--- In [email protected], "PaliGap" <compost1uk@...> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Yifu" <yifuxero@> wrote: > > > > > > > > thx, on his stmt that everything is physical, consciousness > > > > is a product of brain functioning, etc; > > > > > > You think that's what it says? (The statement from MMY below). > > > > That *is* what it says, almost verbatim. Look again (between > > the added asterisks): > > > > > > > "Every experience has its level of physiology, and so unbounded > > > > > awareness has its own level of physiology which can be measured. > > > > > Every aspect of life is integrated and connected with every other > > > > > phase. When we talk of scientific measurements, it does not take away > > > > > from the spiritual experience. We are not responsible for those times > > > > > when spiritual experience was thought of as metaphysical. > > > > > ***Everything is physical. Consciousness is the product of the > > > > > functioning of the brain.*** Talking of scientific measurements is no > > > > > damage to that wholeness of life which is present everywhere and > > > > > which begins to be lived when the physiology is taking on a > > > > > particular form. This is our understanding about spirituality: it is > > > > > not on the level of faith --it is on the level of blood and bone and > > > > > flesh and activity. It is measurable." > > > > > Isn't it more accurately summarized as "everything has a physical > > > level, consciousness is correlated with brain functioning"? > > > Metaphysically that's a big difference. > > > > Correlation does not imply causation. But he was explicit > > that consciousness is caused by ("is the product of") brain > > functioning. And "is physical" is not the same as "has a > > physical level." > > > > He may have "really meant" something more like your summary, > > but that just ain't what he actually said in that statement. > > I suspect, in light of the rest of his teaching, that he > > inadvertently overstated his point in the two sentences > > between the asterisks. But you can't say Yifu *misread* what > > he wrote. > > I think I would say "yes & yes". Between asterix (asterixes?)
Singular: asterisk. Plural: asterisks. (From the Greek *aster-iskos*, "little star.") > true that. But I think those words are not expressing properly > his position as (fairly consistently) expressed elsewhere. MMY > was not a reductionist/materialist as would seem to be implied > by "consciousness is the product of brain functioning". Yeah, exactly. If individual brains produce individual consciousnesses, you have to do some fairly elaborate acrobatics to speak of Consciousness. MMY was definitely an Idealist (matter is emergent from consciousness) rather than a Materialist (vice-versa). I think the only wiggle room is in "Every aspect of life is integrated and connected with every other phase," which you might interpret as a way of invoking rishi-devata- chhandas, or Knower/process of knowing/that which is known, in which no member of the trio exists or acts independent of the others--meaning that no object of knowledge exists on its own; it exists because it is known by the Knower.
