Understanding "I" - Vedanta

Dear Pradheep,

You are now an absolutely proven big liar.

Just go through all your thoughtless and memoryless statements quoted above and then all your previous statements that clearly prove the outcome of your psychotic hallucinations. Not only sensible and thoughtful adults and teenage kids, but even you would be able to know that they all are indeed the statements made by an Alzheimer patient who not only has lost his memory but who suffers from a sever form of psychotic mental conditions too.

Of course, we all can understand how difficult it is for your thoughtless and memoryless brain to grasp and understand precisely what the normalised "Nothing" is and how it above-board proves the non-existence of any supernatural entity that believers like you keep hallucinating about.

In nutshell, the uncaused, absolute evolution of the universe and life is the only base worldview - i.e. the URR format - which can support the delusions of all other worldviews.

Of course, when you are trapped and have no way out, you get terribly upset and then resort to such dissonance reducing processes and emotional fallacies.

With this, without any reasonable doubt, it is deemed sure that you have accepted and acknowledged the utter falsity of Advaita, and this time, while retreating, you are looking for a permanent refuge in the tents of missionaries.

The bottom line for the matter of fact and the essence of Truth is, the absolute evolution of the universe and life, precisely as it is, did not and does not require any creator of any form or function, the universe and life came into existence absolutely uncaused. :thumbsup:

With this, you are left with nothing but a multi fold intensity in your regressions with body + mind + perceiver + awareness + consciousness + toys + technology + intelligent creator + intelligent designs + objects + dualists + illusions of robotic machines + illusions of robots that are created intelligently + rest of the beings + missionaries + satan + internet + kids etc.. as your presents, which continue to add to your ever multiplying and increasing regressions. And at your final retreating position, your regression count stands at 2N+159 .

Of course, the only base worldview i.e. the URR, which allows the already remotely controlled puppets like you to search for the company of weaker brains who could be transformed (brainwashed) into puppets.

Yes, Pradheed it is really a very good idea to form as larger multiplicity of puppets as puppets like you can form and then form a union of remotely controlled puppets to fight for your rights to hallucinate in your shelters of refuge.

Well, I can only wish you good luck in witnessing and perceiving an ever increasing multiplicity, which now includes the dreadful nightmares of the missionaries. Enjoy your humbled place in their shelters for remotely controlled robots like you. :thumbsup: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pradheep

Dear Sakthi prabha

if interested we an continue discussions on "I".

---

Hi Pradeep,

Sure I wanna read more. You both (Rohit and urself) seem too confident in ur theories. I am not very conversant with many theories.Also I lack knowledge, which u guys possess. I would like to read more...someday i would get my own conclusions too.

Also.. gimmme sometime to read ur posts (atleast recent ones), SO THAT IT SINKS in me and I come up with fresh questions :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shakthiprabha

I would like to read more...someday i would get my own conclusions too.

---

Dear Shakthiprabha, please don't just read, but think it through for yourself and develop your own autonomous, clear thinking ability. I am sure, one day you would be able to judge it yourself and draw your own conclusion without trapping yourself into any vicious spiral of infinite regress.

Good Luck! :)

Hi Rohit, just because you cannot get the evidence for a creator(either seperate or same as self, just 2 diff posibilities among a million), we cannot assume that everything came from nothing. How can something come nothing ? What you call as nothing could be simply something that you cannot percieve so you call it nothing !

Mahadevan

It is not just me, no one can have any evidence for a conscious or sentient supernatural creator, simply because there is none.

If you need an assumption of a conscious or sentient supernatural creator for the creation of universe, then you must have an infinite chain of conscious or sentient supernatural creators of supernatural creators. Therefore, the need for a conscious or sentient supernatural creator of the universe itself is an unnecessary and fallacious assumption. My proofs simply nullified that unnecessary and fallacious assumption as, an absolutely self-emerging and self-evolving nature (i.e. universe), by default, shouldn't need an assumption of any supernatural entity creating it.

Please read my proofs in the Evolution vs. Creator (God), "Does God Exist?" and other threads and try to grasp and understand precisely what the normalised "Nothing" is and precisely how it is defined, which is dumb, changeable, unconscious, insentient, selfless, energy, transformable, mutable, evolving, chaotic, nature............ etc. etc. and how it irrefutably negates and excludes a conscious or sentient supernatural creator of any form or function.

In nutshell, the assumption of a conscious or sentient supernatural creator itself is self-defeating, which souldn't need any further assumptions or even proofs to reject it, if it were not made in the first place.

Nonetheless, if someone chooses to believe in some kind of Creator/God, then that is absolutely and purely his/her own personal choice and belief, no one can do anything to alter it as, that choice or belief itself is an evolved effect under the vast process of uncaused, absolute evolution of the universe i.e. the URR format - The base worldview of all worldviews. :thumbsup: :)

Dear Sakthi Prabha
Please do not just read alone. Apply that and see whether it makes sense. Throughout my life I have done that. Instead of just reading books I used to experiment myself. You know my site www.sakthifoundation.org where almost ofthe facts suggested is based on my experimentation. Right from water therapy to Consciousness everything Instead and then suggest to others. "Preaching" is easy which isreading and telling. "Teaching" is to read, experiment and then tell others.

Many many years back when I was about to do meditation I read about books claiming that they the eastern yogi's are hallucinating and the same effect can be done through narcotic drugs.

That was the timeI read about Richard Alpert,a harvard psycologists who used narcotic drugs to get the religious and meditative effects,withjust one pill. He was dismissed from harvard because of his drug use. This person later went to himalayas and met his guru , who gave him the effect of his narcotic experience just being in his presence and meditation. To his surprise the guru asked him to bring the narcotic drugs from his bag that he has carried from USA.
His guru took all thatdrugs in one gulp into his body and was cool as if he took some sugar coated pills. What shocked him was that if some one took more than a couple of pills wouldnot survive, wheareas this person gulped more than 25 of them without anychange in him.

The guru said mind is powerful than drugs. Do not use these because they will numb the very own mind and it will prevent further investigation in spiritual practices.

This harvard pyschologist's then became the most popular Ram Dass. His book gaveme the moral boost that then meditation is much beyond the narcotic effects.

Then when I started meditating I understood that I can watch the thoughts and see where these thoughts arise. I understood that this consciousness is not the brain process. The whole creation is not by a god sitting and creating.......

I will continue later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pradheep

You know my site www.sakthifoundation.org where almost ofthe facts suggested is based on my experimentation. Right from water therapy to Consciousness everything Instead and then suggest to others. "Preaching" is easy which isreading and telling. "Teaching" is to read, experiment and then tell others.

---

Is it allowed to make a link to personal web sites which has "selective testimonies" "pancha booth medical therapies" "Contributions" and Tax excemptions", in this web forum?

Dear r_kk
I did not write to promote the site but to hint that what i write is based on experimentation and not just book reading. In collegen, I (probably everyone one of you) hated lecturers who came to the class room and vomittedwhat they read in the book. However enjoyed lecturers who took the subject to their heart and and did practical experimentation to atleast to a certain level. it is always enjoyable to hear from some one who has practical wisdom than just read information.

Please bring thisto the notice of the administrators and if they think that this violates the policy of the hub, let them delete my post and the link. It doesnt matter to me if they keep the post or delete it. Thank you my friend for your voice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by r_kk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pradheep

You know my site www.sakthifoundation.org where almost ofthe facts suggested is based on my experimentation. Right from water therapy to Consciousness everything Instead and then suggest to others. "Preaching" is easy which isreading and telling. "Teaching" is to read, experiment and then tell others.

---

Is it allowed to make a link to personal web sites which has "selective testimonies" "pancha booth medical therapies" "Contributions" and Tax excemptions", in this web forum?

---

It is not allowed. Pradheep has on some instances tried to promote 'whatever there" using this Hub...

Anyway, Mr Pradheep, how are the donations coming - pouring in I guess. Enough for a fat year-end bonus for all.... :twisted:

Dear friend

Quote:

---

Netrikan thirapinum kutram kutrame...

---

The above is a wonderful quote which I always cherish. Hope you understand the meaning of that. It has deeper wisdom than what people literally take from puranas. These are the words of nakkeeran against Lord shiva. Lord's shiva third eye represent the eye of knowledge. The debate between them was based on practical knowledge rather than inherent intelligence. Nakkeeran was argueing about practical wisdom and not based on the inherent wisdom. Shiva opening the third eye represents argueing with inherent wisdom and not on practical knolwedge. But that did not shake nakkeeerar. What matters is practical knowledge experienced and not bookish knowledge.

Similar information is given in Mahabharata when Krishna asked |Bhisma to give knowledge. Bhisma was shaken by that andsaid "O krishna you are the source of wisdom and how can you ask thisdying man for wisdom?. To that krishna beautifullyresponds "Oh Bhishma, I have inherent knowledge, but youhave practical knowledge of living with morethan five generations and so practical knowledge is more important than inherent knowledge. From his came the gemsof practical knowledge "Vishnu Shansranama".

Adisankara praises Vishnu sahasranama and his bhasyam is thus very popular.

This