PS Malik speaks on: SPIRITUALITY IS NOT THE MORALITY

SPIRITUALITY IS NOT THE MORALITY

The morality, the ethics and the practices recommended by them are to regulate the behaviour of an individual towards others. These others may be the other members of the same society or the members of some others societies.

Subsequently societies developed their political set ups also to evolve new practices; enforce them and also punish for their violation. This branch assumed the name of the law and law Courts.

But this all including the morality, the ethics and the law were only to regulate the outer behaviour of a subject. This is all external; imposed from outside; enforced from outside and observed from outside. No society or system will object to your most contrary beliefs and notions so long as your external conduct is in conformity with its morals or laws. The societies have nothing to do with your internal fabric. They are in expectations of your external conduct to be in conformity with their practices – the morals or the ethics or the laws.

All morals, ethics and laws presuppose the existence of others. This existence of others is independent of anyone else in the society. The morals, ethics and the laws are all Bipolar Processes. It envisages YOU the doer and those OTHERS who would face the result of your deeds. These morals, ethics and the laws are the bridges bridging the individuals. For all the morals, ethics and the laws (hereinafter these will collectively be termed as External Trio) the existence of plurality of individuals is an essence. Without a plurality and the interconnections amongst that plurality this External Trio is void ab initio. It is meaningless. It loses its worth.

Now take the spirituality. But before entering the domain of spirituality the meaning of “Bipolar Process” ought to be made clear. This “Bipolar Process” was discussed in the preceding paragraphs while dealing with the issue of the External Trio. It was said there that this External Trio is essentially a Bipolar Process involving “You” and “the Others”.

The outside world enters you as sensations through your senses. Your mind processes these sensations and produces information or knowledge for you. All the empirical knowledge has two components. One is the sensation from the outer world and the other is the processed product of your mind.

When the concepts of one person are expressed to others it is through verbal conversation. In all verbal conversations there are generally two elements one relates to the fact regarding the sensation you received through your senses and the other is the mental element provided by your mind. When the facts are in contradistinction to each others a mental element is taken recourse of to overcome the stagnation of contradistinction of facts. “Ram steals bread to feed a starving person” involves two facts (may be moral or legal or ethical) in contradistinction to each other. The matter is resolved by a mental process giving more weight to one fact over the other.

These mental elements embedding the sensations are called thoughts. The thoughts are essentially based on sensations received by your senses. May be, some thoughts appear to be free from the empirical basis. But it is not so.

You may think of an animal with the tail like a horse and the body like a lion. But it is nothing more than a new permutation – combination of your sensation about tail, horse, lion and body etc. Your mind gives these combinations new names as a child gives different names to the different shapes made from the same clay.

SPIRITUALITY IS NOT THE MORALITY

http://www.psmalik.com/article-hub/67.html

My website: http://www.psmalik.com/

My Blogs: http://www.psmalik.com/bl.html

This Article: http://www.psmalik.com/article-hub/67.html

PS Malik speaks on: SPIRITUALITY IS NOT THE MORALITY

Shreyas Malik

My Website is psmalik.com

My Blogs are at Blogs

My other Website is searchingone.com

Posted via email from Pratap's posterous

Who am I?

Who am I?

The question "Who are you?" is one of those fundamental questions that is intimidating and almost unanswerable. It can mean so many different things, depending upon the desire of the person asking. Thus the questioner might be asking:

Please place yourself in the structured schema that I use to describe society and the world around me. In other words, give me a series of tags that I can use to categorize you.

 The answer to such a demand needs must depend upon the categories and tags that the questioner recognizes. Fortunately there are a large series of such tags that are commonly and conventionally recognized. Thus the categories of nationality, ethnic origin, gender, occupation, income, place of residence, marital status, hobbies and interests, religion, and political affiliation.

An answer in terms of these tags often suffices to satisfy the questioner because we all of us carry with mental schemas, lists of default assumptions about persons bearing said tags. This is a practical necessity - we cannot know everyone in intimate detail. These assumptions are only defaults; each individual holds its individuality. He is unique.

This form of the question is more of a "What are you?" than a "Who are you?" - that is, it reduces the person to a list of attributes.

I

 

There is another meaning that the question might take. It may be asked

... "Who are you?"

You are likely to utter, “I am Ramesh from London.”

"And if you weren't not of London, would you still be Ramesh?" may be the next question.

“Of course…  I ..." Ramesh might have replied.

"And if you were not Ramesh?" the question is likely to be continued "Would you still be you? If you were crippled, or old - if you became a leper, or lost your manhood - who would you be then?"

"I don't know -"

"You know."

An irony in this passage is that Ramesh, at that point, is traveling under a false identity.

The questionnaire presumes one of the great answers to the question of identity, which is that we have an inner essence which defines our self, the various attributes being trappings like the clothes we wear.

 

For the complete article please visit:

Who am I?

http://www.psmalik.com/article-hub/73.html

My website:       http://www.psmalik.com/

My Blogs:            http://www.psmalik.com/bl.html

PS Malik speaks on: WHO AM I?

Shreyas Malik

My Website is psmalik.com

My Blogs.

Posted via email from Pratap's posterous

PS Malik speaks on: Mediocre Minds Plead Reason, Higher Ones Transcend it ...

The request to the learned readers is that this article touches the very existence of the human understanding therefore it sometime offends against the established beliefs and on other times it proposes new intellectual horizons. The subject matter of this article is a bit difficult, scientific and philosophical therefore a patience is humbly requested for.

When the science broke a particle a new sub-particle level was found. It was, therefore inferred that one day as the technology provides a suitable gadget the ultimate sub-level will be discovered and thereafter the sciences will reach their summit. This optimism of people about the ultimate reality through the scientific methods made them develop a psychological mental framework regarding the superiority of sciences, matter, objectivity, reason etc.

….

Then it came the twentieth century. A scientific revolution also came along with. Einstein, Heisenberg, Dirac, Plank, Bohr, Bose, Schrödinger and a lot more scientists joined the stride. Einstein told people that it was not the matter only but the energy was also equally important. Matter and energy were inter-convertible. When this all was on, Heisenberg put forward his revolutionary idea. He said that the position and velocity of a particle both cannot be ascertained simultaneously with the same precision. He gave a particular number that the imprecision would always be greater than that number. As per Prof. Dave MacCallum, November 20th, 2000 (Ref: http://iguanaworks.net/~bluey/MyWritings/f_philo-of-quantum-11-20-00.php ) later it was realized that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applied not only to the relationship between momentum and position, but between non-continuous observables. If the spin of a particle in the z direction is known, then the spin in the y direction cannot be known. This is equivalent to the probabilistic aspects of quantum mechanics demonstrated in the Stern-Gerlach measurements and in the Copenhagen interpretation of the wave-equation. These probabilistic results are quite disturbing for a belief in absolute truth.

…

These conclusions of Einstein attack the “Reality” in two ways. Firstly, as no action can move faster than light therefore the mankind is always constricted to have a very limited glance of the universe. They can not know the universe as it is “Now and Here”. If a space station receives a signal from a celestial body ten billion light years away then it means that they view that celestial body as it was ten billion years back and they have no means to know how it is now. Today’s picture would be available ten billion years henceforth. This is a mechanism in the nature itself that it has not allowed you to look it “all at once”.

…

There are two types of subatomic particles – fermions and bosons. Fermions have some characteristic values assigned to them (called their quantum numbers) while the bosons do not. No two bosons are distinguishable from each other. Are they all one – as per the Law of Identity? If not, is this some illusion? Scientists say that these bosons contribute more than the contribution of fermions in this universe. Then, for being violative of the Law of Identity, is this world a hallucination? Those who cite Aristotle even for curing a rotten tooth will not find a satisfying answer here. Leave them.

…

Now come to “reason”. (As per Wikipedia) The concept of reason is connected to the concept of language, as reflected in the meanings of the Greek word "logos", later to be translated by Latin "ratio" and then French "raison", from which the English word derived. As reason, rationality, and logic are all associated with the ability of the human mind to predict effects as based upon presumed causes, the word "reason" also denotes a ground or basis for a particular argument, and hence is used synonymously with the word "cause".

A few things about “Reason” should be made clear. “Reason” is associated to those things which are the past expereince. No reason can be addressed to some new situations. No body can reason the behaviour of a human body on a new planet. For that he needs to know the pressure, temperature, oxygen etc. over there and then he would relate those variables to his past experience as to how a varied composition of these variables affects a human body. No body can address a reason for a planet X having an atmosphere of gas Y and a temperature T and pressure P unless some pre-known values are given to these variables X, Y, T, P. You can not rely upon a reason until select to be revolving in a given periphery of already known situations.

What has been seen so far is that the logic is nothing but a linguistic game like a game of riddles and puzzles. Reason makes you revolve round in a given periphery and by its nature it is deaf for the unknown circumstances, may it be of unknown future or of unknown experience. It is useless there. The logic and the reason both follow the languages. They end where the languages cease to prevail. The languages are not natural. They are artificial. The logic and the reason stand even on a lowere padestal simply because they need that artificial language for their own life.

Only the science remains to explore new things. It reveals new aspects of the existence but not through the logic or the reason. It does so through the observation and the explorations. That is why sometime on a new discovery they do not have a diction-backup and use some ad-hoc words like Young’s modulus, Raman effect, Chandrashekhar limit or Hubble Telescope. The sciences do not follow languages. They follow the existence. But here again there is a problem, however of different kind.

For complete article click:

Mediocre Minds Plead Reason, Higher Ones Transcend it ...

http://www.psmalik.com/articlehub/41-i/86-m.html

Shreyas Malik

My Website is psmalik.com

My Blogs.

Posted via email from Pratap's posterous

Domestic Violence Act

Domestic Violence Act

– A Research

In a live society there are always conflicting interests. More live a society is more conflicting the relations amongst its members would be. The logic is simple. The society is going to attain a new destination and the positions of the members inter alia (amongst them) would also be redefined and future gains of the members would depend on their new positions. According to this logic each constituent of a society is always in a conflicting mode with others. This conflict is merely a conflict of interests and it does not mean an enmity.

Independent Indian society has witnessed a lot of similar conflicts of interests. One such area of conflicts has been the home of this society. The basic structure of the ‘Home’ has also seen a shift in its appearance. An Indian home was basically conceived on The Principle of Division of Labor.

Traditionally the husband was given a duty to provide the resources from outside and the wife was supposed to ‘Build a Home’ with those resources. It was a home in which the next generation was nurtured ‘Homely’ by the wife in the capacity of a mother. Husband, now father was to show torch to that ‘Next Generation’ after it had attained a particular level of maturity, which sometimes varied or on other times lost its very peculiarities.

With the spread of western education a new value system was inculcated in the Indian society. Women started coming out of the ‘Home’ and earning in equality with men. The age-old ‘Labor – Division’ of Indian Home was thwarted. It is not the objective here to count the merits or demerits of such a new value system but what it did, certainly it blurred the traditional roles of men and women in the society and also in the ‘Home’.

Now both men and women started working in the same sphere and with an axiom of political equality their relations were soon started being regulated under the shadow of State Authority i.e. the Law. Laws were legislated and implemented. Men alleged that these laws placed them at an adverse position while women claimed that they were socio-historically placed adversely in the traditional ‘Marriage System’ and the laws just tried to emancipate them from that adversity.

For a complete study click:

Domestic Violence Act – A Research

http://www.psmalik.com/a-research-on-dva.html

My website: http://www.psmalik.com/

My Blogs: http://www.psmalik.com/bl.html 

Blogs on Wordpress: http://www.psmalik.com/wpblogs

This Article: http://www.psmalik.com/a-research-on-dva.html

Shreyas Malik

My Website is psmalik.com

My Blogs are at Blogs

My other Website is searchingone.com

Posted via email from Pratap's posterous

PS Malik speaks on: Mediocre Minds Plead Reason, Higher Ones Transcend it ...

The request to the learned readers is that this article touches the very existence of the human understanding therefore it sometime offends against the established beliefs and on other times it proposes new intellectual horizons. The subject matter of this article is a bit difficult, scientific and philosophical therefore a patience is humbly requested for.

When the science broke a particle a new sub-particle level was found. It was, therefore inferred that one day as the technology provides a suitable gadget the ultimate sub-level will be discovered and thereafter the sciences will reach their summit. This optimism of people about the ultimate reality through the scientific methods made them develop a psychological mental framework regarding the superiority of sciences, matter, objectivity, reason etc.

….

Then it came the twentieth century. A scientific revolution also came along with. Einstein, Heisenberg, Dirac, Plank, Bohr, Bose, Schrödinger and a lot more scientists joined the stride. Einstein told people that it was not the matter only but the energy was also equally important. Matter and energy were inter-convertible. When this all was on, Heisenberg put forward his revolutionary idea. He said that the position and velocity of a particle both cannot be ascertained simultaneously with the same precision. He gave a particular number that the imprecision would always be greater than that number. As per Prof. Dave MacCallum, November 20th, 2000 (Ref: http://iguanaworks.net/~bluey/MyWritings/f_philo-of-quantum-11-20-00.php ) later it was realized that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applied not only to the relationship between momentum and position, but between non-continuous observables. If the spin of a particle in the z direction is known, then the spin in the y direction cannot be known. This is equivalent to the probabilistic aspects of quantum mechanics demonstrated in the Stern-Gerlach measurements and in the Copenhagen interpretation of the wave-equation. These probabilistic results are quite disturbing for a belief in absolute truth.

…

These conclusions of Einstein attack the “Reality” in two ways. Firstly, as no action can move faster than light therefore the mankind is always constricted to have a very limited glance of the universe. They can not know the universe as it is “Now and Here”. If a space station receives a signal from a celestial body ten billion light years away then it means that they view that celestial body as it was ten billion years back and they have no means to know how it is now. Today’s picture would be available ten billion years henceforth. This is a mechanism in the nature itself that it has not allowed you to look it “all at once”.

…

There are two types of subatomic particles – fermions and bosons. Fermions have some characteristic values assigned to them (called their quantum numbers) while the bosons do not. No two bosons are distinguishable from each other. Are they all one – as per the Law of Identity? If not, is this some illusion? Scientists say that these bosons contribute more than the contribution of fermions in this universe. Then, for being violative of the Law of Identity, is this world a hallucination? Those who cite Aristotle even for curing a rotten tooth will not find a satisfying answer here. Leave them.

…

Now come to “reason”. (As per Wikipedia) The concept of reason is connected to the concept of language, as reflected in the meanings of the Greek word "logos", later to be translated by Latin "ratio" and then French "raison", from which the English word derived. As reason, rationality, and logic are all associated with the ability of the human mind to predict effects as based upon presumed causes, the word "reason" also denotes a ground or basis for a particular argument, and hence is used synonymously with the word "cause".

A few things about “Reason” should be made clear. “Reason” is associated to those things which are the past expereince. No reason can be addressed to some new situations. No body can reason the behaviour of a human body on a new planet. For that he needs to know the pressure, temperature, oxygen etc. over there and then he would relate those variables to his past experience as to how a varied composition of these variables affects a human body. No body can address a reason for a planet X having an atmosphere of gas Y and a temperature T and pressure P unless some pre-known values are given to these variables X, Y, T, P. You can not rely upon a reason until select to be revolving in a given periphery of already known situations.

What has been seen so far is that the logic is nothing but a linguistic game like a game of riddles and puzzles. Reason makes you revolve round in a given periphery and by its nature it is deaf for the unknown circumstances, may it be of unknown future or of unknown experience. It is useless there. The logic and the reason both follow the languages. They end where the languages cease to prevail. The languages are not natural. They are artificial. The logic and the reason stand even on a lowere padestal simply because they need that artificial language for their own life.

Only the science remains to explore new things. It reveals new aspects of the existence but not through the logic or the reason. It does so through the observation and the explorations. That is why sometime on a new discovery they do not have a diction-backup and use some ad-hoc words like Young’s modulus, Raman effect, Chandrashekhar limit or Hubble Telescope. The sciences do not follow languages. They follow the existence. But here again there is a problem, however of different kind.

For complete article click:

Mediocre Minds Plead Reason, Higher Ones Transcend it ...

http://www.psmalik.com/articlehub/41-i/86-m.html

Shreyas Malik

My Website is psmalik.com

My Blogs are at Blogs

My other Website is searchingone.com

Posted via email from Pratap's posterous

A Research on Domestic Violence Act

A Research on Domestic Violence Act  

In a live society there are always conflicting interests. More live a society is more conflicting the relations amongst its members would be. The logic is simple. The society is going to attain a new destination and the positions of the members inter alia (amongst them) would also be redefined and future gains of the members would depend on their new positions. According to this logic each constituent of a society is always in a conflicting mode with others. This conflict is merely a conflict of interests and it does not mean an enmity.

Independent Indian society has witnessed a lot of similar conflicts of interests. One such area of conflicts has been the home of this society. The basic structure of the ‘Home’ has also seen a shift in its appearance. An Indian home was basically conceived on The Principle of Division of Labor.

Traditionally the husband was given a duty to provide the resources from outside and the wife was supposed to ‘Build a Home’ with those resources. It was a home in which the next generation was nurtured ‘Homely’ by the wife in the capacity of a mother. Husband, now father was to show torch to that ‘Next Generation’ after it had attained a particular level of maturity, which sometimes varied or on other times lost its very peculiarities.

With the spread of western education a new value system was inculcated in the Indian society. Women started coming out of the ‘Home’ and earning in equality with men. The age-old ‘Labor – Division’ of Indian Home was thwarted. It is not the objective here to count the merits or demerits of such a new value system but what it did, certainly it blurred the traditional roles of men and women in the society and also in the ‘Home’.

Now both men and women started working in the same sphere and with an axiom of political equality their relations were soon started being regulated under the shadow of State Authority i.e. the Law. Laws were legislated and implemented. Men alleged that these laws placed them at an adverse position while women claimed that they were socio-historically placed adversely in the traditional ‘Marriage System’ and the laws just tried to emancipate them from that adversity.

And the debates went on. They still keep going on. One side leads one argument and the other not only counters it but further leads a more weighty argument.

To resolve a dispute, the best way is to involve all those who are affected by that dispute. As without their affirmative involvement and contribution it will always be difficult to approach a solution suitable to everyone’s need and expectations. That’s why this research was conceived about Women in general, contend that they have been adversely placed in socio-historic set up and now they need special legal protection to come to level of equality with men. On the other hand men say that if women argue for an equal status then they should not be equipped with “Legal Biases” against men. They contend that they are being plundered in a “Legal Disguise”.

For complete details please visit

http://www.psmalik.com/a-research-on-dva.html

Please express your views by answering the questionnaires

http://www.psmalik.com/its-questionnaires.html

My website:       http://www.psmalik.com/

My Blogs:            http://www.psmalik.com/bl.html

Shreyas Malik

My Website is psmalik.com

My Blogs.

Posted via email from Pratap's posterous

PS Malik speaks on: WHO AM I?

Who am I?

The question "Who are you?" is one of those fundamental questions that is intimidating and almost unanswerable. It can mean so many different things, depending upon the desire of the person asking. Thus the questioner might be asking:

Please place yourself in the structured schema that I use to describe society and the world around me. In other words, give me a series of tags that I can use to categorize you.

 The answer to such a demand needs must depend upon the categories and tags that the questioner recognizes. Fortunately there are a large series of such tags that are commonly and conventionally recognized. Thus the categories of nationality, ethnic origin, gender, occupation, income, place of residence, marital status, hobbies and interests, religion, and political affiliation.

An answer in terms of these tags often suffices to satisfy the questioner because we all of us carry with mental schemas, lists of default assumptions about persons bearing said tags. This is a practical necessity - we cannot know everyone in intimate detail. These assumptions are only defaults; each individual holds its individuality. He is unique.

This form of the question is more of a "What are you?" than a "Who are you?" - that is, it reduces the person to a list of attributes.

I

 

There is another meaning that the question might take. It may be asked

... "Who are you?"

You are likely to utter, “I am Ramesh from London.”

"And if you weren't not of London, would you still be Ramesh?" may be the next question.

“Of course…  I ..." Ramesh might have replied.

"And if you were not Ramesh?" the question is likely to be continued "Would you still be you? If you were crippled, or old - if you became a leper, or lost your manhood - who would you be then?"

"I don't know -"

"You know."

An irony in this passage is that Ramesh, at that point, is traveling under a false identity.

The questionnaire presumes one of the great answers to the question of identity, which is that we have an inner essence which defines our self, the various attributes being trappings like the clothes we wear.

 

For the complete article please visit:

Who am I?

http://www.psmalik.com/article-hub/73.html

My website:        http://www.psmalik.com/

My Blogs:  http://www.psmalik.com/bl.html

PS Malik speaks on: WHO AM I?

Shreyas Malik

My Website is psmalik.com

My Blogs are at Blogs

My other Website is searchingone.com

Posted via email from Pratap's posterous

PS Malik speaks on: Who is the Biggest - Me, My Mind or My God?

Who is the biggest Me, My Mind or My God?

This is a question you generally ask. You want to know the hierarchy; you want to know your position in the hierarchy so that you become satisfied. Others also ask it. They ask because they are not satisfied with what they know about it. They want to remove their dissatisfaction. They are dissatisfied with them and their information about their place. They have disturbance in them; in their minds. They invoke God just to inflate their status. God is merely an excuse. They want to give credence to their disturbance. They want either to repel the inconvenient part of their knowledge or they want a support to the convenient portion of their fumbling knowledge. But they want to know.

A good number of you claim that they know that they are an atman – a soul. They know that there is a God. They know that the God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. They learnt doctrines. On any availability of a chance you can speak a lot about you, your atman, your mind and your God. More learned you are more equipped you are to tell about you, your atman, your God and other related things and ideas.

On the other hand some of you know that you are a physical body; well proportionate mixture of chemicals which in their particular proportion create a sensation of self perception. You know hundreds of books on this aspect and further thousands of articles telling about the cosmological theories of celestial bodies. You claim to know the permutation of the celestial bodies, gravitational pull among them, conversion of celestial dust into white dwarf stars or the supernova via the state of being a star. You have theories in support of each of your arguments.

There are some others amongst you who are well indoctrinated about amino acids, developmental chronology of organic process on the planet earth, chromosomes, genes and a scores of concepts which were written by their predecessor colleagues in library books.

You know yourself either as a spirit i.e. atman or you know yourself as a physical body. Some of you might be knowing yourself as a combination of both of the atman and the body. Some others of you would be knowing yourself as a psychosomatic entity. Still some more among are possible who would be knowing yourself in some other ways, other permutations or combinations. Whatever form of yourself you know is an information based knowledge; a knowledge of yourself. You have a knowledge of yourself as you have the knowledge of parks in your locality, as you have the knowledge of rivers in a particular state or the knowledge of human skeleton as given in the books of biology. Your this knowledge flows from the information you receive. You know a fact on the basis of an information as it is made available to you. Please take notice that you know these facts of information as these are made available to you. You have not generated this knowledge. You have merely received an information from those to whom you appreciate and respect for their knowledge. But their knowledge is again a bundle of informations as it was yours. The only difference is the number of sticks in that bundle; the number of informations in that knowledge.

For complete article please visit:

Who is the biggest Me, My Mind or My God?

http://www.psmalik.com/articlehub/41-i/75-w.html

My Website:        http://www.psmalik.com/ 

My Blogs: http://www.psmalik.com/bl.html

PS Malik speaks on: Who is the Biggest – Me, My Mind or My God?

Shreyas Malik

My Website is psmalik.com

My Blogs are at Blogs

My other Website is searchingone.com

Posted via email from Pratap's posterous

PS Malik speaks on: Sex and Meditation are two alternative ways to begin with .

Sex and Meditation are two alternative ways to begin with …

People come and ask me if sex is a taboo to attain awakening. And I always explain them that awakening and sex are two different stages. Awakening is a state of existence and sex may be used as a means to attain that state of existence. Sex is like a jungle. It allures people with its flowers; its fragrances; its fruits. But it offers a risk also. The risk of being lost inside it is there; and hence, mostly people have a fear of being lost in this jungle of flowers, fragrances and fruits. I ask my pupil that the journey for bliss cannot start with a fear. You start it with fearlessness. Do not be scared of sex. It is not scary. It is merely alluring; alluring to take you astray so long as you are not aware of the sex itself.

 

The basis of all sins is your ignorance. You are ignorant of sex and you have made it a sin; a taboo. You are ignorant of awakening and you have made it a ritual; a penance. You are ignorant of meditation and you have made it a mystical practice; an esoteric formula. When you enter meditation; when you start entering it you find that it was not so complicated as it was described by the experts.

Experts always make the things incomprehensible. They put simple things with such a great extensions of “ifs” and “buts” that a common person cannot understand it. The same has happened to both of the sex and the meditation. Both are very simple but Pundits have made them burdensome.

Sex is one of the natural tendencies of the body. Restraining it is unnatural. There are those who say avoid sex. They teach their lesson plans to people and the people find it difficult. On the other hand are those who preach to enjoy it like an animal. They induce you to the limits of pornographic domain to earn their monetary benefits. A common man finds himself in a fix. The first approach restrains you of your natural requirements and the second one drains you of your money, your self and the all.

I have shown my children, my pupils that a third option is also there. Both of the aforesaid groups mislead you only because of your ignorance. My point is – Just Be Awakened. Stop sleeping in a sleep of ignorance. Gurus, professionals, pornographers could mislead you only because you were not awakened – neither about the sex nor about the meditation.

For complete article please visit:

Sex and Meditation are two alternative ways to begin with …

http://www.psmalik.com/article-hub/105.html

My Website:        http://www.psmalik.com/

My Blogs: http://www.psmalik.com/bl.html    

Shreyas Malik

My Website is psmalik.com

My Blogs are at Blogs

My other Website is searchingone.com

Posted via email from Pratap's posterous

PS Malik speaks on: Who is the Biggest - Me, My Mind or My God?

Who is the biggest Me, My Mind or My God?

This is a question you generally ask. You want to know the hierarchy; you want to know your position in the hierarchy so that you become satisfied. Others also ask it. They ask because they are not satisfied with what they know about it. They want to remove their dissatisfaction. They are dissatisfied with them and their information about their place. They have disturbance in them; in their minds. They invoke God just to inflate their status. God is merely an excuse. They want to give credence to their disturbance. They want either to repel the inconvenient part of their knowledge or they want a support to the convenient portion of their fumbling knowledge. But they want to know.

A good number of you claim that they know that they are an atman – a soul. They know that there is a God. They know that the God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. They learnt doctrines. On any availability of a chance you can speak a lot about you, your atman, your mind and your God. More learned you are more equipped you are to tell about you, your atman, your God and other related things and ideas.

On the other hand some of you know that you are a physical body; well proportionate mixture of chemicals which in their particular proportion create a sensation of self perception. You know hundreds of books on this aspect and further thousands of articles telling about the cosmological theories of celestial bodies. You claim to know the permutation of the celestial bodies, gravitational pull among them, conversion of celestial dust into white dwarf stars or the supernova via the state of being a star. You have theories in support of each of your arguments.

There are some others amongst you who are well indoctrinated about amino acids, developmental chronology of organic process on the planet earth, chromosomes, genes and a scores of concepts which were written by their predecessor colleagues in library books.

You know yourself either as a spirit i.e. atman or you know yourself as a physical body. Some of you might be knowing yourself as a combination of both of the atman and the body. Some others of you would be knowing yourself as a psychosomatic entity. Still some more among are possible who would be knowing yourself in some other ways, other permutations or combinations. Whatever form of yourself you know is an information based knowledge; a knowledge of yourself. You have a knowledge of yourself as you have the knowledge of parks in your locality, as you have the knowledge of rivers in a particular state or the knowledge of human skeleton as given in the books of biology. Your this knowledge flows from the information you receive. You know a fact on the basis of an information as it is made available to you. Please take notice that you know these facts of information as these are made available to you. You have not generated this knowledge. You have merely received an information from those to whom you appreciate and respect for their knowledge. But their knowledge is again a bundle of informations as it was yours. The only difference is the number of sticks in that bundle; the number of informations in that knowledge.

For complete article please visit:

Who is the biggest Me, My Mind or My God?

http://www.psmalik.com/articlehub/41-i/75-w.html

My Website:        http://www.psmalik.com/ 

My Blogs: http://www.psmalik.com/bl.html

PS Malik speaks on: Who is the Biggest – Me, My Mind or My God?

Shreyas Malik

My Website is psmalik.com

My Blogs are at Blogs

My other Website is searchingone.com

Posted via email from Pratap's posterous

PORTRAIT OF PS MALIK

PORTRAIT OF PS MALIK

PS Malik

http://www.psmalik.com/ is a website dedicated to a personality PS Malik. A thinker, a philosopher, a psychologist, a lawyer, a scientist, a mathematician, a writer, a poet, a tantric, a ritual – performer, an astrologer or an IT expert – you may call him by the name you choose and you would not be disappointed once you finish your meeting with him. As I found him PS Malik is a perpetuity. He is there in a way that he is not there.

The existence of PS Malik can be best defined by saying that he does not exist. PS Malik is a witnessing. He is not even a witness. May be, that this way of description of a personality is a bit complicated but isn’t it a bit complicated to describe the special theory of relativity, isn’t it a bit complicated to describe the Aðwait philosophy of Veðanta, isn’t it a bit complicated to perform Tantra at night after a day long spell of arguments in Courts. I think I am on a right track of describing PS Malik.

But PS Malik is not as stale and boring as goes my description of him. I may portray his sketch in his poem here:

आशीष छुअन सा कोमल नेह का प्यारा गीत लगे

सुबह चमकती दूब की कोंपल, दोपहरी की छाँव लगे

सिर रखने को काँधा है वो दिल टिकने की ठाँव लगे

स्मित आभा राभा नाभा सबको न्यारा मीत लगे

Once I requested him to tell me how he could appear so perfect and perfected on each occasion. PS Malik simply smiled and whispered:

My daily activities are not unusual, 

I'm just in harmony with them. 

Grasping nothing, discarding nothing, 

In every place there is no hindrance, no conflict . . .

I have requested PS Malik to write the basic pages of this website including About Me, My Perception, Cosmologically, The Existence and the CrossRoads. The remaining pages are written by our group but even those pages have a long shadow of various shades of PS Malik. There are some other areas where we have borrowed something from his resource personality.

Let us begin …

The website:       http://www.psmalik.com/

The Blogs:          http://www.psmalik.com/bl.html

All Articles:          http://www.psmalik.com/articlehub.html

Shreyas Malik

My Website is psmalik.com

My Blogs are at Blogs

My other Website is searchingone.com

Posted via email from Pratap's posterous

PORTRAIT OF PS MALIK

PORTRAIT OF PS MALIK

PS Malik

http://www.psmalik.com/ is a website dedicated to a personality PS Malik. A thinker, a philosopher, a psychologist, a lawyer, a scientist, a mathematician, a writer, a poet, a tantric, a ritual – performer, an astrologer or an IT expert – you may call him by the name you choose and you would not be disappointed once you finish your meeting with him. As I found him PS Malik is a perpetuity. He is there in a way that he is not there.

The existence of PS Malik can be best defined by saying that he does not exist. PS Malik is a witnessing. He is not even a witness. May be, that this way of description of a personality is a bit complicated but isn’t it a bit complicated to describe the special theory of relativity, isn’t it a bit complicated to describe the Aðwait philosophy of Veðanta, isn’t it a bit complicated to perform Tantra at night after a day long spell of arguments in Courts. I think I am on a right track of describing PS Malik.

But PS Malik is not as stale and boring as goes my description of him. I may portray his sketch in his poem here:

आशीष छुअन सा कोमल नेह का प्यारा गीत लगे

सुबह चमकती दूब की कोंपल, दोपहरी की छाँव लगे

सिर रखने को काँधा है वो दिल टिकने की ठाँव लगे

स्मित आभा राभा नाभा सबको न्यारा मीत लगे

Once I requested him to tell me how he could appear so perfect and perfected on each occasion. PS Malik simply smiled and whispered:

My daily activities are not unusual, 

I'm just in harmony with them. 

Grasping nothing, discarding nothing, 

In every place there is no hindrance, no conflict . . .

I have requested PS Malik to write the basic pages of this website including About Me, My Perception, Cosmologically, The Existence and the CrossRoads. The remaining pages are written by our group but even those pages have a long shadow of various shades of PS Malik. There are some other areas where we have borrowed something from his resource personality.

Let us begin …

The website:       http://www.psmalik.com/

The Blogs:          http://www.psmalik.com/bl.html

All Articles:          http://www.psmalik.com/articlehub.html

Shreyas Malik

My Website is psmalik.com

My Blogs are at Blogs

My other Website is searchingone.com

Posted via email from Pratap's posterous

PS Malik speaks on: Tips to make female workers more efficient!

Tips to make female workers more efficient!

 

They are known for gossiping in the office and spend a lot of time in the loo, but when it comes to getting work from the female employees, a lot has to be kept in mind.

 

1.           Pick young, married women. They are more responsible, less flirtatious, need the work and still have the pep and interest to work hard and deal with the public efficiently.

2.           Where you have to use older women, try to get ones who have worked outside the home. Women who have never contacted the public are inclined to be fussy and cantankerous. It's always well to impress upon them the importance of friendliness and courtesy.

3.           Experience indicates that "husky" girls – just a little on the heavy side – are more even-tempered and efficient.

4.           Retain a physician to give each woman you hire a special physical examination, covering female conditions. This protects against lawsuits and reveals any weaknesses that would make her mentally or physically unfit for the job. 

For the complete article visit:

Tips to make female workers more efficient!

http://www.psmalik.com/bl/55-lm/112-tips.html

Shreyas Malik

My Website is psmalik.com

My Blogs.

Posted via email from Pratap's posterous

PS Malik speaks on: Dealing With Your Ex Partner

Dealing With Your Ex Partner

One of the most difficult parts of overcoming relationship breakups is to just get through the day. Even the simplest chores can seem to be impossible to do. Your body systems are stressed from the emotional overload and you may seem to have no energy at all. You find yourself wondering if this will ever end.

Life is not over, far from it. The pain you feel right now won't last forever, but it may take longer to get through it than you'd like to. If you take it slowly, one day at a time, overcoming a relationship breakup will be easier. With time, the pain will ease up and you will find yourself a little stronger, hopefully a bit wiser, and better prepared to face the future. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, right?

Have you just gone through a break up and wondering how to get your Ex back? Most people who have gone through a break up work on moving on from the relationship but in many cases it is possible to work towards getting back with an Ex. If you are prepared to put in some work rather than play a victim role, it is possible to rekindle a relationship.

Relationship break ups happen for many reasons, it could be a single event or over time due to behaviours your Ex could not deal with any longer. Taking some time to examine where the relationship started to go wrong helps you to discover how to deal with the specific incidents should they come up again. You can get your Ex back but you need to want to make the relationship work on a long term basis and to do that you need to understand what went wrong the first time around.

This period of introspection does not mean you should beat yourself up and get depressed. We cannot change the past but we can learn from mistakes we made during and use the knowledge to help reconcile a broken relationship.

You should also work on your self confidence and self esteem. After a relationship break up it is natural to feel you cannot live without the ex partner and spiral into negative behaviours and attitudes. If your Ex sees you as desperate or needy they likely will not be open to the possibility of renewing the relationship. Do not hide away from the world, go out, socialize and network. By appearing confident and able to cope on your own you will have a better chance of getting back together with your Ex.

Dealing With Your Ex Partner

Shreyas Malik

My Website is psmalik.com

My Blogs are at Blogs

My other Website is searchingone.com

Posted via email from Pratap's posterous

PS Malik speaks on: Male needs Polygyny, Man finds Monogamy II (Solution Part)

Male needs Polygyny, Man finds Monogamy II (Solution Part)

This article is the sequel of

Male Needs Polygyny, Man Finds Monogamy I (Problem Part)

It has been seen through researches [(Jennions, M. D. & Petrie, M. (2000) Biol. Rev. 75, 21–64) and (KATHARINA FOERSTER, KASPAR DELHEY, ARILD JOHNSEN, JAN T. LIFJELD & BART KEMPENAERS http://www.nature.com/nature/links/031016/031016-9.html)] that Polygyny is a default mating system for all primates including humans. Due to cultural development the males and females in human society agreed to abdicate a part of their individual rights. Females wanted a partner who was willing to share the parenting responsibilities. The male on the other hand wanted a dedicated female who was available to him as per wish and who could guarantee the loyalty and the paternity of her offspring.

This agreement was for the convenience of both the males and the females. But it could not change the males Biologically. It could not change them from what they were created by the raw nature. Otherwise also the forced values are never sufficient to curb the basic instincts (see Spirituality is not the Morality).

In the lower form of life or the primitive societies a male had to dance before a female. Subsequently the male started showing body traits like moustache, strong muscles or valiant behaviors.  But in all these traits there was a possibility of serious injuries and fatal incidents. Intellectually developed male replaced all the show of might to a show of wealth. Now in the civilized world the most sophisticated method of attracting female’s attraction is the show of wealth by the males.

A kings or wealthy individual may marry many wives because of his high status in society and his ability to maintain multiple wives and their needs. This system is evident in Arab cultures where men have the right to marry multiple women but only the wealthy ones have many wives. The Chinese also allow multiple marriages among their nobility. These harems are guarded and protected not by the head husband personally but through some castrated men that have been hired for this very purpose. The alpha male cannot take a risk of having his wives impregnated by other men. In any such incidents the penalty inflicted is the most severe for an offender.

For complete article please visit:

Male needs Polygyny, Man finds Monogamy II (Solution Part)

http://www.psmalik.com/articlehub/41-i/141-mii.html

Shreyas Malik

My Website is psmalik.com

My Blogs are at Blogs

My other Website is searchingone.com

Posted via email from Pratap's posterous