Finnes 'mitt selv' - eller er det bare hva 'Væren i-seg' vil
ha 'meg' forvirret med -- eller heller 'Ikkenærværet OutOfITself'
sjøl ?

Ramme alvor, påståeligvis - er du i tvil over hvor sterk tvil
du må oppleve om selvet, kan du ikke ha studert dette alvorlig
nok - hvis du spør Harris SELV, grunnlegger av horridologien.

Følgelig er mange Harris-lesere blitt misfornøyde og opplever
dette som grunne greier, enten de tror eller tviler på objektivt
og annet farlig. Se hos Goodreads for vitneutsagn >

"see evidence of my displeasure by noting the deliberately
frequent use of "I" and "me" in this review: "I" being the very
one who read his book and subsequently wrote this text with
some passion. "I" am most certainly not an illusion, believe me.
(You, on the Other hand, are free to believe what you will
concerning your self.)
Of course, in this demotion of self and mind, Harris only
reiterates ancient well-known aspects of Buddhist mind set.
He does so here without adding anything new."

Så hva var det nye og altern-angeliske?

Spirituelle fornemmelser og bortenforskap, uten forpliktende
religiøs-konvensjonelle forståeligheter og forpliktelser?

Transkonseptuelt bliss, pur farmasi - no koans / cohens asked?

Nevrolog Harris begynte med Ecstasy bokstavfarmasøytisk - er
han tilbake ved rundreisestart > ? -- hva skal forresten et
fraværsbasert nervesystem med overmindfulle raptoide stemninger,
der selvet selv er eksorkert..

og enda, i den konseptvis konvensjonelt-åndelige underholdnings-
sektor har Forandringsvesenet forlengst massedøpt virksomhetene i
stemningskonsum, ikke så ufarmakisk stemningsrusende mindlessness.

Oldgammelt hedenpresteskap var grunnkonfesjonelt rusbasert, så
rundreisemotivet går nye runder?
Harris meldes å ligge mange år bak sine tidligere felttog..
er snart den gamle bistre, antigudelige agressiviteten faset ut?

..mens objektivitet uansett stilmønster ser ut til å være vårens
valg av favorittfiendtlig holdning ..
"Unlike H., who seems to think that an empty consciousness is man's
highest mental state, I still consider human thought to be (..)
not the very source of pain and suffering that Harris claims
in this deeply weird book."

_

Samme kilde ( M Dobbins ) lenker til ekspandert diskusjon: >

en gir plass til 1.0 rettpåsak rettvinklet Refselse :

So now, un-persuaded that I should really meditate for some
unclear reasons, lots of the remaining text got less interesting:
But that's not the worst. Harris - being a meditation fan -
can't really avoid fan-boying the "masters" of this trade.
Problem is that the "masters" do seem to be lacking.
Being an "enlightened" and ridiculously wise and 'good' person -
would it be too much to ask that you refrain from sexually
abusing your protégés? Or show a basic understanding of ...
the codes and ways of the society they where brought up in?

Do we really need Sam Harris acting apologist to a bunch of men
(always...) that are - by undisclosed standards -
above the rest of us, but that are -
in the cold light of reasoning - obviously as clueless
as most of us? .. that stinks in my opinion.

If meditation for some yet unproven reason is what an animal
brought forward by millions of years of evolution must do
to keep sane -
is there one piece of information that leads us to believe
that a Tibetan monk or an Indian outcast is the go-to
authority on the subject?