--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "dhamiltony2k5" <dhamiltony...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > >.By Ron Rosenbaum on Slate.com > > > > "There's a certain kind of mysteryunsolved and probably > > insolublethat has a seductive attraction for me. I think the > > insolubility is the attraction. > > I'm particularly troubled by metaphysical mysteries, the > > essential but oh-so-slippery mysteries of existence. Why is > > there something rather than nothing? What is the origin and > > nature of consciousness? What distinguishes living from > > nonliving being? > > > > I can't get past the idea that they may never be solved. And > > what's most irritating is when people seem unaware they have > > not been solved. Or when people who should know better proclaim > > there are no real mysteries left. Consider, for instance, the > > problem of the origin and nature of consciousness. " > > Oh son, more than another idea you just need deeper > experience for a better perspective.
Doug, I'm going to respond to this because even though you *might* have been parodying the TM TB Party Line by saying this, you also *might* have been either serious or partly serious. It's hard to tell with you. Why I'm replying is that you did in your reply *exactly* what I've been talking about -- you took a discussion about *ideas* and reduced it to a discussion about *people*. In Eleanor Roosevelt's terms, you took it from a discussion among great minds and tried to transform it into a discussion among small minds. First you portrayed the author's position as due to a lack of experience that, coincidentally, you and others who believe like you have had. At the same time you demeaned him by calling him "son," and then by saying outright that your position (the one you suggest he should adopt) is both "better" and "deeper." > Is way more than speculation. No, it's really not. You are speculating based on 1) your subjective experience, and 2) what you have been told that subjective experience "means." Neither is anything *more* than speculation. > Do you meditate? Have you had your meditation checked > recently? Sat with a Sat-guru any time? More demeaning. If he *hasn't* done these things, he's obviously lesser than you are. > May be go ask the knows-it-alls over on the experiential > list, buddha at the gas pump. They are a friendly bunch > and from some lay experience might help you towards the > experience you seek. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BuddhaAtTheGasPump/s Yeah, just do what we who are far more advanced and knowledgeable than you are tell you to do, and someday you will understand The Truth about conscious- ness the way we do. Doug, again it's difficult to tell whether you really believe this elitist crap you spout from time to time or are parodying it. Either way, someone needs to point out that it *is* elitist crap. No matter how much you'd like to believe it, your sub- jective experience of something does *not* make it true, let alone Truth. It's just a subjective experience. And when you have spent decades being indoctrinated with dogma telling you what such subjective experiences "mean," it's even less true. Dogma -- even dogma that seems to "explain" subjective experiences you've had -- doth NOT equal Truth. Never has, never will. At best believing that it does is a pleasant mind-number, something to keep you from pondering the great questions of life because you've convinced yourself that you already know "the answer" to them. At worst it's blind adherence to dogma, made even worse by the fact that those spouting dogma often don't even *know* that they are spouting -- and clinging to -- dogma. You're smart enough to know, and to handle being told if you don't.
