what would recommend as a good list of books re Advaita?   I did find this list

Thanks

http://www.amazon.com/Top-20-books-on-Advaita/lm/RYMWQB12Z8DTI

--- In [email protected], Duveyoung <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Xeno,
> 
> I was expecting to be blown away by "discovered complexity I knew not of," 
> but strangely, the talk was "lite," and I, well, sue me, but I kinda felt 
> smugly sorry for Searle.  As wonderful as his "sermon" was, it seemed 
> strangely hollow -- not shallow -- but hollow.  It seemed absent the 
> "heartwood" core axioms of spirituality that can be found across cultures 
> throughout time.  I wanted to grab him by the shirt collar and say, "You need 
> to read some Advaita books."  And if he'd done so, THEN READ THEM AGAIN until 
> he grew the nervous system that could grok it.
> 
> The talk's heft was that it was "positively impacting on almost any 
> audience," but it lacked hard science examples that I thought would be coming 
> at me like Gatling bullets.  But nope.
> 
> The one thing he tried to ram home was that consciousness was purely a 
> physical phenomenon without any unexplainable or scientifically 
> non-approachable ugga-bugga.  And that definition of "consciousness" I AGREE 
> WITH FULLY.  
> 
> The biggest failure of the talk was that the concept of "the Witness" of 
> consciousness was not mentioned -- although perhaps alluded to briefly as he 
> batted aside the traditional POVs on consciousness.  
> 
> Advaita would definitely give him the intellectual tools with which to see if 
> "the Witness" could also be delineated such that it, too, might be sought in 
> experiments.  I think it could.  
> 
> But, of course, I'd want to WARN Searle that understanding Advaita was merely 
> and only a secondary goal -- like knowing a map -- and that "realization" 
> would come to him only if and when his ADDICTION to conceptual experiences 
> were ended -- and THEN the territory of that map would be revealed as the 
> only actuality beyond BOTH existence and non-existence.  
> 
> And that requires building a nervous system that knows how to dwell in "a 
> close to silence" state of biology  - a state that is so non-stimulating of 
> consciousness' "thought production clockworks" that identity could slip off 
> of it and be realized as, IDENTITY, the source of every form of 
> identification seen in the actions of consciousness.
> 
> And, yeah, I'd like to chide him a bit about being a scientist and prideful 
> that all of "THIS" can be grasped.  I guess he needs to read some Godel, too, 
> if only to show the limitations of logic.
> 
> To me, "the Witness" is to be but halfly measured when it's targeted as part 
> of the grand illusion, but in order to talk about it, one finds that 
> language, as if, forces the word to seem to refer to a full manifestation 
> instead of the now-you-see-it-now-you-don't hyperbolic entity that is but 
> "half" observed -- not unlike as today's science now looks an electron with 
> its two states -- wave/particle.  
> 
> I call the observable part of "the Witness," ego.  The unmanifest "part" I 
> call awareness, absolute, sentience, identity -- recognizing that all those 
> words are qualities and therefore, hee hee, an especial kind of ersatz 
> non-thing-a-ma-jigger
> 
> Science needs to humble itself and admit that the embodiment of "the Witness" 
> in materiality is one in which "the Witness" pokes its head above the "ritam 
> line" as much as "it" dwells below that line and "is" then beyond any of 
> science's instrumentality's metrics.  Good luck on that happening.
> 
> And, by the way, thanks for all your posts.  I always scan to see what you're 
> writing about, and have read your posts enough to know that if I do enter a 
> thread, your stuff is the get-to-the-heart-of-it stuff, so good on ya.
> 
> Edg  
> 
> 
> 
> --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > John Searle at CERN (TEDxTalks)
> > 
> > http://youtu.be/j_OPQgPIdKg
> > 
> > 
> > [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=j_OPQgPIdKg ]
> >
>


Reply via email to