>
> 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.
> >
Yup, is pitiable. "Some assembly needed, batteries not included, just add
discipline".
> > 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).
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
