--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <richardhughes103@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 15, 2008, at 3:26 PM, John wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/skunk.htm > > > > >> > > > > >> Being the skunk at an atheist convention > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Very interesting article. Notwithstanding the possibilities he > > > has > > > > > offered in the essay, he may still be an atheist for the most > > > part. > > > > > For my take, it all comes down to what the vedic literature has > > > > > narrated. That is, in the phenomenal existence, there is the > > > good and > > > > > the bad, the devatas and the asuras, or the angels and the > > devils. > > > > > Whatever is from above, so is the condition here on earth. > > > > > > > > > > > > Get a grip dude. Most of what you've been lead to believe > > > is "Vedic > > > > literature" ain't really even "Vedic"--it's just that you were > > > > programmed by a Vedic Supremacist to believe that. Literature > > > dictated > > > > by the state of brain, nervous system and social development of > > > people > > > > thousands of years ago will have little application for modern > > > humans > > > > as they were written when the human race was (collectively) at a > > > > different state of development, no? > > > > > > > > > > As far as I can tell, human consciousness has not differed greatly > > > from those people who lived during the vedic ages, or the time of > > > Moses in the desert. IMHO, the human consciousness has always been > > > the same throughout the ages. > > > > I beg to differ, that consciousness has evolved along with > > everything else can't really be disputed. Originally I would > > have thought that we haven't changed much since we left Africa, > > then I read The Origin of Consciouness in the Breakdown of the > > Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes and the world changed, many > > things became clear that once were mysteries. > > > > And it is total nonsense, too.
Total nonsense? Just because it doesn't fit in with how YOU see the world as being? http://www.julianjaynes.org/myths-vs-facts.php If nothing else it's a fascinating idea and what is the point of having a mind if you aren't going to think about how it works. > A tiny bit of thought might reveal how silly the book's premise is: And that really is a tiny bit of thought. > TM is a natural technique found in all the world's religions and > spiritiual traditions Are you sure or are you just quoting the brochure at us? > and it *reduces* the mental chatter towards/to zero. > > At the same time, the EEG and brain imaging shows that the brain is becoming > more in-synch which is correlated with the less mentally active state, both > during and outside of meditation. Can't see what that has to do with bicameral consciousness. Most of the stuff on his site you have to pay for, but this is a good look at where he is coming from. http://www.julianjaynes.org/pdf/jaynes_consciousness-voices-mind.pdf > To ignore these facts and suggest that religious practices are all > about creating an "other" to talk to is beyond silly. > > It's just stupid. I think judging books you haven't read or understand is stupid. > Lawson >
