On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Xenophaneros Anartaxius < [email protected]> wrote:
> ** > > > --- In [email protected], 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. > What's after Unity - no inner life after Unity? It's the garbage that you spew - no inner life, no self garbage that is the Buddhist, pseudo-renunciation, pseudo-eastern, neo-advaita garbage. You guys don't even fucking know what Unity is - forget post-Unity. Are you in post-Unity now? Have you had an experience of Unity? What the fuck are you claiming besides your obvious intellectual masturbation? > > 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 > > >> 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. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
