--- In [email protected], "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@...> wrote: > > How do you know what someone in CC, GC, or UC perceives, or doesn't?
Same way I know what anyone does, by what they express. > Seems like you, Curtis and Vaj enjoy wasting your time speculating about self > realization, without any attempt to accomplish it yourselves. I am self realized. > > You come across like flat earthers, afraid to complete the journey which will > radically alter your perspectives forever, content to stay where you are, > limited view and all. I think my presence on this board offering my own POV while interacting with others disproves that. > > As a result, of course you are complaining and whining all the time.> That is just bullshit. My POV on Maharishi and the limits of his system is no more whining than his own expressions of his beliefs. Or yours. Or are you whining about me here? < Of course you mostly discuss your failures wrt self realization here.> As I said, I am self realized and my posts here reflect that. < Of course you project your lack of progress and cynicism on the departed Maharishi and others here. I don't think there is a greater hell a moral person could put themselves through than to attempt self realization and then try to give up on it. > How about understanding it in a different way than the way offered by a man you no longer respect as an authority in human life. You know like what happens when some people grow up and re-think their youthful perspectives, even if it leads to a non flat earth revelation that their Guru was not the expert he claimed so you had to figure out life on your own. > > Once the possibility for self realization is discovered it becomes a need > second only to food, sleep and shelter. If denied, it causes a lot of misery, > which an ignorant person sees all around them, instead of tracing it back to > its source. "The world is as you are". I don't know from misery and ignorance, my life is full of happiness and growing knowledge. You might want to check your projection meter on this evaluation. > > --- In [email protected], turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Although I'm not terribly interested in this discussion, > > I'm interested in how Lawson deals with your simple > > question below, "How would you know?" Seems to me he's > > just stating ideas in pronouncements, the same way they > > were stated to him, without any more rational filtering > > or analysis being performed on the output of those ideas > > to you than was performed on the input of them to him. :-) > > > > Same thing with Robert, in his recent post that I took > > issue with. Parroting pronouncements, not only as if they > > constituted some sort of Truth, but as if the parroting > > of them should cause the other party to STFU. Same with > > posts claiming that someone could "know" things fersure, > > based solely on one's own subjective experience. I don't > > buy that whether the person claiming to "know" claims to > > be unenlightened or enlightened; it's still the same > > subjective experience and opinion as far as I can tell, > > claiming to be something other than subjective experience > > and opinion. I really get the feeling that "speaking in > > pronouncements" like this is an attempt to get others to > > STFU and just accept the stuff being parroted to them as > > some kind of thought-stopper "Truth," just as the parrots > > accepted it when it was parroted to them. > > > > --- In [email protected], "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > I think I would say "yes & yes". Between asterix (asterixes?), > > > > > 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". > > > > > > > > human consciousness is the product of the human brain's functioning. > > > > > > > > Sheesh. Is it really this hard to grasp? > > > > > > For me, yes. > > > > > > > He's talking about humans and their spiritual experiences as humans. > > > > > > > > An angel's consciousness is the result of the [whatever the equivalent > > > > of an angel's brain]'s functioning. You can't have a localized (whether > > > > it is in time or space or both) observer without some kind of > > > > associated structure (nervous system). > > > > > > If that's true (how would you know?), it does not follow > > > that the system is the product of the structure. > > > > > > If X is a necessary condition for Y, it does not follow (from > > > just that) that Y is a product of X (or, as materialists might > > > say, "Y is nothing but X"). For example, some structure in the > > > form of buildings is necessary for a university, but of course > > > the statement "the university IS a product of the buildings, or > > > can be reduced to the set of buildings that comprise it" is > > > false. > > > > > > I am thinking MMY is a "for every university there exists > > > some associated physical structure" kind of guy. But he's > > > not an "and that's ALL the university IS" kind of guy. > > > > > > If in the above you talk about brains and consciousness, > > > then, Curtis say, IS an "and that's all it is" kind of guy > > > (I think! Sorry Curtis if I'm getting you wrong). > > > > > >
