unwise wrote:I agree with you Ankit. What is going on here is some sort of intellectual masturbation in the form of: "I am without delusions." Computers are actually superior at logic, but they will never be enlightened. They can also conceptualize in mathematical dimensions that are beyond human beings. But they are not enlightened.
I do not know if computers are better than humans at logic, not to the best of my knowledge.
The form: "I am without delusions" is not an enlightened statement. The essence of enlightenment is realizing directly that there is no personal 'I' at all.
They will tell you here that they have intellectually realized with their superior delusion-free masculine brains that 'there is no 'I.' This is NOT the same as a direct realization that there is only one 'I.' You see, there is an 'I'. But there is only one 'I.' It is the Universal Self. That is Self realization.
Yes that is the correct view. Intellectual realization is just a step, it is not the real knowing.
For example if you are eating an apple, you know from direct perception what is happening, you do not use the logical brain to say, that the texture and look of this substance is like an apple which I have seen before, my jaws are making the chewing motions, hence I am eating an apple.
Ankit Gupta wrote:It also seems that the "enlightened", here are adding useless conceptual realities. For example the whole male female issue. Now what has that got to do with reality.
The very first step towards enlightenment is the recognition of ignorance. This is a step very few people ever take.
A big sign that people do not recognize ignorance is the fact that they do not recognize the overriding, fundamental ignorance in women. This coincides with their inability to recognize their own ignorance - and so they remain in darkness.
In worshiping women, people are in fact worshiping themselves, and their own blindness.
If there is truth to the whole business the seeker can find for himself, why trouble him with your opinions.
For the same reason that the sages of the past gave teachings, rather than leave people purely to their own devices.
The seeker would be inclined to incorporate into his worldview the ideas of those whom he considers worth emulating(and add to his conceptual overlay). Now this is not an admirable thing to do, for the masters here.
Intellectual realization is just a step, it is not the real knowing.
That is true. But intellectual realization is such a critical step, without which further progress is impossible. It is also a step hardly anyone in the entire history of the human race has made. It is not something to be sneered at, although most people do sneer at it these days.
For example if you are eating an apple, you know from direct perception what is happening, you do not use the logical brain to say, that the texture and look of this substance is like an apple which I have seen before, my jaws are making the chewing motions, hence I am eating an apple.
Direct perception isn't enough. One could easily be experiencing an hallucination. To the degree that you care about truth and the well-being of your own soul, you need to exercise your logical skills to determine for sure that what you experiencing is ultimately real.
The very first step towards enlightenment is the recognition of ignorance. This is a step very few people ever take.
A big sign that people do not recognize ignorance is the fact that they do not recognize the overriding, fundamental ignorance in women. This coincides with their inability to recognize their own ignorance - and so they remain in darkness.
In worshiping women, people are in fact worshiping themselves, and their own blindness.
This really is incorrect...........Heal the rifts between Arabs and Jews, between hetros and gays, between men and women and then you can talk about enlightenment
Actually by heal the rifts I mean lose the differences......the only way for Humankind to go forward as a whole and improve the possibilities of spiritual enlightenment for all is NOT to point out differences but concentrate on the similarities between said artificially constructed (using so called intelligence)
differences
Enlightenment is reached by seeking and finding 3 things.Truth, and I know you and DQ do search hard for this, compassion and forbearance....learning how to transcend suffering. Many times the 3 are in conflict and that is a matter for another topic I think, but I agree the first step is recognising one's own ignorance .ie that we are all from 1 essence 1 source and we all have 1 true guide........there are no differences on the highest plane
Direct perception isn't enough. One could easily be experiencing an hallucination. To the degree that you care about truth and the well-being of your own soul, you need to exercise your logical skills to determine for sure that what you experiencing is ultimately real.
No. Logical skills for logical issues, Feeling "skills" for emotional ones. It is not logical to lose possessions to gain and yet this is what one must do to attain enlightenment.......Logic/masuline is only half the story .....as usual
Yin and yang in harmony =The Tao .too much yang and yin will rise to compensate the balance...........Sorry I woffle!
Have you reasoned that to be true, or do you feel that to be true?
And how do you decide what is a logical issue what is an emotional one? Do you decide by using reason or feeling?
Both and both . I use both to decide what the issue is and then select the best tactic .......Don't you. Don't you consider your emotional reaction and logical reaction to being insulted within seconds?? But this is a sidetrack
The real issue is .........
It is perfectly logical. It is logical to lose something of lesser worth to gain something of greater worth.
When you go through the stages of enlightenment (lets try to keep context here) you will be called on to lose something. It will not appear logical to you to give it up....How about your house/your family/everything you own, for an intangible?.........Logic will tell you not to give them up, and believe me its not simple like "Oh I'll give up my possessions because I know I'm one step closer to enlightenment " You will not see the gain at first............Logic merely showes human limitations
One's TRUE NATURE must, necessarily, be present at all times and all places under all circumstances. Why must one give up items to realize what is already the case? These are ego games of gain. You win by losing in this game. Similar to the Christian game - you win by losing. These are INVESTMENT SCHEMES where one invests in enlightenment or the Kingdom Of Heaven by losing now - by quitting everything that is remotely pleasurable - by investing in a better future.
The future is NOW. Your TRUE NATURE is your underlying reality NOW. Do whatever your karma is compelling you to do - or dealing out your circumstance whatever they may be - AND LOOK.
I use both to decide what the issue is and then select the best tactic
Can you give an example, preferably related to attaining enlightenment, of when using an emotional "skill" (emphasis yours) is a better tactic than a logical one?
Logic will tell you not to give them up, and believe me its not simple like "Oh I'll give up my possessions because I know I'm one step closer to enlightenment " You will not see the gain at first
Your description of logic sounds very similar to an emotional reaction. It's like the horrendous misuse of the word that popular novelists love using, and that has nothing to do with logical thought in all its severity. Are you sure that when you are talking about logic, you are talking about what, say, a metaphysician is referring to?
One's TRUE NATURE must, necessarily, be present at all times and all places under all circumstances. Why must one give up items to realize what is already the case? These are ego games of gain. You win by losing in this game. Similar to the Christian game - you win by losing. These are INVESTMENT SCHEMES where one invests in enlightenment or the Kingdom Of Heaven by losing now - by quitting everything that is remotely pleasurable - by investing in a better future.
Ego games of gain? Think again ...Investment schemes?.No..I am not talking about giving things up in order to gain, that would just be false
In order to reach enlightenment you will be called to give up certain things, those things that you cannot let go of .
The future is NOW. Your TRUE NATURE is your underlying reality NOW. Do whatever your karma is compelling you to do - or dealing out your circumstance whatever they may be - AND LOOK.
Do whatever your karma is compelling you to do? You do not understand the concept of karma clearly and as for your true nature you will only really find it when you lose/give up your attachments
Sure didn't seem like it when you said "logic will tell you not to give [things] up." "Logic", used in that context, sounds a heck of a lot like an emotional reaction.
Anyway, you didn't answer the question. I know you were on a tangent, but I think this is vital. When, again preferably in relation to enlightenment, is an emotional "skill" a better tactic than a logical one? You said this without qualification, as though it'd be accepted at face value. I agree with it with certain qualifications. I cannot accept it as a vague blanket statement though.
Sure didn't seem like it when you said "logic will tell you not to give [things] up." "Logic", used in that context, sounds a heck of a lot like an emotional reaction.
The capital L was yours I think....Mathematical logic/inductive/deductive reasoniing/Logic ...........these all involve the brain thinking The use of Logic in Philosophy merely leads us to the limits of our thinking......we reach the end of our knowledge .......then there is feeling to take us forward yin follows yang.
I did not say an emotional skill is a better tactic than a logical one for enlightenment I said "Logical skills for logical issues, Feeling "skills" for emotional ones. It is not logical to lose possessions to gain and yet this is what one must do to attain enlightenment.......Logic/masuline is only half the story .....as usual
The issue whether you like it or not is that Logic and logic cannot take a person to enlightenment ........there needs to be compassion/heart loss/forebearance .. a period of non Logic if you like when the brain shuts up, stops reasoning and arguing and we just feel
Enlightenment requires both Logic and emotional feeling ie rational reasoning and deep feeling for self others and the world
That's not enlightenment, Emma, that's total, 100% ignorance. Logic to you is just an empty word, apparently, because you're not displaying any logic in your thinking at all, even though you claim to be using it.
emma wrote:
Logical skills for logical issues, Feeling "skills" for emotional ones.
I have to disagree with that one. I believe that there is logic to emotion, too. Positive emotions are the result of sound logic, and negative emotions are the results of unsound logic (which is sometimes the result of false premises).
The issue whether you like it or not is that Logic and logic cannot take a person to enlightenment ........there needs to be compassion/heart loss/forebearance .. a period of non Logic if you like when the brain shuts up, stops reasoning and arguing and we just feel
Resting easy in the emotions is equivalent to resting easy in the open jaw of a crocodile.
You obviously don’t value your mind or life much Emma if you wantonly give yourself over to your emotions. At least if you use logic you can unmask the untrustworthiness of the emotions, but if you allow yourself to become awash with emotion, all you’ll get is more emotion. Understanding the truth of a thing is better than emotionally accepting its falseness.
Sure
Lets take a fictional couple, John and Jean, for example.
John is a quiet guy who is really rather nice, but not very outgoing. Jean is a bubbly, vivacious, very outgoing lady. Often, a couple is composed of one quiet person and one outgoing person, so this is a story that happens often (with variations on details).
John and Jean just started dating a month ago, and tonight they were at a party thrown by John's company. Jean loves parties, and John is relieved to not have to spend another boring evening just making small talk with his coworkers at yet another company function. They are both happy to spend the evening with each other (positive emotion based on good logic - the two of them have had healthy interactions with each other resulting in positive emotions [love, fun], and expect that the company of the other person will result in positive emotions that they would not have had without the company of the other person [continued love and fun for both, relief of discomfort from unstructured activity for John, and for Jean, participation in an event that she normally enjoys).
John and two of his coworkers are talking when Jean decides to investigate the snack table. She offers to get John something too, and her thoughtfulness pleases John (positive emotion based on good logic - she is showing her willingness to contribute to John's well-being).
On the way to the snack table, Jean is intercepted by another of John's coworkers. The two of them get into a conversation. John notices Jean interacting with Paul, the company flirt, and becomes jealous (negative emotion). John knows that Paul is outgoing, which is a quality that he likes about Jean and is concerned that Jean will like equally as well in Paul (illogical - Jean, an outgoing person, is likely to have encountered other outgoing people before, but the person she is currently dating is not outgoing). John is concerned that Jean will prefer Paul to him (same illogic) and as the seconds tick by, John becomes convinced that the time Jean spends talking with Paul is evidence that Jean does prefer Paul's company (now there's a leap in logic. She likes talking to people, which is part of being outgoing, but that does not indicate an overall preference. Furthermore, she may even find Paul borish and might be having difficulty politely extricating herself from the conversation).
Within a few minutes, Jean returns with the snacks. At first she is happy to be back with John, but soon she notices that John's mood has gone sour (due to his illogical assumptions). John and Jean are soon by themselves at the party, and Jean asks John what's wrong, to which he replies "Nothing." John knows that Jean returned and did not run off with Paul, so in his mind nothing is wrong (illogical - he has a bad mood, which counts as something is wrong). Jean then lacks the data needed to make a logical conclusion, and her mood dims as well. If John had used good logic which would have prevented his jealousy, they both would have been in better moods (positive emotions resulting from logical thinking). If John had at least used good logic by recognizing that his poor mood was something wrong, even though he recognized that his reasoning was illogical, he could have disclosed both his temporary illogic and his corrected reasoning, and Jean could have further reassured him, and they both could have enjoyed the rest of the evening (imperfect, but logic ultimately saved the evening). The least logical course of action would be for data to remain omitted, leading to faulty premises on both their parts as both notice each other's mood getting worse, and the relationship terminating with both people having negative feelings about the other. Highly illogical.
Yes, most people are constantly in an emotional twirl. As you show in your story: people aren’t very good at reading one another. It makes you wonder how the human race has survived this far. But maybe our survival is due to this emotional chaos. With our hearts always in action mode, our heads never get the chance to actually start working. If the human race did start thinking, we might decide that there is something more important than coupling – causing the population of the planet to plummet. But then again, the chances of that ever happening are pretty slim – all the Johns and Jeans of this world will make sure of that.
The point was that if people use logic, positive emotions persist; but if people use illogic, negative emotions take over.
Logic leads to truer, longer-lasting love.
Illogic leads to domestic violence and divorce.
It is true that a lot more spouses are getting shot nowadays than celebrating 50th wedding anniversaries, but the way that things are and the way that they can be are two different things. That does not mean that loving (or any other positive emotion) logically is impossible, it just means that logic must be intentionally practiced to reap the rewards.
That's not enlightenment, Emma, that's total, 100% ignorance. Logic to you is just an empty word, apparently, because you're not displaying any logic in your thinking at all, even though you claim to be using it.
Show me, in small easy to digest chunks(so that my ignorance can handle it) where I am not being logical in what I say
The point was that if people use logic, positive emotions persist; but if people use illogic, negative emotions take over.
Since most people wouldn’t know logic even when it's staring them in the face – I will point out that what you have observed are people lost in the sway of their emotions, and nothing more.
Logic leads to truer, longer-lasting love.
No, logic and truth have the long-lasting relationship. They expose ‘Love’ as the cheap two-faced lying evil that it is.
Illogic leads to domestic violence and divorce.
Yes, and also to love and marriage.
It is true that a lot more spouses are getting shot nowadays than celebrating 50th wedding anniversaries, but the way that things are and the way that they can be are two different things. That does not mean that loving (or any other positive emotion) logically is impossible, it just means that logic must be intentionally practiced to reap the rewards.----
Yes, so many lives are lost because of love. One has to ask - how many more deaths must there be before love is finally banned for good?
No, logic and truth have the long-lasting relationship. They expose ‘Love’ as the cheap two-faced lying evil that it is.
Quote:
Illogic leads to domestic violence and divorce.
Yes, and also to love and marriage.
What is this nonsense?
Why is Love cheap two-faced lying evil, why does illogic lead to domestic violence and divorce
have you been hurt?.......becaue of that damn logic again?
sue hindmarsh wrote:Yes, so many lives are lost because of love. One has to ask - how many more deaths must there be before love is finally banned for good?
Yes, ban love, because loves creates loss of life, and you love life. Makes total sense.
