No Xeno - no alcohol, sex - no woman, not 72 virgins, no drug, no LSD can create the beauty and richness of inner life that Unity creates - you and Adyashanti are in a pseudo-Buddhist, delusional, no-self fantasy.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Ravi Chivukula <[email protected]>wrote: > Oh no Grandpa Xeno - this is so retarded, that "rich inner life" > disappears in Unity. > > This really nails it - you are one of the most dangerous, delusional > posters on FFL. Right now even Curtis's dishonesty and Barry's stunted- > ness is looking real beautiful, honest and authentic to me now. > > No you fucking retard, you delusional mother fucker - the world, the > objective reality looks real magical, mystical, beautiful,pristine, > innocent in Unity, green looks more greener, a richer green, red looks more > redder, a richer red - even an ugly woman looks beautiful. At least you > got one thing right - that it is a transitional state but it will drive you > wild, insane with its beauty. > > Xeno - OMG - you and Adyashanti are so stuck in your head with your > pseudo-Eastern, Buddhist concepts, Buddha has to be most retarded so-called > enlightened guy and Buddhism one of the most retarded religions, even Islam > looks charming to me compared to Buddhism. > > God - get a life Xeno, start your own Free Man series like Barry, talk > about love, relationships, your frustrations at stupid drivers on the road- > something to show you are an alive, authentic person. > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> ** >> >> >> CHALMERS: >> 'It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects >> of experience. But the question of how it is that >> these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. >> Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in >> visual and auditory information-processing, we have >> visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep >> blue, the sensation of middle C?... It is widely >> agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, >> but we have no good explanation of why and how it >> so arises. Why should physical processing give rise >> to a rich inner life at all?' >> ----- >> >> ----- >> WIKIPEDIA COMMENT: >> 'Chalmers argues that a "rich inner life" is not logically reducible to >> the functional properties of physical processes. He states that >> consciousness must be described using nonphysical means. This description >> involves a fundamental ingredient capable of clarifying phenomena that have >> not been explained using physical means. Use of this fundamental property, >> Chalmers argues, is necessary to explain certain functions of the world, >> much like other fundamental features, such as mass and time, explain >> significant principles in nature.' >> ----- >> >> What struck me about this paragraph in the wikipedia.org is I recalled a >> lecture by Adyashanti I attended in New York some time in the past couple >> of years. He was talking about pointers to various states of consciousness, >> and that each level in the progression of enlightenment becomes more >> difficult to point out to someone. For example what we call CC in the TM >> movement is pretty easy to point to because there is a strong contrast >> between relative and absolute, there is stuff going on outside, and inside >> is unbounded awareness. But unity is more difficult because there is no >> contrast. Then he said the 'inner life disappears', it just goes silent. >> And this is essentially impossible to point to, that is to describe and >> tell someone what the markers of the experience are. I am experiencing this >> somewhat, though the progression is hardly complete, but it is very >> definite as an experience. >> >> Now if we suppose this is what happens, and the 'rich inner life' of >> experience goes by the wayside, what does this mean in terms of the hard >> problem? I take it that experience, consciousness, and the 'qualia' are not >> a cause-effect relationship, that they are integral and rise together, they >> are never separate realms where one predicates the other in time or level. >> In other words, the bifurcation we make about consciousness and the world >> only experientially exists in those states of experience the movement >> describes as being between Sleeping, Dreaming, Waking and Brahman >> Consciousness. Meaning these are transitional states (TC, CC, GC, UC) which >> eventually die away in succession as various levels of mental illusion are >> stripped away, and then you end up where you began, but with the caveat >> that you are wiser in that you no longer or searching for something that is >> not there (metaphysical worlds and an individual soul or self). In other >> words 'Sleeping, Dreaming, Waking' = 'Brahman Consciousness'; the mandala >> is completely traversed. >> >> This is Guru Dev's doll of salt vanishing in the ocean, and Buddha's >> no-self: there is no self, no inner 'person' or even inner consciousness. >> There is 'consciousness' (as we all feel we are conscious), but it has no >> location or existence apart from anything as a separate something, so even >> saying there is something called consciousness might be misleading. It is >> not owned by anything. So are qualia the *rope and the snake delusion*, or >> are they real in some way? In the early stages of meditation, what we call >> consciousness is definitely an inner kind of experience. >> >> I do not have that experience any more. Does this mean I am just crazy? >> It is actually really interesting. It is definitely not disassociation, >> something some meditators feel after they start TM for a while. It is kind >> of like a homecoming that never really had to happen. Even before I was a >> meditator, there was this strange feeling that everywhere I went was the >> same place. Now this sense is very dominant but it no longer feels like it >> is happening to anything, it is just happening. >> >> This makes it seem more like Dennett's argument, but I have always had >> some difficulty trying to grasp what Dennett is trying to say, perhaps >> because Dennett has no sense of what spiritual practice is about; it is >> totally unreal for him the kind of things people on this forum have engaged >> in in the past, and some now also presently. >> >> Dennett claims is that qualia do not (and cannot) exist. 'Dennett's main >> argument is that the various properties attributed to qualia by >> philosophersâ€"qualia are supposed to be incorrigible, ineffable, private, >> directly accessible and so on â€" are incompatible, so the notion of qualia >> is incoherent. The non-existence of qualia would mean that there is no hard >> problem of consciousness, and "philosophical zombies", which are supposed >> to act like a human in every way while somehow lacking qualia, cannot >> exist. Dennett claims that our brains hold only a few salient details about >> the world, and that this is the only reason we are able to function at all. >> Thus, we don't store elaborate pictures in short-term memory, as this is >> not necessary and would consume valuable computing power. Rather, we log >> what has changed and assume the rest has stayed the same, with the result >> that we miss some details, as demonstrated in various experiments and >> illusions.' Dennett says we are 'p-zombies', that is, we are zombies like >> humans with consciousness, but without the added consciousness. >> >> By this I take it he means that consciousness as some added feature in >> the material world is a mistaken conception. If I understand his view, then >> it is impossible to discover there is such a thing as consciousness >> objectively. Subjectively, it is an illusion created by the mind's >> interpretation of experience. This idea does have some similarity with the >> Indian idea that the world is illusion, though it takes a point of view >> that *seems* diametrically opposite from spiritual systems in that it only >> allows materialism. This really does not make much difference to me, but I >> am sure the idea is abhorrent to many people involved in spiritual >> exercises directed toward 'enlightenment'. >> >> I take the statement 'the world is illusion' to mean the world that the >> mind represents verbally, representationally, is illusory, that is our >> mental understanding of the world is what is out of whack. The world is >> illusion, only Brahman is real, the world is Brahman. No escape. The >> subjective aspect, as understood in our minds, and the objective aspect as >> understood in our minds merge imperceptibly in experience, and the mind no >> longer can find a way to justify their separation, their separate >> identities. >> >> >> > >
