A MAN NEVER ARGUES WITH A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN - OH BUT I INSIST

[sky]

and i am now absolutely and for sure done

chirst said he would save me

buddha said i could save myself

and i find absolutely nothing here that

supercedes those truths

[Nick]

.

Here he is, Nick!

David: He's young, passionate and has an inkling of the world's bullshit. What more do you want? He may be a bit raw at the moment, but there is every chance that he will change and develop as time goes on.

not a dire assessment at all, I'd say :)

.

Probably, but I don't see how it's defending me. I see it more as an assessment of the dialogue on my part.

[Nick]

there is almost nothing about enlightenment here

and any idiot with any study of any spiritual discipline knows that enlightenment is that state beyond any duality[/color]

What's the point of talking about enlightenment? If you aren't enlightened, then you can't speak about it and expect to be taken seriously. I'd rather do something that serves a purpose, such as pushing mine and other's egos to their breaking points. That's where the funs at.

[Pye]

.

s_e please refer to original post in page 4 of this thread. Comments directed toward font-color are cast in example of bad faith on the part of the reader who reacts this way.

too much backtracking busywork . . . .

Nick, I give. David is referring directly to the nature of your general personhood in that snippet whereas I did no such thing.

again, too much backtracking busywork, but have a nice day . . . .

.

[David Quinn]

sky wrote:

and i am now absolutely and for sure done

chirst said he would save me

buddha said i could save myself

and i find absolutely nothing here that

supercedes those truths

Oki-doky, we'll see you tomorrow, then.

-

[s_e]

If you aren't enlightened, then you can't speak about it and expect to be taken seriously.

Here's a brief story of an "enlightened" master...

• One of the most powerful holy men in India presides over the world's biggest ashram, Prasanthi Nilayam, or Abode of Peace, in a remote town located in a barren corner of Andhra Pradesh, a desperately poor state in a desperately poor country. The town boasts a shiny planetarium, two hospitals that treat patients for free, a college, a music school and immaculate, colorful playgrounds. Luxury apartment buildings are springing up on land that just a few decades ago was covered with ramshackle mud huts. And there's a brand-new airport to serve the wealthier devotees of Sathya Sai Baba, a 75-year-old south Indian man with a big bushy Afro and a warm smile.
  
  Somewhere between 10 million and 50 million people worship Sai Baba as God incarnate, and they stream into Puttaparthi from six continents, sleeping in one of the ashram's 10,000 beds or at one of the town's many guesthouses. Meanwhile, the growing number of ex-devotees who decry their former master as a sexual harasser, a fraud and even a pedophile has hardly put a dent in his following, though their voices are getting louder.
  
  "Sai Baba was my God -- who dares to refuse God? He was free to do whatever he wanted to do with me; he had my trust, my faith, my love and my friendship; he had me in totality," says Iranian-American former follower Said Khorramshahgol. What Sai Baba chose to do with him, Khorramshahgol says, was to repeatedly call him into private interviews and order him to drop his pants and massage his penis. Other former devotees contend Sai Baba did even more. No matter -- in this part of the world, faith is absolute. Believers don't refuse God, and they don't question him.
  
  ...
  
  His faith was shattered when he was shown excerpts from the diary of his close friend's 15-year-old son, detailing several incidents of molestation. The child of devotees, the boy had been raised to worship Sai Baba as God, and obliged when the master reportedly ordered his disciple to suck his penis. "You've got all these kids who are scared to death to do anything that will do disrespect to their parents, in a room with someone they believe to be the creator of the whole universe," said Meloy, his voice choked with fury. "This isn't just any child abuse; this is God himself claiming to do this."
  
  Read More: Sai Baba: Divine Pedophile

What do you think Nick -- do you or I need to "be enlightened" to know that an "enlightened" person does not engage in sexual acts with children, or would we, in our un-enlightened state, be incapable of comprehending the spiritual wisdom of Sai Baba's actions?

If you are going to go chasing around after something called "enlightenment" it would be wise, I think, to have some idea of what it is so that you do not fall prey to some vain, self-professed charlatan, passing off his actions as "enlightened" when they are, in fact, an expression of an exceptionally weak and deficient character.

.

[s_e]

More...

Enlightenment: The Guru's Trap

[Edited out large quotation. - KS]

Ha! I was going to come back and edit it myself with this notation: Edited to appease Kevin's desire to impose control.

Say, what was it about the bulk of that article that offended you so much you felt it necessary to trim it right back to a link and nothing but a link. I thought it was a great article. G-R-E-A-T! Especially that part about people who claim to be "enlightened" inflicting spiritual harm.

What did you like about the article, Kevin. Anything? Nothing?]
.

[Nick]

What do you think Nick -- do you or I need to "be enlightened" to know that an "enlightened" person does not engage in sexual acts with children, or would we, in our un-enlightened state, be incapable of comprehending the spiritual wisdom of Sai Baba's actions?

If you are going to go chasing around after something called "enlightenment" it would be wise, I think, to have some idea of what it is so that you do not fall prey to some vain, self-professed charlatan, passing off his actions as "enlightened" when they are, in fact, an expression of an exceptionally weak and deficient character.

.

I'd like to say that first of all, what you posted about sai baba, is irrelevant. Noone here is looking to be percieved as a God, and noone here is looking for someone to worship as God...

As for judging a self-proclaimed enligthened person's actions, I believe myself to be wise enough to know whether his actions are sincere or not. Contradictions are always a dead give away as to whether someone or something is worth taking seriously. I see contradictions and "shadyness" in almost everything and everyone in this world, but not in the philosophy valued by this forum.

I'm not certain there is something called enlightenment. Right now all I know is I want to free my mind of delusion and continue to uncover Truth. If this leads to enlightenment, great, if not that's fine too. Striving to increase clarity of mind is what is most important to me. Like Diogenes said when a man replied to him he is not made for philosophy, "Why bother to live, if you can't be bothered to live properly."

[Kevin Solway]

s_e,

Please, no more large blocks of text pasted from other websites.

Either provide a link to the webpage, or use small quotations accompanied by your own thoughts.

[David Quinn]

sky wrote:

Nick: What I'm getting at is, at least, deep down, men know they're evil. Although this is an extremely poor way to exemplify honesty and sincerity on the part of man, it exemplifies it none the less.

sky: that statement has the crystalline ring of absolute honesty and sincerity

Do you agree with Nick, then, that women are unconscious of their own evil, which places them in an even worse position than men? For that is what is he saying here.

-

[David Quinn]

s_e wrote:

DQ: For example, when the science community creates generalizations (which it does all the time ), it does so purely for the furtherance of human knowledge, at least for the most part. The same is true of the logical community and its deeper generalizations.

s_e: What passes for Truth in the scientific community is nothing more than current favorable opinion as based upon information that is known at that time; information that is constantly changing. What's more, the motives are hardly pure given that they're humanly driven -- scientists also desire to "help" others, to secure prestige and notoriety, to put food upon the table, to win the admiration of others. The scientific community is no more immune to these facets of human behavior than any other community.

While all this is true to a point, it doesn't change the fact that the generalizations science uses are incredibly valid and useful. It is precisely because of these generalizations that we have all this wonderful technology around us, which you no doubt use in nearly every aspect of your life. And this can only have come about because these generalizations have a deep connection to reality.

In any case, you cannot attack people for using generalizations without coming across as a hypocrite. You constantly use generalizations yourself, both here on this forum and elsewhere throughout your daily life. So by all means, attack people for using unrealistic or unhelpful generalizations, but don't attack them for using generalizations per se.

-

[David Quinn]

Nick wrote:

DQ: It brings up the question of what exactly is a genuine expression of conscience, and whether it can ever be anything more than the common expression of guilt and the desire to be one with the herd. After all, even if a fellow displayed a strong attachment to the ideal of Truth, it could well be just another expression of the desire to be one with the herd - in this case, the herd of sages and lofty thinkers. So even here it cannot be escaped. Or can it?

N: Well, why did you desire to become a sage? Was it because you wanted to fit in with Kevin, and other sages of the past? Or was it a deeper issue that was disturbing you that caused you to take action?

Probably a combination of both to begin with. On the one hand, I didn't like the uncertainty and insecurity involved in knowing that my very own mind, in its ignorant state, was deceiving me. And on the other, I was extremely envious of this hidden attainment that Kevin and Buddha and co. were supposedly enjoying. I wasn't able to live with the idea that these men were blissing out in this state of "enlightenment" and I wasn't. I didn't want to be left out!

Also, I remember for a long time that I used to imagine what Kierkegaard would think of whatever I was doing or saying at any given time. In this way, I kind of deliberately transferred my "allegience" from the herd of ordinary humanity to the herd of wise sages. This was very effective in helping me maintain a different perspective on things and helping me dilute whatever guilts and fears I may have inherited from my deluded upbringing.

Me personally, I took to philosophy because of a genuine disgust for society, and myself. It was a "natural instinct" for me to become a person of honesty, sincerity, itegrity, courage, and individuality. Although these characterisitcs can be beneficial at times, at other times they can bring about much more hardship in life than you bargained for. But if one can't try and live honestly, I see no reason to live at all.

With that attitude, there is no reason why you can't go far.

-

[s_e]

In any case, you cannot attack people for using generalizations without coming across as a hypocrite.

Eeeek!! God knows, I wouldn't want others to think I was a hypocrite! After all, I do have my precious little self-image to protect.

Thanks for digging that personal tip out of the depths of your sharesies pocket, David. You know, deep down, you're actually a swell kind of fellow.

[s_e]

s_e,

Please, no more large blocks of text pasted from other websites.

Either provide a link to the webpage, or use small quotations accompanied by your own thoughts.

Sorry Kevin. For a moment there, I forgot that it's all about me.

[David Quinn]

s_e wrote:

DQ: In any case, you cannot attack people for using generalizations without coming across as a hypocrite.

s_e: Eeeek!! God knows, I wouldn't want others to think I was a hypocrite! After all, I do have my precious little self-image to protect.

This has nothing to do with self-image. Hypocrisy means a division in your being, that one part of you is directly at odds with another part. It is a form of mental illness. Trying to palm it off as an unimportant self-image issue is part of the illness.

This is why Jesus and the Buddha always used to speak of hypocrisy as though it were a great sin.

-

[Nick]

Probably a combination of both to begin with. On the one hand, I didn't like the uncertainty and insecurity involved in knowing that my very own mind, in its ignorant state, was deceiving me. And on the other, I was extremely envious of this hidden attainment that Kevin and Buddha and co. were supposedly enjoying. I wasn't able to live with the idea that these men were blissing out in this state of "enlightenment" and I wasn't. I didn't want to be left out!

At this point in my life, I too am envious of what could be the greatest knowledge any human could posess. Though wouldn't this be more of a desire to not want to be kept from knowledge, rather than a desire not to be left out of "the wise herd"?

Also, I remember for a long time that I used to imagine what Kierkegaard would think of whatever I was doing or saying at any given time. In this way, I kind of deliberately transferred my "allegience" from the herd of ordinary humanity to the herd of wise sages. This was very effective in helping me maintain a different perspective on things and helping me dilute whatever guilts and fears I may have inherited from my deluded upbringing.

I've also used that method when wanting to gain a more enlightened perspective on my thoughts and actions. Similiar to you, the insecurity about my actions is not stemming from how "normal society" might judge me, rather it stems from how "wise society" might judge me. Though in the beginings of my philosophy I was far too suspicious of anyone to bother with wondering if they would deem my actions acceptable. It wasn't until I gained a deeper understanding of what "the herd of sages" were on about that I adopted this method.

With that attitude, there is no reason why you can't go far.

-

And far I must go! My attachment to certain worldly pleasures is still rooted very deeply inside me. It's still very much in my nature to step down into the "animal realms" and remain there for quite some time before I have endulged myself enough to endure the scrutiny of God again. It's sickening when I think about how God has rewarded me thus far yet I still turn my back on him again and again.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Nick wrote:

It's sickening when I think about how God has rewarded me thus far yet I still turn my back on him again and again.

Why bring a conception of God into this? Causality will do just fine, no one has rewarded you for anything, this isn’t a high school science fair Nick. You’re life is what it is because you were lucky; genetically and environmentally lucky. There is no god looking out for anybody.

If you read your above post over again, you will discover that ‘God” as you are using it is merely your own superego feeling guilty for actions that were genetically determined to occur anyway.

Perhaps the superego is guilt and I suspect it is not necessary.

[Natan]

Cp
The scrutiny that opne receives from GOD is the scruting of the Perfect..Its like a light that shows up all our flaws. This is perhaps what is missing from your approach to things.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Natan wrote:

Cp
The scrutiny that one receives from GOD is the scruting of the Perfect..Its like a light that shows up all our flaws. This is perhaps what is missing from your approach to things.

That scrutiny or realization of flaws does not occur as a movement of guilt. It is a clear factual observation of one’s behavior. I say negative emotions such as guilt are not necessary.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Nick wrote:

it stems from how "wise society" might judge me. Though in the beginings of my philosophy I was far too suspicious of anyone to bother with wondering if they would deem my actions acceptable. It wasn't until I gained a deeper understanding of what "the herd of sages" were on about that I adopted this method.

Exactly how did you decide which were sages and which had a subtle but fatally flawed view?

Does this mean that you no longer think for yourself, but only think as far as matching your thoughts to what you perceive the ideals of these "sages" would be?

[Nick]

Why bring a conception of God into this?

Why not? I think I've made it abundantly clear in the past that when I use the term God I am refering to The Infinite/Ultimate Reality/Tao.

Causality will do just fine, no one has rewarded you for anything, this isn’t a high school science fair Nick. You’re life is what it is because you were lucky; genetically and environmentally lucky. There is no god looking out for anybody.

Nothing I've said conflicts with causality or the fact that I have been fortunate. Me having been rewarded by forming a more complete understanding of God is simply describing the state of affairs. It's the same concept as describing your hunger being satisfied after you just ate.

If you read your above post over again, you will discover that ‘God” as you are using it is merely your own superego feeling guilty for actions that were genetically determined to occur anyway.

Yes everything is pre-determined. In the mean-time I'm still not satisfied with how far my spiritual development has gone. I am striving for perfection, and until then my disgust with the current state of affairs is what drives me to attain perfection. I have been humbled by God, therefore I must act accordingly.

Perhaps the superego is guilt and I suspect it is not necessary.

I am not satisfied about certain aspects of my behavior, which causes feelings of guilt or disgust to arise. I don't sulk in these feelings or dwell on them in self-pity. I recognize them and logically assess the situation to understand why I am feeling this way in order to rectify the situation.

That scrutiny or realization of flaws does not occur as a movement of guilt. It is a clear factual observation of one’s behavior. I say negative emotions such as guilt are not necessary.

Feelings of guilt or disgust will naturally arise as a result of realizing one's flaws. Just because there are feelings of guilt doesn't mean one can't or isn't logically analyzing the situation to take proper action. These negative emotions can also be used as positive reinforcement to push you along God's path. Just like a football player might use his negative emotions caused by problems at home to motivate him to perform better on the field.

[Nick]

Exactly how did you decide which were sages and which had a subtle but fatally flawed view?

The same way I decide not to smoke cigarattes.

Does this mean that you no longer think for yourself, but only think as far as matching your thoughts to what you perceive the ideals of these "sages" would be?

If I didn't think for myself then how would I decide if a sage's ideals were worth valuing to begin with?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Nick wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Exactly how did you decide which were sages and which had a subtle but fatally flawed view?

Nick:
The same way I decide not to smoke cigarattes.

False sages have a warning label?

and:

If I didn't think for myself then how would I decide if a sage's ideals were worth valuing to begin with?

Yes, that was essentially the question.

[Nick]

Nick wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Exactly how did you decide which were sages and which had a subtle but fatally flawed view?

Nick:
The same way I decide not to smoke cigarattes.

False sages have a warning label?

If a sage's words and ideals can be called warning labels, then yes. If I ever accept a wise man's words as true it is only because I have held them up against my own values and ideals, compared them, and used my conscience to decide if it is worth valuing.

and:

If I didn't think for myself then how would I decide if a sage's ideals were worth valuing to begin with?

Yes, that was essentially the question.

Since I do value sagely ideals and wisdom it is because I had to think about them, and put them through a great deal of scrutiny in order to do so. My own reasoning always has the final say in what I value, or don't value. Unlike the blind faith that you see within religion, where people never use their own reason, mindlessly believing whatever the priests feed them.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Okay Nick, that's good.