--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula <chivukula.ravi@...> wrote: > > 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 <chivukula.ravi@...>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. > > *No, that is after unity. What does this have to do with Buddhism? Adyashanti left the Buddhist tradition; I was never a Buddhist, or a member of any other tradition. They pass me by.
On other matters, I am working on a poster of you Ravi. Nice portrait. Big letters in red: THIS MAN WANTS TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS. I'll send the first print run to Texas. > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius < > > anartaxius@...> 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 > >> philosophersââ¬"qualia are supposed to be incorrigible, ineffable, > >> private, > >> directly accessible and so on ââ¬" 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. > >> > >> > >> > > > > >
