Forum useless for enlightenment

[emma]

Quote:
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).

To clarify logical skills are better for logical issues and emotional skills are better for emotional ones. However logical skills can be used for emotional issues and emotional skils can be used for logical issues anywhere .except this forum obviously

[sue hindmarsh]

emma wrote:

Elizabeth: Logic leads to truer, longer-lasting love.

Sue: No, logic and truth have the long-lasting relationship. They expose ‘Love’ as the cheap two-faced lying evil that it is.

Elizabeth: Illogic leads to domestic violence and divorce.

Sue: Yes, and also to love and marriage.

What is this nonsense?

What you are calling “nonsense”, happens to be an act of logic. That is: an act of recognizing the illogic in Elizabeth’s statements by holding them up to what I know to be true about this subject and judging them accordingly. Now, Elizabeth may also consider that she too had gone through this process before making her statements, but she would be mistaken. That's because she based her ideas on a false premise: that being, 'love is good'. She has not looked at the deeper ramifications of love, for if she did she would see that it is closely tied to hate – so much so that you cannot have one without the other. For example: if you love a thing or a person it means that you simultaneously do not love all other things and people. This immediately creates conflict – which often turns into squabbles, jealousy, domestic violence and wars.

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?

Because I value logic and reason, I ensure that what I know about things is the rock bottom truth. This means that even if I had experienced pain due to love, I wouldn’t trust those emotions to investigate the truth about Love. As Elizabeth showed in her story about John and Jean, the emotions are excellent at distorting and thereby making irrational life’s experiences.

-
Sue

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

most people wouldn’t know logic even when it's staring them in the face

LOL - now there's truth.

They expose ‘Love’ as the cheap two-faced lying evil that it is.

Would you please give me an example?

why does illogic lead to domestic violence

Violence is illogical - there are far more effective ways to get what we want.

why does illogic lead to domestic violence and divorce

divorce for two basic reasons - either not choosing the correct marital partner in the first place, or illogical actions or thoughts within the marriage leading to damage of the relationship

The word Love like the word Logic clearly means different things to different people

accurate observation

To clarify logical skills are better for logical issues and emotional skills are better for emotional ones. However logical skills can be used for emotional issues and emotional skils can be used for logical issues anywhere

Maybe it would help if you explained, at least as a general overview and perhaps a deeper explination of one aspect, what you mean by emotional skills.

if you love a thing or a person it means that you simultaneously do not love all other things and people.

I do love all people, but I am not in love with all people (that would either be insane or quickly lead to insanity). I do not love all of the behaviors of all people, in fact I find some behaviors particularly heinous and reprehensible. I also prefer the company of certain people over others.

Sometimes love and loving actions mean distance or corrective action against wrong behaviors. For example, with love of both child molesters and children, I lovingly propose that child molesters be permenently isolated in a colony where there are no children. That would be inconvenient for the child molesters, but the temptation is not healthy for them and if they give in to the temptation it would be unhealthy for the children - therefore it is a loving proposal.

With love of my ex-husband, I do not contact him and take reasonable actions (okay, sometimes extra-cautious actions) to not remind him that I exist, and to remain further away from him than the range that a bullet could travel. I think it frustrated him that he could not make me mad (illogical, but observable), so my presence is not healthy for him. His treatment of me was physically and mentally unhealthy for me, so his presence is not healthy for me. He still loves me, so with love for him, I do not want to aggrevate him by needless reminders that I exist. I don't hide because that would be counter-productive to my goals in life, but I do not want to have anything to do with him anymore. That does not indicate a lack of love, it only indicates a logical expression of love.

[unwise]

The hijacking and ongoing nonsense of this thread reminds me of the cacophony of crows I hear in the morning in a tree behind my house. Goes to show you what happens when you tell a bunch of girls that logic makes them manly.

[emma]

LOL

[emma]

Sue Hindmarsh wrote

Now, Elizabeth may also consider that she too had gone through this process before making her statements, but she would be mistaken. That's because she based her ideas on a false premise: that being, 'love is good'. She has not looked at the deeper ramifications of love, for if she did she would see that it is closely tied to hate – so much so that you cannot have one without the other. For example: if you love a thing or a person it means that you simultaneously do not love all other things and people. This immediately creates conflict – which often turns into squabbles, jealousy, domestic violence and wars.

What you describe here is not love it is obssession, an illogical force. Most of what we call Love is a time-limited obssession with an individuasl . Real Love however is altogether a different thing and whilst its polarity might be hate it is up to us to not allow love to slide to hate. If we see a polarity we are able to select where we want to dwell on that polarity

Actually to survive, to be true Love like everything needs a mix of both Logic, Emotion and all the combos of the two to survive....and if both want it to survive then it will. It breaks down when a person gives up trying.
Its not mutually exclusive. Being in Love and happy with someone allows you to shine the light of Love on everyone you meet


I asked
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?

Because I value logic and reason, I ensure that what I know about things is the rock bottom truth. This means that even if I had experienced pain due to love, I wouldn’t trust those emotions to investigate the truth about Love. As Elizabeth showed in her story about John and Jean, the emotions are excellent at distorting and thereby making irrational life’s experiences.

There are no Absolute Truths and Understanding changes over time. You need to rediscover Love, allow Logic to fade for a while then you will re-read your postings and say to yourself "Gosh was I that cynical

Yes emotions distort but so does logic . We are a mix of logical and emotional and thus both approaches are necessary and all combos inbetween . An illogical emotional outburst can soon bring both parties tio kisses and cuddles again."Oh so that's what has been bothering you.Dont be so silly etc . i(Or am I missing ther point here)

[Ankit Gupta]

The hijacking and ongoing nonsense of this thread reminds me of the cacophony of crows I hear in the morning in a tree behind my house. Goes to show you what happens when you tell a bunch of girls that logic makes them manly.

Indeed this is one of the reason this forum is so useless for enlightenment. After a while each thread degenerates into the same petty squabbles. And interestingly they have nothing to do with the original issue.

[Ankit Gupta]

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 best sages kept reminding people to look into their true nature, than giving concepts to the seekers(ex Ramana Maharishi). And further they asked people to be their own light, thus leaving them to their devices(Buddha). One of the harm in distributing concepts is that what you refer to and what people understand may be very different(the very least due to a different perspective). These sages brush off any questions and exhort the seeker to keep up inquiring into the source of the mind and ego, and told them that they can answer for themselves any other questions after clarity of the mind(enlightenment) is attained.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Goes to show you what happens when you tell a bunch of girls that logic makes them manly.

I must have missed when that was said. Could you find that quote when we were told that logic makes us manly?

What you describe here is not love it is obssession, an illogical force. Most of what we call Love is a time-limited obssession with an individual . Real Love however is altogether a different thing and whilst its polarity might be hate it is up to us to not allow love to slide to hate. If we see a polarity we are able to select where we want to dwell on that polarity

Actually to survive, to be true Love like everything needs a mix of both Logic, Emotion and all the combos of the two to survive....and if both want it to survive then it will. It breaks down when a person gives up trying.
Its not mutually exclusive. Being in Love and happy with someone allows you to shine the light of Love on everyone you meet.

Someone please frame that one and hang it on The Walls of Wisdom. That's good.

emotions distort but so does logic

I don't understand what you mean; how does logic distort?

After a while each thread degenerates into the same petty squabbles. And interestingly they have nothing to do with the original issue.

About the petty squabbles, learning how to deal with pettiness and quell squabbles are valuable skills to learn.

About changing issues, I also noticed that the threads on this board get a lot more tangental than they do on other boards, but I attributed that to the sorts of individuals attracted to a board dedicated to genius. There is not a clear separation when one topic migrates into another, but we are not editing for publication, we are just conversing. Allowing the conversation to flow like this seems comfortable to me for its continuity, but it does get a bit cumbersome to get into the conversation.

and told them that they can answer for themselves any other questions after clarity of the mind(enlightenment) is attained.

I like that.

[emma]

Ankit you asre wrong , this is very much a discussion of enlightenment and not a squabble. The hidden point here is that , as I keep repeating Logic only takes one up to a certain point. To be enlightened Logic needs to be realised for what it is (the limit of our thinking and reasoning ability) and then there must follow, discord, emotions, illogic before we can learn more. and return to Logic

Elizabeth
I said emotions distort but so does LOGIC.It distorts by conning us to accept ewe can THINK our way thro everything

[emma]

Apologies for the careless spelling I am trying to multi-task (Means I do the lot badly!)

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

emma wrote (corrected for spelling):
I said emotions distort but so does LOGIC. It distorts by conning us to accept we can THINK our way through everything

Can't we? If not, why not?

[emma]

I am all in favour of thought. In fact I believe our thoughts directly affect our health, I believe the way we think makes our reality BUT if you say to people (as I have in other posts on this forum,) it is benign to accept that there is a Benign God, they say prove it or God does not exist. The logic is that benign God =Benign World. If we think that there is a Benign God then this is beneficial to all, but we can;t even get past "I can't see God so God does not exist" That in itself is not logical. There is much we cannot see nor understand but because we have no proof we conclude it to be false
Therefore Logic just serves to show our ignorance, or the limits of our intelligence, no more than that. At least with emotional argument there is a stirring of the passions which in turn breaks barriers.

Ok so Logiciasns would say re God

A benevolent god all-knowing being only has one option in any situation, and that is the option that causes most good. Therefore a perfectly good all-knowing God has no free will.


An all-knowing god instantly knows all of its future actions and therefore has no free will to change them. A god with no free will is not moral.

If an all-powerful and all-knowing God exists then this (by a long chain of cause and effect) denies any free will of any living being.

If God has free will, but never chooses evil, it is immoral because it could have created life in the same way: With free will, but also never choosing evil. Therefore God must be immoral, not all-powerful or not all-knowing.

The existence of a moral, all-knowing and all-powerful God is in contradiction to Free Will in many ways; both for God itself and any living beings.

3. Evil and suffering contradict existence of a benevolent god
"If God is all-powerful and all-good, it would have created a universe with no suffering and no evil. But, evil and suffering exist. Therefore God does not exist, is not all-powerful or is not benevolent. Attempts to justify the existence of evil are called theodicies. There are no fully working theodicies, even popular ones such as the free will theodicy were rejected thousands of years ago for reasons that still stand today. It seems that if there is a god, it is not the all-good moral being that classical religions would have us believe

Now I believe in a GOD that is Benign, I feel the Benignity of GOD and all this only Logic rubbish just serves to show that Human has the arrogance to think that we understand the nature of all things
besides which LOGIC in 100 years will have moved on making what we call Logic now appear to be absurd. Emotions are more constant they last longer.Perhaps to better understand this world of ours we should ensure our arguments contain both Logic and a sense of humility . There is no Logic in the "Leap of faith" and yet we keep leaping.

[Pye]

The hijacking and ongoing nonsense of this thread reminds me of the cacophony of crows I hear in the morning in a tree behind my house. Goes to show you what happens when you tell a bunch of girls that logic makes them manly.

it might be going to show what happens when a male tries to assume a female identity, assume to speak as one. or several.

Either/or, "Female mind" is assumed to be a thing, assumed to be known and spoken-for by men here; female identity appropriated and assumed to be spoken for, too. And all of it a male construction.

Leyla is right.
insidiously parasitic
for these and many, many more equally unconscious reasons.

.

[unwise]

it might be going to show what happens when a male tries to assume a female identity, assume to speak as one. or several.

Either/or, "Female mind" is assumed to be a thing, assumed to be known and spoken-for by men here; female identity appropriated and assumed to be spoken for, too. And all of it a male construction.

Leyla is right.
insidiously parasitic
for these and many, many more equally unconscious reasons

I don't have the energy or interest to try to understand that mumbo jumbo, but it sounds girly also.

[Iolaus]

Hello Ankit,

(Hello All)

I like what you say. Wish I could think of something to say.

BirdofHermes

[David Quinn]

Ankit wrote:

The best sages kept reminding people to look into their true nature, than giving concepts to the seekers(ex Ramana Maharishi). And further they asked people to be their own light, thus leaving them to their devices(Buddha). One of the harm in distributing concepts is that what you refer to and what people understand may be very different(the very least due to a different perspective). These sages brush off any questions and exhort the seeker to keep up inquiring into the source of the mind and ego, and told them that they can answer for themselves any other questions after clarity of the mind(enlightenment) is attained.

From my experience, that kind of methodolgy is ineffective because it doesn't properly deal with the deeper parts of the ego and therefore compromises the student's attempt to reach the Truth from the very beginning. The guru in question is shying away from addressing people's irrationalities in any real detail (it would only upset his followers), and instead he just gives people cliched formulas to follow. Such ineffectual teaching prevents people from truly awakening to their real nature, although it might enable them to experience the occasional altered state of consciousness.

It also encourages guru-worship because people in these situations are basically being taught over and over again that it is useless to engage in thought. As a result, a state of submissivenes and mindless acquiesence is openly fostered, which rewards the guru with a large number of loyal followers.

The best sages mix things up. Sometimes they give people concepts to chew on, and at other times they take them away again. Sometimes they point people's attention directly to the fundamental nature, and at other times they force people to confront their own attachments instead. They don't confine themselves to one method of teaching, prefering instead to keep people unsettled and hungry for enlightenment.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

(edited to add acknowledgement)

David wrote that Ankit wrote:

what you refer to and what people understand may be very different

That happens too often. That is why effective communication is transmitting a thought from one to another and ensuring that it is received as sent. Sometimes that leads to unpleasant feelings.

It saddens me somewhat that people so frequently put their egos before the truth. That isn't the only reason for the harsh feelings, though. Sometimes some people are just too dense to "get it," sometimes people are unwilling to put the time or effort into seeing through the communication or do not have the time at the moment and do not see that the option of tabling the discussion until later, and some people simply do not care about the truth.

Pardon me if I'm digressing. I just realized it is after 3 a.m. and I should have gone to bed four hours ago.

[David Quinn]

Can you please acknowledge who you are replying to, Elizabeth. It's too difficult to follow otherwise.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Sure - sorry about that.

[Ankit Gupta]

Since the post has wandered off the main topic, let me reiterate.

1)Intellectually understanding delusion is just the first step towards enlightenment. This understanding can be had (by reading and introspection) from innumerable books, and material from past and present.

2) If one wants to deepen one's original insights there is no dearth of "intellectual wisdom" material available.

3) On this forum, for one valuable insight hundreds of red herrings are thrown up. To one fond of ideations and conceptualizations, it would be hard to find the gems from the trash, given that he is ignorant.

4) Further the "sages" are also fond of asserting viewpoints which the seeker would be tempted to renconcile with his worldview. While conceptualization of reality is "the hurdle" to enlightenment.

5)Ergo, it is better for the seeker to fight for his enlightenment, in the world in real time in everyday situations, looking at this board for insights is not a good strategy. If one is looking for such "intellectual insights" it may be even better to look for it in good books.

[David Quinn]

Your message is contradictory, Ankit. If intellectual understanding is the first step to enlightenment (and I agree that it is), then counselling people to avoid thinking - which is what you essentially did in point (4) - and to somehow avoid conceptualizing Reality is very foolish. For it means you are dissuading people from taking the very first step.

It doesn't matter whether people read this forum or read "good books" or introspect of their own accord, the need to perfect one's intellectual understanding of Reality is still paramount. No further progress can be made without this.

In any case, if a person is serious about his thinking and has a genuine desire to attain the ultimate understanding, then he has nothing to fear from this forum, or indeed any other forum. It almost sounds as though you are scare-mongering.

-

[Iolaus]

Ankit,

If intellectual understanding of delusion is the first step, what should happen next?

If conceptualization of reality is the hurdle to enlightenment, have you considered Zen, or read The Three Pillars of Zen?

BirdofHermes

[sue hindmarsh]

Elizabeth wrote:

Sue: They expose ‘Love’ as the cheap two-faced lying evil that it is.

Would you please give me an example?

I gave the example: loving one thing or person means that you exclude all other things and people from that love, which then creates conflict - but more examples are given below -

I do love all people, but I am not in love with all people (that would either be insane or quickly lead to insanity). I do not love all of the behaviors of all people, in fact I find some behaviors particularly heinous and reprehensible. I also prefer the company of certain people over others.

Loving and hating anything is evidence of insanity. How can we love one thing over another thing when all things are Nature? Nature doesn’t discriminate between what is good and bad, what to love and hate – so neither should we. How can I love or hate what is 'me'?

Sometimes love and loving actions mean distance or corrective action against wrong behaviors. For example, with love of both child molesters and children, I lovingly propose that child molesters be permenently isolated in a colony where there are no children. That would be inconvenient for the child molesters, but the temptation is not healthy for them and if they give in to the temptation it would be unhealthy for the children - therefore it is a loving proposal.

Child molesters love children – but because that love isn’t considered appropriate they are cast out as evildoers. But they value this love and live by it like other people do who love something or someone. They can’t be blamed for having this love, so the problem stems from love itself - it is the true evil. If people refused to be sucked into its evil, violence and hatred would have no breeding ground.

With love of my ex-husband, I do not contact him and take reasonable actions (okay, sometimes extra-cautious actions) to not remind him that I exist, and to remain further away from him than the range that a bullet could travel. I think it frustrated him that he could not make me mad (illogical, but observable), so my presence is not healthy for him. His treatment of me was physically and mentally unhealthy for me, so his presence is not healthy for me. He still loves me, so with love for him, I do not want to aggrevate him by needless reminders that I exist. I don't hide because that would be counter-productive to my goals in life, but I do not want to have anything to do with him anymore. That does not indicate a lack of love, it only indicates a logical expression of love.

So out of the love you and he shared, grew hatred and violence. How do you think that happened?

-
Sue

[Ankit Gupta]

Your message is contradictory, Ankit. If intellectual understanding is the first step to enlightenment (and I agree that it is), then counselling people to avoid thinking - which is what you essentially did in point (4) - and to somehow avoid conceptualizing Reality is very foolish.

What it means is that once intellectual realization is obtained, then one needs to examine each and every concept of the world ouside and abandon the conceptual overlay on reality. In point number 4, I pointed out that people here will add to the conceptual burden of the seeker, thus making his task more difficult.

In any case, if a person is serious about his thinking and has a genuine desire to attain the ultimate understanding, then he has nothing to fear from this forum, or indeed any other forum. It almost sounds as though you are scare-mongering.
-

Yes, you are right the serious person can find out for himself. Let us say I was just raising a viewpoint and logically arguing towards its correctness. Not really scare mongering.

I think the quality of discussions on this board(at least some) is of very high intellectual quality, so it is a nice forum to have. I only question whether this forum is an aid or hindrance to enlightenment.