So? Are you taking it literally card baby?
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:52 PM, card <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > > > > kRtaarthaM prati *naSTam* apy *anaSTaM *tad-anya-saadhaaraNatvaat! > > II 22 > > > --- In [email protected], 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 > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
