Marsha, calm down.
It was a logical conclusion, that if you do not recognise anyone as an enlightened sage, then that includes you. Dave asked you about enlightenment, and to answer his question, you'd have to be enlightened.
Sure, there are plenty of ways to define enlightenment. However, I think it's a waste of time to define it as anything else than an absolute and indubitable understanding applicable to the nature of the universe. I would call anyone who claims enlightenment but lacks this understanding an idiot, including myself, of course.
I reckon my opinions hold water.
Let's examine your reasoning then.
No, I do not think enlightenment is anything special. I think it is the consequence of cause and effect. I think it is the consequence of close introspection over years -- not minutes, in a fit of one fell swoop -- not philosophical love at first sight. Jesus put his pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us. Jesus had to eat. Jesus had to pee. Jesus died. Jesus made some big mistakes -- he trusted. He had great faith. He was a performer -- "dance, monkey boy, dance!" I feel great pity for Jesus because his image has been so besmirched, his own goddamned fault for being such a patsy for God.
So far you equate enlightenment with hard work, which hasn't come close.
I do not think enlightenment is ordained from God or from Buddha or David Quinn or Dan Rowden or Kevin Solway or Sue Hindmarsh. It is not the priesthood. There are not prerequistes that one must follow -- getting a pension, winning friends and influencing people. It is not the result of A = B. It is the result of A=A.
This is still on the level of the previous paragraph. You haven't gotten at the heart of the matter. A=A could have many results.
Having to work for a living does not connote love of wealth. I am not financially better off than one on the dole in Australia.
This has nothing to do with the topic.
Enlightenment is not a prize to be won. It is not a crown. It does not give one unearned authority.
Well, I don't see that you have earnt authority on enlightenment, from what you've written so far.
Enlightenment is the effect that is caused by deep introspective thought over a course of time. When I first came to Genius -- about eight years ago -- I was told that enlightenment is not something that can be had in a matter of days or months but something that takes years of work.
So enlightenment could be a moment of reflection, regardless of the content of that reflection. Cow ruminations.
I did not like that idea at the time. I thought I was pretty smart and sexy.
But I learned. I learned a lot over the past eight years. I learned that intelligence is not enough. I learned that sex has nothing to do with it. I learned that many will claim to be enlightened philosophically for reason of ego. I learned first hand about the destruction of ego. I learned what it means to have the self destroyed. That is something that is quite different from so called selflessness. It takes a huge ego to lay oneself down for others, in the fashion of the mythical Jesus. It takes nothing to learn to think without egotistical attachment -- nothing but blood and guts putting oneself on the block -- the killing ground; the minefield.
Admirable as this all sounds, you haven't touched on the essential matter of enlightenment. Without this, all the egotistical destruction is confusion.
I have taken many hits over the years but I have survived. I have not only survived but I yet have plenty to think and to say and to write.
I think it is swell that Kelly has taken a pension and fashioned herself in a masculine way -- even to the haircut.
Had I known, eight years ago, that all that it took to be entitled to enlightenment, I could have done that. I thought one needed to have a long beard and, due to hormonal problems, I could not pull that off. Never occurred to me that all I had to do was to shave my head.
Kelly is very intelligent and has a lot of potential. She is a good writer. She needs another six or seven years or more of work.
It's clear you really don't know. Focussing on superficial matters like this is an attempt to cover up your ignorance. I accept that you have been on the Genius Forum and list for many years, and have kept slugging away. But what's the point of doing that, and getting nowhere?
If i am to follow your program to become enlightened, then another six or seven years would be good advice. However, I think your advice is rubbish.
Am I enlightened?
Good heavens, why are you asking?
Well, in terms of having worked hard with results over several years, yes, I am enlightenend. Compared to the twenty or so years of work done by other philosophers, I have many years to go and much work to do.
According to this, everyone employed and salaried is enlightened!
I do not recognize a sage, just as I do not recognize kings or queens.
If you were enlightened, you'd recognise the truth instantly of a statement about the nature of Reality. This is what it means to recognise a sage, and is naturally dependent on being enlightened oneself.
With all humility, I do not believe or agree with the possibility that Kelly can dictate the worth -- according to whether or not I recognize any sages here or anywhere -- of my -- or anyone's -- reply to a question asked by another poster.
But you can, obviously.
When I wrote of the artificially colored carnation, I was not addressing enlightenment or death.
Femininity is the bitch that follows all of us to the grave.
Faizi
I think your post quite clearly shows that you're indignant at having spent so much time and effort in investigating philosophy without making much progress, such that you now think it's acceptable to claim enlightenment on these grounds.
What falsehood! Do you realise how many people you have misled? How many people will continue to burn in their self-made hells, because you told them enlightenment is just a matter of long, intense introspection?
Consider your own future lives - are they going to have to undergo the same blind effort, for years and years, without ever coming close to the Absolute? How disheartening that would be.
Kelly
