fabulous post Whynot, i wasn't following this thread neither but happened to read this of yours. Reads a lot like Krishna on that battlefield with that spiritually depressed Arjuna guy. Same advice that rings true while tightly said. Thanks for taking the moment to write it and again point the way. -Buck
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@...> wrote: > > How do you know what someone in CC, GC, or UC perceives, or doesn't? > Seems like you, Curtis and Vaj enjoy wasting your time speculating about self > realization, without any attempt to accomplish it yourselves. > > You come across like flat earthers, afraid to complete the journey which will > radically alter your perspectives forever, content to stay where you are, > limited view and all. > > As a result, of course you are complaining and whining all the time. Of > course you mostly discuss your failures wrt self realization here. Of course > you project your lack of progress and cynicism on the departed Maharishi and > others here. I don't think there is a greater hell a moral person could put > themselves through than to attempt self realization and then try to give up > on it. > > Once the possibility for self realization is discovered it becomes a need > second only to food, sleep and shelter. If denied, it causes a lot of misery, > which an ignorant person sees all around them, instead of tracing it back to > its source. "The world is as you are". > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Although I'm not terribly interested in this discussion, > > I'm interested in how Lawson deals with your simple > > question below, "How would you know?" Seems to me he's > > just stating ideas in pronouncements, the same way they > > were stated to him, without any more rational filtering > > or analysis being performed on the output of those ideas > > to you than was performed on the input of them to him. :-) > > > > Same thing with Robert, in his recent post that I took > > issue with. Parroting pronouncements, not only as if they > > constituted some sort of Truth, but as if the parroting > > of them should cause the other party to STFU. Same with > > posts claiming that someone could "know" things fersure, > > based solely on one's own subjective experience. I don't > > buy that whether the person claiming to "know" claims to > > be unenlightened or enlightened; it's still the same > > subjective experience and opinion as far as I can tell, > > claiming to be something other than subjective experience > > and opinion. I really get the feeling that "speaking in > > pronouncements" like this is an attempt to get others to > > STFU and just accept the stuff being parroted to them as > > some kind of thought-stopper "Truth," just as the parrots > > accepted it when it was parroted to them. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > I think I would say "yes & yes". Between asterix (asterixes?), > > > > > true that. But I think those words are not expressing properly > > > > > his position as (fairly consistently) expressed elsewhere. MMY > > > > > was not a reductionist/materialist as would seem to be implied > > > > > by "consciousness is the product of brain functioning". > > > > > > > > human consciousness is the product of the human brain's functioning. > > > > > > > > Sheesh. Is it really this hard to grasp? > > > > > > For me, yes. > > > > > > > He's talking about humans and their spiritual experiences as humans. > > > > > > > > An angel's consciousness is the result of the [whatever the equivalent > > > > of an angel's brain]'s functioning. You can't have a localized (whether > > > > it is in time or space or both) observer without some kind of > > > > associated structure (nervous system). > > > > > > If that's true (how would you know?), it does not follow > > > that the system is the product of the structure. > > > > > > If X is a necessary condition for Y, it does not follow (from > > > just that) that Y is a product of X (or, as materialists might > > > say, "Y is nothing but X"). For example, some structure in the > > > form of buildings is necessary for a university, but of course > > > the statement "the university IS a product of the buildings, or > > > can be reduced to the set of buildings that comprise it" is > > > false. > > > > > > I am thinking MMY is a "for every university there exists > > > some associated physical structure" kind of guy. But he's > > > not an "and that's ALL the university IS" kind of guy. > > > > > > If in the above you talk about brains and consciousness, > > > then, Curtis say, IS an "and that's all it is" kind of guy > > > (I think! Sorry Curtis if I'm getting you wrong). > > > > > >
