kRtaarthaM prati naSTam apy anaSTaM tad-anya-saadhaaraNatvaat! II 22
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula 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 <
> 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.
> >
> >
> >
>
