Alex Jacob wrote:Yes, I'd seen that video and others like it. And I think I understand, too, the basic outline of your philosophy. My main question was Who was sitting in the car and turned on the headlights?!? Was that Kevin? (Joke, just a joke).
It was the Buddha, because he's eternal and everywhere 'n' stuff and he loves fucking around in cars.
Really the main question I would have, and possibly anyone would have, is that if enlightenment results in freedom from delusion, why are they so deluded who preach it?
If that's your main question then it's a pretty dumb one. If you are asserting delusion on their part you'd better demonstrate it. Be specific: name one
"preacher" of enlightenment then one way in which they are delusional. If you're speaking about the global generality of those who profess such a thing, then yeah, that's not such a hard thing to do. If by that question you're just trying to indulge in some sort of Douglas Adams-esque humour, get stuffed.
Who sing its virtues?
There are two types of people who sing its virtues: 1) those that belong to the culture of the religiosity of Eastern philosophy (which includes all the facets of modern western Theosophy, New Age movement etc); 2) those that have consciously become aware of their ignorance and delusion and who seek to remedy it because it's dissatisfying to them. I don't care overly much about the former group, other than to note the hindrance they present to human development.
Because that is (obviously) so, it makes me think you are speaking and writing about an idealized state or an imagined state of realization.
Well, it's an ideal state that's being proffered, yes (as opposed to a romanticism); I don't resile from that characterisation. But so what (yes, I started a sentence with "but" - so what?)? That doesn't illegitimise it or make it unreasonable. There's no way to know how many people in human history have achieved such a state. The point to be made there is that when one has sufficient understanding of the basics it becomes clear that such a state is possible.
I know that probably sound like an insult and I honestly don't quite mean it like that.
That's ok. You should divest yourself of the belief that you have the ability to insult me.
Am I not understanding something?
Lordy, Lordy, ain't that a question.
Is it the word 'delusion'? What I have heard from the people who are attached to this philosophy and who speak about it, to be undeluded brings one to a state where one 'does God's will' automatically, so to speak. Cathy who used to post here said that often. Is that also your view?
Yes, it's accurate enough though I'm frankly not that fond of the coinage. I try to avoid "God speak" more often than not, even if ultimately I'm able to accept it. I just find it needlessly poetic and it can sometimes muddy the waters when the person you're saying it to is mired in conventional theological constructs. The reality is we all do "God's will" automatically, whether we're deluded or enlightened. It's just that the enlightened know it. They do God's will absent of delusion. They function in the fabric of causation absent of the delusions of those still invested in notions of inherent reality.
Is it possible to teach enlightenment, as you define it (know it, otherwise how could you speak authoritatively about it? And would you agree that to speak authoritatively about it when one had not fully 'realized' it would be hypocritical and necessarily misleading, would you agree? Or, is enlightenenment something that can be received and repeated like a formula, without actually understanding/embodying it? (I will assume a 'no' here).
Ok, let's set aside those who speak of it from a religious, devotional, "canonised" perspective and limit ourselves to the parameters of QRS's perspective: Yes, you do have to have such a realisation to speak of it with real authority. The experiential part of it is ultimately the thing itself. However, there is a point in one's intellectual understanding where one can can speak sensibly and accurately about it. Or, at the very least speak in a speculative way that is likely to be more or less on the button. I think people in this circumstance ought be quite circumspect, however, in what they proclaim. Then again, you don't have to be enlightened to get what it means for the most part. It just means you have yet to attain the full experiential element of it. One can say, for example, that it's a state free of delusion and by extension, emotion, because that is true by definition. All you require for the ability to state such a thing is the understanding of how delusions and emotions arise from ego and the manner in which ego functions.
This will I imagine amount to just another stupid Alex Question, but can or do the Enlightened disagree?
Sure they can. Just not on the basics of the nature of reality. In the realm of the subjective, the contingent, the relative, they can disagree all they want. But it's not really "disagreement", it's just a different perspective within that realm. They would never see such difference as disagreement.
How do you know if a given person is enlightened?
I can
never know such a thing with surety. No-one can. It will always be a contingent matter if people we meet are in fact enlightened. If our own understanding is complete we're in a good position to make a reasonable assessment, but it will never be something we hold as "true". An enlightened person is always alone in the world in this respect. He has no fellow travelers in an absolute sense. I would never suggest another person was enlightened, for example. At best I would hold that all the signs are there.
Does it depend on words?
Words help, but it's more the way they're put together. You know, in a grammatical sort of way...
My impression has often been that your style of enlightenment is very dependent on words: a wordy, analytical, 'reasoned' approach to enlightenment.
An analytical, reasoned approach to understanding reality is the only path there is. You can't "faith" your way to enlightenment. Enlightenment is not, of itself, intellectual understanding or knowledge, but it cannot be attained without those building blocks. It's a bit like a person who goes into psychotherapy. The therapist can help them intellectually understand the issues they are facing but he/she cannot make the person incorporate that understanding into their psyche. They have to take that step, the step of their consciousness being altered as a result of that understanding. Whether that happens or not is really in God's hands (oh, fuck, I did it...).
But do you know (of) a person whom you know is enlightened who never spoke a word? And how would you know? Through he eyes? Through some sixth sense?
A guy winked at me once in such as way as to transmit the fact of his enlightenment to me. It was a
really impressive wink. I exclaimed, "OMG you're enlightened!" Then he undid his pants and I figured I was having a bad intuitive day...
Do you accept for example the 'enlightened status' of Ramana Maharahi?
Oh hell no, not even contingently. He was Bahkti batshit.
If so, do you accept what was often said about him: that he was able to affect people---transform them or initiate some fairly profound change---just by being in his presence?
Well, of course he could! Jesus friggin' wept, Alex. You know perfectly well in stupidly religious communities (and what religious community isn't stupid)
charisma means an enormous amount. Go to any number of Xian churches and you'll see the same shit happening. It's meaningless, other than in the sense of how sad it is.
I am not fucking with you, Dan.
Aw, really, no? But your Ass is so cute...
But there is as always a little shade or irony.
Um, ok, whatever that means.
And I do very much want to hear your program for the education of youngsters. High School if you wish but I am pretty convinced that a 'good' education must run through all the years of a child's life and especially stressed early. But we would I think disagree about what the focus of that education would be.
A young child should be two things in my estimation: as literate as possible and as capable of independent thought as possible. Those two things make for education beyond the natural limits of "education".