religious tolerance, microsoft works. Pete you yourself stand in doubtful certainty on the matter of consciousness. I would urge you to look in on the variety of opinion amongst the White Coats on a list called jcs-online. It's associated with the Journal of Consciousness Studies which I don't take but you will be aware of what they are at. Does a bacterium represents its world? What's the difference between its representation of its world and that of a thermostat. Is consciousness an epiphenomenon and so on, the binding problem, hard boiled eggs and chicory salad. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2005 Report Share Posted March 2, 2005 >Michael: Pete you yourself stand in doubtful certainty on the matter of consciousness. ----------------- Pete: Michael. I think your posts shows you are a believer out to proselytize. what are you trying to sell, Michael, your borrowed ideas, or your apperception? Is the existence of unconscious consciousness your apperception? Everyone is offering all this sites, as if they encapsulated the truth. Sites are only the opinions of others. Why would I accept the opinion of another, even a jnani, about my own consciousness, of which no one can have a better view than me. ----------------- Joyce: Fair enough. So why not share how you arrived at your latest proselytizations on " consciousness " that we have all been the gracious and grateful recipients of? Likewise, why should anyone accept what you say? What method or practice of inquiry do you use to come to your conclusions? You speak with certainty. Is it dogma or realization? Do share the method so that others can verify. 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.