Forget about Enlightenment

[David Quinn]

You can test your skills at snap judgments through appearance here, where you are asked to sort inventors of programming languages from serial killers by looking at their faces.

Watching video footage of Adya - for example, here - hasn't changed my opinion of him. He is clearly a small-time crook making easy money by bewitching mindless, gullible people.

What I find interesting is that most of his followers would have undoubtedly heard the same material thousands of times before - either from Adya himself, or from the many other gurus in the industry who also purvey the same old cliched material. How many times does one have to hear it? Once should be enough. It is as though his followers have no memory at all, or at least no ability to internally trigger the same thought-processes of their own accord.

Adya actually encourages this passiveness by deliberately speaking in a hypnotic manner and by emphasizing the need for his followers to "do nothing" and "let go". A symbiotic relationship is thereby formed where Adya needs a passive audience for his spells to work and the passive audience needs Adya to stimulate them out of their slumber. It really is a revolting spectacle to behold.

-

[Ataraxia]

Have to agree,David.I honestly can't see the value of seeing him more than once,if at all.

He never SAYS anything.Standard guru.

[samadhi]

Carl,

Educate yourself. I haven't time to write you an essay.

I did. Do you want to discuss Adya’s character? Or would you rather talk about your feelings about his picture?

I haven't time to write you an essay on how one's character is reflected in one's manifestations, such as facial expressions.

You don't want to discuss his character because you don't know his character. But your feelings about his picture, that's what we need to pay attention to, right?

me: You haven’t met him, never heard him speak, never read a word of his

you: Why would you claim this without knowing? It makes you come off as strident and irrational.

Because you would prove me wrong otherwise. But you don't. Why not? Oh yeah, you don't have time.

You are the one identifying this as a feeling issue. It is not. It is a science like any other. It is psychology.

Well, then please show us. Oh right, you don't have time. Run along then.

What are you talking about? Where do you think ignorance and hypocrisy enter the picture here?

You ask me to believe that your feeling about David's feeling about a picture is more important than my own experience of Adya. That is about ignorance. You asking me to trust those feelings when David, who you were supporting, stresses logic is about hypocrisy.

[David Quinn]

It doesn't have anything to do with feelings. As Carl says, it is psychology. In other words, a mix of observation, intuition and experience brought together via reason to make an informed judgment.

-

[Carl G]

Carl,

Educate yourself. I haven't time to write you an essay.

I did. Do you want to discuss Adya’s character? Or would you rather talk about your feelings about his picture?

You're the one bringing feelings and picture into this. You're quite the projectionist.

I haven't time to write you an essay on how one's character is reflected in one's manifestations, such as facial expressions.

You don't want to discuss his character because you don't know his character. But your feelings about his picture, that's what we need to pay attention to, right?

You're sounding foolish, and a bit mentally unbalanced.

me: You haven’t met him, never heard him speak, never read a word of his

you: Why would you claim this without knowing? It makes you come off as strident and irrational.

Because you would prove me wrong otherwise. But you don't. Why not? Oh yeah, you don't have time.

And insipid. Really, do you listen to yourself making these garish statements?

You are the one identifying this as a feeling issue. It is not. It is a science like any other. It is psychology.

Well, then please show us. Oh right, you don't have time. Run along then.

Right, this time I agree. What a jerk.

What are you talking about? Where do you think ignorance and hypocrisy enter the picture here?

You ask me to believe that your feeling about David's feeling about a picture is more important than my own experience of Adya. That is about ignorance. You asking me to trust those feelings when David, who you were supporting, stresses logic is about hypocrisy.

I fucking didn't ask you anything. Are you really as thick as you come off in this thread? You really are a Don Quixote tilting at windmills. Go joust with yourself.

[David Quinn]

Actually I think David still has a sense of humour, some of his posts are quite amusing, intentionally so. It's just that some people don't seem to understand or recognize his humour, and they are often the same ones it is directed at.

The key feature of a person's sense of humour is that it is a reflection of his mentality and values. When two people share the same joke, it is a sign that their mentality and values are aligning together. This is why humour and laughter are often so effective as a bonding process between people. Humour "breaks the ice" and allows the two parties to come together and find common ground between them. It enables them to quickly identify their shared sources of oppression.

This is also why laughter has evolved into a visible, physical act, over and above the internal, private process of amusement. Laughter is a stark display that you are either with the other person or against him. It has evolved into a powerful tool of social discrimination.

-

[samadhi]

DQ,

It doesn't have anything to do with feelings. As Carl says, it is psychology. In other words, a mix of observation, intuition and experience brought together via reason to make an informed judgment.

-

I'm sure you will couch it in such terms. Nevertheless describing someone's character based on a picture is about nothing if not feeling. Psychology is about interpreting people's words and actions, not their picture.

[Ataraxia]

David:

What about if one laughs on witnessing another engaging in self contradiction.Where is the oppression being transcended on the part of the laugher?

[David Quinn]

DQ,

It doesn't have anything to do with feelings. As Carl says, it is psychology. In other words, a mix of observation, intuition and experience brought together via reason to make an informed judgment.

-

I'm sure you will couch it in such terms. Nevertheless describing someone's character based on a picture is about nothing if not feeling. Psychology is about interpreting people's words and actions, not their picture.

It is about utilizing all the resources at one's disposal in order to make an informed judgment - and that includes their appearance, the character displayed in their faces, as well as their speech and behaviour. As the old saying goes, a picture tells a thousand words.

-

[Shardrol]

You can test your skills at snap judgments through appearance here, where you are asked to sort inventors of programming languages from serial killers by looking at their faces.

Watching video footage of Adya - for example, here - hasn't changed my opinion of him. He is clearly a small-time crook making easy money by bewitching mindless, gullible people.

I wasn't pooh-poohing the idea of making snap judgments based on appearance. I got 10/10 on the computer programmer vs serial killer test. I also did quite well on 'spot the fake smile'.

While watching the video I tried to figure out who Adyashanti looked like & finally realized it was Anthony Hopkins playing Hannibal Lector in The Silence of the Lambs. That's kind of funny.

[David Quinn]

David:

What about if one laughs on witnessing another engaging in self contradiction.Where is the oppression being transcended on behalf of the laugher?

It depends on who is engaging in the self-contradiction, but in general various forms of oppression come into play. For example:

- The arrogance of the person involved. If a person confidently asserts his opinion, but in doing so contradicts himself, we laugh because his arrogance, which would have undoubtedly been oppressing us in some manner, is suddenly shown to be at odds with reality. The basis of his arrogance is suddenly seen to be going up in a puff of smoke.

- The oppression exerted by society in general. If the person involved is expressing a conventional opinion, then watching him enter into contradiction is amusing because it suddenly liberates us, temporarily at least, from the oppression exerted by conventional society.

- The oppression exerted by tradition. If the person is expressing traditional views that are commonly accepted as true, then his sudden entry into contradiction can free us from the chains of tradition for a time.

- The oppression exerted by own's ignorance. If the spectacle of watching someone enter into contradiction helps to trigger the overcoming of a related piece of ignorance in our own minds, then we can laugh with the joy of our own sense of liberation.

And so on.

Again, these are just generalizations. Each specific act of contradiction would have its own specific oppressions in tow, which means that to form a more accurate explanation we would have to judge each case individually.

-

[Ataraxia]

Hmmm,It's an interesting thesis.I must admit I hadn't thought about it much before.

Time for some personel field studies on this one.

[David Quinn]

It is definitely a rich field of study, as it touches on so many psychological and spiritual areas, and threatens the ego in so many different ways. I'm very tempted to write a whole book about humour, such is the importance I give it.

-

[Jason]

The key feature of a person's sense of humour is that it is a reflection of his mentality and values. When two people share the same joke, it is a sign that their mentality and values are aligning together. This is why humour and laughter are often so effective as a bonding process between people. Humour "breaks the ice" and allows the two parties to come together and find common ground between them. It enables them to quickly identify their shared sources of oppression.

This is also why laughter has evolved into a visible, physical act, over and above the internal, private process of amusement. Laughter is a stark display that you are either with the other person or against him. It has evolved into a powerful tool of social discrimination.

Yep I agree with all that and I obviously identify with you, big guy. It's kinda like a more genuine and instinctive version of a handshake in a sense. Although obviously people can fake the genuineness of both. I've found it quite interesting to watch a comedy and observe when different people laugh, it can be very informative. I've felt somewhat disturbed when someone, who I otherwise feel rather close to, laughs at things that I do not. Often I can guess why they are laughing and it occurs to me that I have probably been projecting mental qualities and values onto that person that they don't actually possess.

Apparently there was a a little concern about me as a kid because I had a tendency to laugh out of sync with my peers. I remember going to kids movies and often thinking most of the jokes were very obvious and saw them coming from a mile off, or were absolutely uninspired slapstick. I liked toilet humour though I believe - I put that down to being a reflection of my desire to overcome a lot of conventional society. I also remember someone asking me, as a child, why I didn't like little girls and I answered with something like "because they laugh at stupid things and sometimes just laugh at nothing."

[Ataraxia]

"because they laugh at stupid things and sometimes just laugh at nothing."

Girls seem, in my experience, to quite often laugh when they are embrrassed,or to relieve an akward tension.Japanese people(generally speaking) often do too.

it would seem to hold to Davids thesis of a means of overcoming oppressive situations.

[Sapius]

Girls seem, in my experience, to quite often laugh when they are embrrassed,or to relieve an akward tension.Japanese people(generally speaking) often do too.

it would seem to hold to Davids thesis of a means of overcoming oppressive situations.

That would be more of an ‘embarrassing’ situation than an "oppressive" one I think. It is not wise to paint all situations with the same brush, and if one wants to reach the core of all situations, then why stop at “oppressive”? Isn’t causality at the core of it all?

In any case, there isn’t really any choice in being who or what you are, be it David or Adya; it then logically follows that all differentiations are purely egotistical projections; isn't it?

[Sapius]

I got 10/10 on the computer programmer vs serial killer test. I also did quite well on 'spot the fake smile'.

Fantastic! And the fake smile thing?

9/10 and 15/20; I guess I lack perfection. And my answer to the question was ‘eyes’.

[divine focus]

You can test your skills at snap judgments through appearance here, where you are asked to sort inventors of programming languages from serial killers by looking at their faces.

Watching video footage of Adya - for example, here - hasn't changed my opinion of him. He is clearly a small-time crook making easy money by bewitching mindless, gullible people.

What I find interesting is that most of his followers would have undoubtedly heard the same material thousands of times before - either from Adya himself, or from the many other gurus in the industry who also purvey the same old cliched material. How many times does one have to hear it? Once should be enough. It is as though his followers have no memory at all, or at least no ability to internally trigger the same thought-processes of their own accord.

Adya actually encourages this passiveness by deliberately speaking in a hypnotic manner and by emphasizing the need for his followers to "do nothing" and "let go". A symbiotic relationship is thereby formed where Adya needs a passive audience for his spells to work and the passive audience needs Adya to stimulate them out of their slumber. It really is a revolting spectacle to behold.

-

I'm curious, David, as to how you come to such critical views of Adya and maybe others. You say he's rehashing old material, but is it any less valuable now as whenever it was "first" given eons ago? Also, don't you think the "passivity" of doing nothing is the same or similar to what you espouse--letting nature take it's course?

[xerox]

...

[Jason]

It is not wise to paint all situations with the same brush, and if one wants to reach the core of all situations, then why stop at “oppressive”? Isn’t causality at the core of it all?

It's possible to view and discuss the same things from many different perspectives. A question I often confront when posting to GF is: which perspective will I operate from in this particular post? While the recent posts here have been mainly from a relatively conventional psychological perspective, you could for example describe the entire thing as being interactions between chemicals in the brain, or even just atoms interacting, or you could say that it is all just appearances in one's private solipsistic consciousness. I also agree that the brush may have been a bit broad so far with these issues.

Ultimately though, things are just exactly what they are. Just because one takes a certain perspective does not mean that this chosen perspective is any less ultimately real or accurate or missing something. The very real truth is that when you are viewing something with a particular perspective you really are viewing something with that particular perspective. That's reality. Simple. Specific perspectives are as real as anything. There's nothing missing. But to speak of a "core" may be to miss the point. Almost paradoxically however, taking the perspective that there is a core is also really reality.

[Sapius]

It's possible to view and discuss the same things from many different perspectives.

Absolutely.

A question I often confront when posting to GF is: which perspective will I operate from in this particular post?

That’s very wise of you, but when addressing an issue, shouldn’t that depend on comprehending from which perspective should one look at “Forget about Enlightenment” for example, and then operate accordingly? Or should one simply take that at face value? That is what I see happening in this thread.

Ultimately though, things are just exactly what they are.

Why ‘ultimately’? Otherwise are they not?

Just because one takes a certain perspective does not mean that this chosen perspective is any less ultimately real or accurate or missing something.

The problem is, “ultimately”, one does not or cannot choose a perspective. If you say choice is ultimately also real, then the comparitive values stand, otherwise not. I believe one can't have it both ways.

The very real truth is that when you are viewing something with a particular perspective you really are viewing something with that particular perspective. That’s reality. Simple.

Why “very real truth”? Why can’t it be a plain and simple analytical truth? And if that’s ‘reality’, then what isn’t? So “reality” doesn’t really make much sense in such contexts.

Specific perspectives are as real as anything. There's nothing missing. But to speak of a "core" may be to miss the point. Almost paradoxically however, taking the perspective that there is a core is also really reality.

I understand, but so would be any other argument, really reality; so what are we left with then? It is the same thing as a Muslim saying that all is but the will of Allah, so values as we see from personal specific perspectives are actually meaningless, which translates into ‘things are not exactly what they are’. So I don’t really know which is it? Are they both at the same time?

There are values and not at the same time?

[jlj000jlj]

I'm not sure just from the face, I need to feel the bumps on their head and
examine the whorls on their palms. Next most important is the kink of their
hair and color of their eyes and skin. Mengele would do no less.

And while we're at it, we can judge books by their covers and posters by their avatar.

Whatever it takes to change the subject.

[mikiel]

Maybe this one fell through the cracks. Or maybe intentionally ignored. I'd still be interested in your answer, David.
bump.
------------------
David Quinn wrote:
"Only super-advanced souls on the brink of perfect Buddhahood have "no delusions to get rid of except a couple keeping them away from reality", and I have yet to meet one of those. "

How will you know when you meet one, David? And do you mean in person or including on these boards?
(note: Please define "perfect Buddhahood" as/if different from total transcendence of egocentric consciousness, i.e., realization of the illusion of self... conscious unity in/as One Omnipresent consciousness, ergo, selflessness.)
--------------
mikiel

[samadhi]

Carl,

Perhaps I was a bit hard on you. But when someone tells me something that is clearly an opinion and then adds, "oh, and this has nothing to do with opinion," my alarm bells go off. Let's start over.

My problem with reading faces is not that you can't see anything but the implied claim by David that you can see everything. It is also a problem when he implies that his conclusions amount to objective information when it is clearly just the opposite and tries to justify that claim by an appeal to science. There is also a deliberate avoidance of corroborating evidence. It's one thing to look at a serial killer's face and say that his crimes are clearly evident but completely different to look at someone who you don't know and say the same thing with equal certainty. If it were that easy, the police wouldn't need to do any investigation, would they? And courts of law would hardly be needed either. People would just be thrown in jail based on their looks. But that isn't the case, is it?

So, I apologize if I went overboard on you. But I do object to the idea that David or anyone else can read a person's "soul" with a single glance, declare his guilt, insist on his own objectivity as if that were even a possibility and dismiss all contradictory evidence without even a cursory investigation. If you consider that a scientific evaluation and declare it beyond opinion, then perhaps I made no mistake after all.

[David Quinn]

Carl,

Perhaps I was a bit hard on you. But when someone tells me something that is clearly an opinion and then adds, "oh, and this has nothing to do with opinion," my alarm bells go off. Let's start over.

My problem with reading faces is not that you can't see anything but the implied claim by David that you can see everything. It is also a problem when he implies that his conclusions amount to objective information when it is clearly just the opposite and tries to justify that claim by an appeal to science. There is also a deliberate avoidance of corroborating evidence. It's one thing to look at a serial killer's face and say that his crimes are clearly evident but completely different to look at someone who you don't know and say the same thing with equal certainty. If it were that easy, the police wouldn't need to do any investigation, would they? And courts of law would hardly be needed either. People would just be thrown in jail based on their looks. But that isn't the case, is it?

So, I apologize if I went overboard on you. But I do object to the idea that David or anyone else can read a person's "soul" with a single glance, declare his guilt, insist on his own objectivity as if that were even a possibility and dismiss all contradictory evidence without even a cursory investigation. If you consider that a scientific evaluation and declare it beyond opinion, then perhaps I made no mistake after all.

As I say, one should utilize all the resouces at one's disposal before making a firm judgment. The reading of a face is just one piece of the puzzle. If Adya's mind was of the quality of a Kierkegaard or a Chuang Tzu, while his face retained the aura of a criminal, then yes, it would give me pause for thought. I would have to find a way to reconcile these two conflicting perceptions. But since Adya's mind is that of a b-grade hack, there is no conflict to resolve.

-