Would a TEP be concerned about the enlightenment of others?

[sschaula]

Leyla, so you know, I agree with that to some extent. But think about this:

The way we see and hear things is based on the way our eyes and ears see and hear. It's not based on reality. Our frame of reference is human and story based. Things are given meaning. Things don't come with meaning. They don't exist as we percieve them...as our eyes see and our ears hear them.

In the same way, our conceptions of things is definitely illusory or mirage like. It's a map based on a place...so it's not that the map exists but has no inherent existence. It's that the place exists and has no inherent existence, and the map is how the percieve the place.

Let me know if you can't wrap your head around that and I'll take more than a minute to think about how to say it.

[Sapius]

Scott,

I look at it from your perspective. I'm not enlightened. I just know the truth.

Well then, could you please leave the word “enlightenment” or its variations out of our conversations?

We are wasting our time because we don't know any better. Lets consider this idea from an enlightened perspective, though: since we are illusory, we don't have time to waste, or any ability to know better.

I am not enlightened either, so lets just drop that word to begin with, or you can talk in such terms to the one who claims it.

Do you think we are illusory? And nothing more than exactly just that?

Yes, you're right. Now is all there is. However, the state of things now was determined by the state of things before now. What happens now determines what happens after now.

The NOW I am talking about encompasses our conceptualization of yesterday today and tomorrow, past present and future. It is from the point of view of reality/existence, which one can comprehend through the same conceptualization, and understand that there is no space or time referential point TO totality/reality/existence. It is ALL actually NOW and that’s it, as far as Totality/Reality/Existence is concerned. That’s all…

You lost me after "this makes perfect sense to me".

It might be clearer after reading this post. If not, I will then try and connect. It is quite late for me.

[Sapius]

This makes perfect sense to me as to how such diversities and the agreeing and disagreeing can happen and can change to different and unique positions. Causality creates free will with every individual step it takes towards a sentient mind. The decision-making power in not with causality, but that is created through individual things.

I think it would help if you defined what you mean by "free will" in this context.
.

I am a bit tired, so in brief I would say that one is not free from the process of causality as such, but causality gives a deciding power through consciousness which an individual can take simply by deducing internally as an individual thing. The decision taken is that of an individual although it is through a process of causality, but it is the causal condition of that particular thing as an individual.

Hence, reasoning of an individual, agreeing with another or not, choosing an option or another, makes absolute sense as free will created within a thing, and that does not violate the process of causality in any way.

I will try to do better, may be tomorrow. My head is literally almost on the key board.

[Sapius]

I think one of the most common misconceptions of Emptiness I've seen is the idea that things that exist don't exist (usually, this idea is passed off under the term "illusory").

Illusory does not mean that a thing that exists doesn't really exist; it means that a thing that exists always has causes, despite that one cannot ever see the infinitude of causes when looking at the thing.

.

Absolutely.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

One is caused to decide to think

I don’t really get this. I can understand that one is caused to think, but how is one caused to decide before one can think that one should or shouln't think? Is that choice even possible?

If meta-thinking occurs, one can either decide to think or decide not to think, in which case the next action would hold an illusion of randomness.

Also, if you include the sub thoughts that Weininger referred to as "henids" then one could make a decision based on henids rather than thoughts, in which case actual thinking would have to be an activity arrived at by decision each time one thinks.

What I originally meant was between those two examples. To be more specific to what I meant, I should differentiate between thinking and pondering (pondering meaning a longer, more in-depth process of thinking). The sequence would then be having a half thought, which would lead to a half decision to think, which would lead to thinking, which could lead to a full decision to ponder the thought.

However, if I am caused to decide, then whose decision is it any ways? Is it causalities or mine?

"You" are only a construct of convenience, but since causality can't "think" per se, "you" can have the illusion of ownership of the decision even though you were caused to decide.

Let me oversimplify this just to make a piece of this point. Your mother gave birth to you. Who typed the above post - you or your mother? You would not exist if not for your mother, but does she get credit for the job you do at work? I hope not.

Is causality a “thing” in the first place that can or does make decisions?

Causality is more of a process than what is conventionally considered to be a "thing" but the ownership of the decision is not real. You are a cog in the machinery of causality. "Decision" is just a description of a certain kind of process that occurs withing the concious mind, which was caused to be concious by causality.

In another way, causality could be personified to have perfect thinking, as the effects of causality are the building blocks of Ultimate Reality, which is the manifestation of a particular kind of logic in which all factors are entered into the premise flawlessly and completely.

One is indeed caused to decide, but it is the ONE that is caused, hence the individuality, uniqueness, of every different thing and though, through their own unique causal conditions.

Did you finish the above sentence? Is this what you meant?

One is indeed caused to decide, but it is through their own unique causal conditions that the ONE is caused, hence the individuality and uniqueness of every different thing.

If that is what you meant, I agree. That in no way negates causality, though. Individuals are caused to be unique - at least to some extent. There are enough patterns in causality to have similarities and make generalizations, but there is always variance.

[sschaula]

Sapius,

Well then, could you please leave the word “enlightenment” or its variations out of our conversations?

Look at the title of this topic. If you wanted to have a conversation with me about something else entirely, then that's fine. There would be no need to bring the word "enlightenment" into that conversation.

But are you asking me to not use the word enlightenment with you when the discussion involves enlightenment? If that's the case, then I have to say I'm sorry but I won't do that dance for you, my friend.

I am not enlightened either, so lets just drop that word to begin with, or you can talk in such terms to the one who claims it.

I have no problem with dropping it if it's that problematic for you to deal with. It's just that enlightenment is exactly what the discussion has been about. Is there a different and better word for enlightenment, to describe a person with no delusion?

Do you think we are illusory? And nothing more than exactly just that?

What I think is that what I think has little to do with the way things actually are. I live in the world just like you do and believe the same sort of things you do. I can't help it. It's part of being human. I believe that I wake up in the morning, that cars are driving down the street right now, that I am thinking and typing, etc...

If, by inference, a person finds that the world they know is an appearance of reality and not reality itself, then despite living and believing in the world - they can think that it's illusory or a mirage. That doesn't mean it's how they experience it. It's just a thought they have in the midst of many deluded thoughts...but it may be an undeluded one.

The NOW I am talking about encompasses our conceptualization of yesterday today and tomorrow, past present and future. It is from the point of view of reality/existence, which one can comprehend through the same conceptualization, and understand that there is no space or time referential point TO totality/reality/existence. It is ALL actually NOW and that’s it, as far as Totality/Reality/Existence is concerned. That’s all…

You might need to think about that some more. Or at least clarify your thoughts on it. If anything, learn how to communicate that point.

It might be clearer after reading this post. If not, I will then try and connect. It is quite late for me.

Don't stay up for a message board. Sleep is much more important, not only for your well being but also your ability to think clearly.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Scott,

The sense of having a soul or a self, which ties in with the innate belief in the inherent existence of objects.

I am not aware of having this sense. How does it manifest itself?

For instance, when I reflect upon my consciousness, I feel as though my thoughts will one day cease. Did you have something else in mind?

The unconscious belief in a supreme power (which in my opinion everyone has, no matter how wise they think they are..."you find god in the foxhole"...or in other words, "who the fuck are you whining to when the shit hits the fan?").

Unconscious beliefs count? I thought the stress that we place on consciousness automatically implies that a belief has to be conscious for it to be taken seriously. This is the same reason that the picture of Hitler was not considered a good argument against the methodical murder of the elderly.

The unconscious belief that there is something to be made up for....something out there which we need to take action to acquire.

Again, why are all these delusions unconscious or sensory? I'm having a hard time considering such delusions relevant to whether or not somebody's consciousness is enlightened. If they are known to be delusions... how are they still delusions?

[unwise]

What is eternal has always been. An enlighted person sees that he is and always was enlightened, and he sees all other people as already enlightened. They just don't know it. They are like a woman with glasses looking all over the house for her glasses.

[sschaula]

Trevor,

I am not aware of having this sense. How does it manifest itself?

"I am not aware of..." is how it manifests itself. Or, "when I reflect upon..." Or, "I feel as though..." etc.

For instance, when I reflect upon my consciousness, I feel as though my thoughts will one day cease. Did you have something else in mind?

I wasn't talking about a feeling that your thoughts will cease in the future.

Unconscious beliefs count? I thought the stress that we place on consciousness automatically implies that a belief has to be conscious for it to be taken seriously. This is the same reason that the picture of Hitler was not considered a good argument against the methodical murder of the elderly.

I don't really understand your point with the Hitler part.

Unconscious beliefs definitely count. Their effects enter our consciousness.

Again, why are all these delusions unconscious or sensory? I'm having a hard time considering such delusions relevant to whether or not somebody's consciousness is enlightened. If they are known to be delusions... how are they still delusions?

Some people try to go on diets, cutting out carbs for example. They know that carbs make the diet ineffective, but they usually end up gorging on them anyway. So can it really be said the knowledge was that important in the scheme of things?

If you logically know a truth, yet your feelings about it say something else, your knowledge will hold little weight in the showdown between the two.

Here's a decent example that has to do with another topic going on right now: if you know that women aren't capable of wisdom and are therefore unattractive to you, but you feel attracted to them, what do you think is going to happen? Are you going to lose your attraction and attachment simply because of your conscious belief?

Generally, I think the point of enlightening consciousness, is to bring light to the darker areas (the unconscious). Then theoretically, once the darker areas are lit, there are no unconscious beliefs and habits. They are then conscious.

That's in theory, though. In reality it doesn't work that way. The unconscious beliefs are like the ocean on which the conscious beliefs drift. You can bring a little more consciousness to a part of the unconscious, but there is bound to be more unconsciousness surrounding it still.

That kind of too analogical. To put it simply: feelings are stronger than thoughts.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

So, unwise, everyone is always already free of all delusion, even though they don't know it?

[sschaula]

Unwise is very correct.























...no I mean his screenname is very correct. :)

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Scott,

"I am not aware of..." is how it manifests itself. Or, "when I reflect upon..." Or, "I feel as though..." etc.

So it manifests itself in phrases that use personal pronouns?

I wasn't talking about a feeling that your thoughts will cease in the future.

That's what I was unclear about. You were saying that there is a feeling of inherent existence that creates a feeling of a soul. I read that to mean that people feel like they are going to live forever.

I don't really understand your point with the Hitler part.

The Hitler picture wasn't a conscious belief. Since it wasn't clear and logical, it wasn't an argument. It was an unconscious emotional reaction. I am still not sure whether I'd consider unconscious emotional reactions delusions per se, since they aren't really beliefs.

They can be evidence of delusion, but that is saying something different.

Unconscious beliefs definitely count. Their effects enter our consciousness.

I will have to think about this. It doesn't seem correct somehow, but I can't place my finger on why.

To put it simply: feelings are stronger than thoughts.

I can consciously over-ride nearly any feeling that I have just by disagreeing with it. I am quite certain I could sit immobile until I starve to death, and I do not believe myself the only one capable of this. A steady thought can override any feeling I know of.

[sschaula]

Trevor,

So it manifests itself in phrases that use personal pronouns?

Do you really not understand what I was saying, or are you just messing around?

That's what I was unclear about. You were saying that there is a feeling of inherent existence that creates a feeling of a soul. I read that to mean that people feel like they are going to live forever.

By soul I just meant self. I wasn't talking about a part of you which exists forever, even though that's kind of how it feels. In fact, that's why death is such a devastating topic, because it represents the end of the self...and that's unimaginable. It feels like it shouldn't be the case.

The Hitler picture wasn't a conscious belief. Since it wasn't clear and logical, it wasn't an argument. It was an unconscious emotional reaction.

Okay, now that makes sense. For communications sake, it would make more sense for you to say that the picture of Hitler created an unconscious emotional reaction, not that it was one. That's what I was confused about.

I am still not sure whether I'd consider unconscious emotional reactions delusions per se, since they aren't really beliefs.

They can be evidence of delusion, but that is saying something different.

True.

I will have to think about this. It doesn't seem correct somehow, but I can't place my finger on why.

I look forward to seeing what you place your finger upon.

I can consciously over-ride nearly any feeling that I have just by disagreeing with it. I am quite certain I could sit immobile until I starve to death, and I do not believe myself the only one capable of this. A steady thought can override any feeling I know of.

But can it eliminate those feelings?

Just so you know, I think it's good to have a strong mind like that. The body and feelings are weak and prone to swaying, but a strong willpower can keep you on course towards whatever your goal is. I don't want to convey the message that I think we should stop thinking and only feel.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Scott,

Do you really not understand what I was saying, or are you just messing around?

There was a bit of a joke there, but also some seriousness.

I was confused, since you were pointing to phrases that I use because they make my writing sound cleaner. You will need to elaborate on how those phrases are manifestations of a belief in an inherent self.

By soul I just meant self. I wasn't talking about a part of you which exists forever, even though that's kind of how it feels. In fact, that's why death is such a devastating topic, because it represents the end of the self...and that's unimaginable. It feels like it shouldn't be the case.

Not believing in an inherent self amounts to not believing in an eternal soul, or any ultimate separation between "me" and "the rest of the universe". It is this understanding that a stable core of self-hood is an illusion, and nothing more, that I consider the overcoming of the delusion of the inherent self.

Okay, now that makes sense. For communications sake, it would make more sense for you to say that the picture of Hitler created an unconscious emotional reaction, not that it was one. That's what I was confused about.

Exactly. It was designed to create an emotional reaction, not a logical one.

You: Unconscious beliefs definitely count. Their effects enter our consciousness.

Me: I will have to think about this. It doesn't seem correct somehow, but I can't place my finger on why.

You: I look forward to seeing what you place your finger upon.

Your justification is flawed, not your conclusion. We can have a belief without thinking about it (unconsciously) -- I can see that now after my moment's hesitation -- but not because the effects enter our consciousness.

The point of contention is now the very reason you used: does an unconscious belief have an effect on consciousness? ...and if so, to what extent?

But can it eliminate those feelings?

It is possible to eliminate pretty much any feeling. For instance, a highly mystical person may get ecstatic tingles every time she sees the number 7. I will have no feeling in relation to this number.

Feelings of physical torment (cold, heat, torture, hunger) are possible to overcome -- the mind is remarkably adept at adapting to suffering. I am not certain whether all feelings can be removed altogether, but I do know that the bodily ones can be.

[sschaula]

Trevor,

You will need to elaborate on how those phrases are manifestations of a belief in an inherent self.

Saying "I did this" or "I did that" is false. So if you have that feeling, or that thought, in any way...that's an indicator that you believe in an inherent self.

Not believing in an inherent self amounts to not believing in an eternal soul, or any ultimate separation between "me" and "the rest of the universe". It is this understanding that a stable core of self-hood is an illusion, and nothing more, that I consider the overcoming of the delusion of the inherent self.

While I agree that's about as far as it's possible to go with that truth, I don't consider it overcoming the delusion of the inherent self. To overcome that delusion, it would need to have no place in you. If you are walking around and doing shit, it's obvious that it has a place in you. If it's easy to say things like "I am thinking about..." then it's obvious that there still exists that delusion, at least unconsciously.

Imagine what it would be like to not have your point of view as "me". If you could exist as a human body but have absolutely no self conception. That's what it would be like to overcome the delusion of the inherent self.

Your justification is flawed, not your conclusion. We can have a belief without thinking about it (unconsciously) -- I can see that now after my moment's hesitation -- but not because the effects enter our consciousness.

The point of contention is now the very reason you used: does an unconscious belief have an effect on consciousness? ...and if so, to what extent?

It can. I think unconscious beliefs and tendencies have a huge impact on how we live our lives, and our conscious beliefs and tendencies are simply how we view the our lives.

I can't think of examples right now.

It is possible to eliminate pretty much any feeling. For instance, a highly mystical person may get ecstatic tingles every time she sees the number 7. I will have no feeling in relation to this number.

Feelings of physical torment (cold, heat, torture, hunger) are possible to overcome -- the mind is remarkably adept at adapting to suffering. I am not certain whether all feelings can be removed altogether, but I do know that the bodily ones can be.

I agree with you here. I'm talking about another kind of feeling. It's more like your "character" than a sensation, the unconscious. And consciousness is more like who you're trying to be or how you view yourself. It's close to impossible for you to decide consciously "I want to change who I am at my core" and actually do it. Your core, who you truly are, is what's determining what you're deciding consciously.

I don't know, kind of hard to explain. Does it make more sense now?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Scott,

Saying "I did this" or "I did that" is false. So if you have that feeling, or that thought, in any way...that's an indicator that you believe in an inherent self.

Yes, it is simply convenience that makes the causal agent the "I". But I think you are going too far; not believing in an inherent self and understanding that the self is illusory, is a different thing than not believing in a self at all. There is certainly an illusory self without inherent existence. We can even speak of it intelligibly.

Imagine what it would be like to not have your point of view as "me". If you could exist as a human body but have absolutely no self conception. That's what it would be like to overcome the delusion of the inherent self.

I am not sure; as I said above, you may be going too far.

I would be interested in what one of the long-time thinkers, such as David or Dan, has to say on this matter.

I think unconscious beliefs and tendencies have a huge impact on how we live our lives, and our conscious beliefs and tendencies are simply how we view the our lives.

I can't think of examples right now.

Here you make consciousness ineffectual and irrelevant. Is there any particular reason you have done so?

Your core, who you truly are, is what's determining what you're deciding consciously.

I don't know, kind of hard to explain. Does it make more sense now?

It sounds like you're trying to fit an empirical theory of personality into the metaphysical truth that there is no self-existence. I don't think you need to do this. You can believe in personalities while simultaneously understanding that personalities are neither timeless nor absolute.

[Leyla Shen]

Scott:

Leyla, so you know, I agree with that to some extent.

OK.

But think about this:

Alright, I’ve thought about it and this is what I think you have said:

The way we see and hear things is based on the way our eyes and ears see and hear. It's not based on reality.

1. What we see and hear is based on the way our eyes and ears see and hear.
2. Reality is not and cannot be seen or heard with the eyes and ears respectively.
3. Thus, what we see and hear is not based on reality.

Our frame of reference is human and story based. [ugh, straight out of the sterile definition of postmodernism] Things are given meaning. Things don't come with meaning. They don't exist as we percieve them...as our eyes see and our ears hear them.

4. A human is a human and there is ultimately no difference between one person‘s knowledge, values, goals and experiences; that is, all human frames of reference have the same value, which is zero because of 3 above.
4a. By the word “our” it is implied that there are other frames of reference but no comparative analysis is provided, probably for obvious, logical reasons.
5. Being subjective, humans give things meaning.
6. No thing has inherent meaning, since the only meaning a thing can have is that meaning given by humans.
7. Therefore, the act of giving meaning to things and seeing and hearing them with our eyes and ears is proof that things don’t exist as we perceive them.
8. Therefore, anything which anyone says about anything (including me, Scott), is utter bullshit and reality consists entirely and only of physical objects with absolutely no meaning and humans can never be free from delusion.

Would you say that was accurate and, if not, would you mind--point by point--expressing what is not accurate and why. Mind you, if you think it accurate, I don’t see why you would bother since, according to this argument you admit that your (human) delusion could not possibly be better, wiser or hold more truth than any other and that within your personal frame of reference nothing rings truer than anything else, not even your argument.

~

Scott wrote to Trevor:

Saying "I did this" or "I did that" is false. So if you have that feeling, or that thought, in any way...that's an indicator that you believe in an inherent self.

Why Is it any more an indicator of the belief in an inherent self than saying:

“if you have that feeling”
“you believe in”

?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

never mind

[David Quinn]

Trevor wrote:

Scott: : Imagine what it would be like to not have your point of view as "me". If you could exist as a human body but have absolutely no self conception. That's what it would be like to overcome the delusion of the inherent self.

Trevor: I am not sure; as I said above, you may be going too far.

I would be interested in what one of the long-time thinkers, such as David or Dan, has to say on this matter.

Scott is misguided on this point. From a wise point of view, abandoning the self simply means abandoning all false concepts of it. It doesn't mean getting rid of self-conception altogether. That would be an impossible goal for a conscious being to achieve and still remain conscious.

Self-conception is necessary for consciousness because it underpins the framework for all conscious experience. The brain creates the self as a unifying force for its perceptions and ideas. It is what brings all of its functionings together to make a coherent whole.

Becoming wise involves, not getting rid of the unifying force, but seeing it for the illusion that it is and eliminating all attachment to it. A Buddha still operates consciously with the help of the unifying force, but in all other respects he has abandoned it.

Scott's conception does away with the notion of enlightenment altogether, due to the fact that eliminating the self as a unifying force would make further consciousness impossible. That is why he asserts that there are no enlightened people, or that enlightened people would just sit around and starve to death. All of his pronouncements on enlightenment stem from this misconception. It's in his interests to cast the ideal of enlightenment aside, as it is becomes easier on his conscience to lead a mediocre life and keep searching for Miss Right.

-

[sschaula]

Trevor,

Yes, it is simply convenience that makes the causal agent the "I". But I think you are going too far; not believing in an inherent self and understanding that the self is illusory, is a different thing than not believing in a self at all.

I don't think it is different.

Here you make consciousness ineffectual and irrelevant. Is there any particular reason you have done so?

The reason was pointing out how much of an impact the unconscious has on the conscious mind.

It sounds like you're trying to fit an empirical theory of personality into the metaphysical truth that there is no self-existence. I don't think you need to do this. You can believe in personalities while simultaneously understanding that personalities are neither timeless nor absolute.

I agree that you can, but in my opinion that's nothing special. I don't consider it enlightenment. I do think it is wisdom. For clarification: enlightenment is having no delusion, versus wisdom being where you know something true.

So back to the title of this topic, where the discussion started: would a truly enlightened person ________? The question is actually kind of unanswerable because truly enlightened people only exist in fables. No one is perfect. The closest we can get is our knowledge of truth.

[sschaula]

Leyla,

Alright, I’ve thought about it and this is what I think you have said:

Quote:
The way we see and hear things is based on the way our eyes and ears see and hear. It's not based on reality.

1. What we see and hear is based on the way our eyes and ears see and hear.
2. Reality is not and cannot be seen or heard with the eyes and ears respectively.
3. Thus, what we see and hear is not based on reality.

Not exactly. What we see and hear is based on reality, but is not reality.

It's like if you see a penny laying on the ground, the penny being reality: you only see one side. There is another side but due to your point of view, it remains hidden.

Have you ever learned about how the human eye works? It's pretty interesting. You will see what I mean.

Did you know X rays, gamma rays, UV light, infrared, etc...are all light? But we only see the visible spectrum.

When you look at an orange and percieve it to be that color, is it really that color? Do colors really exist, or is something causing them to appear?

4. A human is a human and there is ultimately no difference between one person‘s knowledge, values, goals and experiences; that is, all human frames of reference have the same value, which is zero because of 3 above.

Did I say that?

4a. By the word “our” it is implied that there are other frames of reference but no comparative analysis is provided, probably for obvious, logical reasons.

That's right. Have you ever seen the world through another beings POV? Me either. How could I possibly compare my POV to another POV when I know of nothing but my own?

All I know, by inference, is that mine is flawed.

5. Being subjective, humans give things meaning.
6. No thing has inherent meaning, since the only meaning a thing can have is that meaning given by humans.

What is the difference between a clown and a tugboat, to a rock?

7. Therefore, the act of giving meaning to things and seeing and hearing them with our eyes and ears is proof that things don’t exist as we perceive them.

Wrong. We could perceive things correctly, and still apply our own meaning.

8. Therefore, anything which anyone says about anything (including me, Scott), is utter bullshit and reality consists entirely and only of physical objects with absolutely no meaning and humans can never be free from delusion.

Pretty much. I personally consider most things people say to be bullshit, but people can have words of wisdom. I don't consider everything everyone says to be utter bullshit. Also, I didn't say reality consists entirely and only of physical objects with absolutely no meaning. I don't know what reality consists of.

About humans never being free of delusion, that's my personal belief. The possibility exists.

Mind you, if you think it accurate, I don’t see why you would bother since, according to this argument you admit that your (human) delusion could not possibly be better, wiser or hold more truth than any other and that within your personal frame of reference nothing rings truer than anything else, not even your argument.

That was all one sentence!

Within my personal frame of reference, certain things ring truer than other things.

Why Is it any more an indicator of the belief in an inherent self than saying:

“if you have that feeling”
“you believe in”

It's not.

[sschaula]

David,

Thanks for taking Trevor up on his request.

Scott is misguided on this point. From a wise point of view, abandoning the self simply means abandoning all false concepts of it. It doesn't mean getting rid of self-conception altogether. That would be an impossible goal for a conscious being to achieve and still remain conscious.

So we both agree that it's impossible, good. However, I disagree that the person would go unconscious.

I agree with you when you say that abandoning the self means abandoning all false concepts of it. But I take it a step further and include the unconscious false concepts we have. If we don't get rid of those, we're only fooling ourselves.

Self-conception is necessary for consciousness because it underpins the framework for all conscious experience. The brain creates the self as a unifying force for its perceptions and ideas. It is what brings all of its functionings together to make a coherent whole.

Becoming wise involves, not getting rid of the unifying force, but seeing it for the illusion that it is and eliminating all attachment to it. A Buddha still operates consciously with the help of the unifying force, but in all other respects he has abandoned it.

This is kind of bullshit, in my opinion. The self is a false concept, a unifying force, created by the brain. It doesn't exist. So if a thinker is erradicating his false concepts of himself, how can he possibly do it while operating from that false concept? Simply understanding isn't enough to be called enlightened or a wise man, in my opinion.

Scott's conception does away with the notion of enlightenment altogether, due to the fact that eliminating the self as a unifying force would make further consciousness impossible. That is why he asserts that there are no enlightened people, or that enlightened people would just sit around and starve to death. All of his pronouncements on enlightenment stem from this misconception.

You may want to consider if it's really a misconception.

It's in his interests to cast the ideal of enlightenment aside, as it is becomes easier on his conscience to lead a mediocre life and keep searching for Miss Right.

What a joke. A major reason why I'm against your ideas is that you try to trap people into your way of thinking, by using guilt trips like this one. It's not even accurate. Good thing I'm not a spoonfed little QRSist like some people here.

[Sapius]

Scott,

From that organ harvesting thread.

Scott: To the enlightened, the mud puddle and unenlightened people don't exist.

Dan: I don't know where you get this sort of idea but can you take it back and ask for a refund?

Frankly, I couldn’t stop laughing for an hour actually. Dan does really come up with some very brilliant jests, full of wise advices. :D

However, I started with this because this alone tells me that I can safely ignore you then, but I am still willing to go along since I see that some of your recent posts kind of clarify your thinking, not that I agree to them though.

Sap: Well then, could you please leave the word “enlightenment” or its variations out of our conversations?

Sct: Look at the title of this topic. If you wanted to have a conversation with me about something else entirely, then that's fine. There would be no need to bring the word "enlightenment" into that conversation.
But are you asking me to not use the word enlightenment with you when the discussion involves enlightenment? If that's the case, then I have to say I'm sorry but I won't do that dance for you, my friend.

Then why are you doing just that with the rest of the world, my friend? According to your core understandings, even your protest against enlightenment (as defined by others or yourself), IS essentially delusional, isn’t it?

I have no problem with dropping it if it's that problematic for you to deal with. It's just that enlightenment is exactly what the discussion has been about. Is there a different and better word for enlightenment, to describe a person with no delusion?

I have no real problem either, but your definition of ‘a person with no delusion’ emerges out of and from delusion itself, because according to your understandings absolutely all is delusion, including an UNDERSTANDING that it is indeed a delusion.

I don’t know about naming it differently, I'm not good at that, but you could make up a new word to describe that since it does not conform to the conventionally accepted meaning of enlightenment, and the dictionary is open to being updated on a regular basis. You could always call it a realized awareness or the likes.

If, by inference, a person finds that the world they know is an appearance of reality and not reality itself, then despite living and believing in the world - they can think that it's illusory or a mirage.

Why isn’t the thought that ‘its illusory or a mirage’ not reality?

That doesn't mean it's how they experience it. It's just a thought they have in the midst of many deluded thoughts...but it may be an undeluded one.

Humbug! That is, according to your own claims that utterly every thing or though is utterly deluded-ness.

Sap: The NOW I am talking about encompasses our conceptualization of yesterday today and tomorrow, past present and future. It is from the point of view of reality/existence, which one can comprehend through the same conceptualization, and understand that there is no space or time referential point TO totality/reality/existence. It is ALL actually NOW and that’s it, as far as Totality/Reality/Existence is concerned. That’s all…

Sct: You might need to think about that some more. Or at least clarify your thoughts on it. If anything, learn how to communicate that point.

I agree.

Sap: It might be clearer after reading this post. If not, I will then try and connect. It is quite late for me.

Sct: Don't stay up for a message board. Sleep is much more important, not only for your well being but also your ability to think clearly.

Thanks for the advice, but you need not worry about someone that does not exist. BTW, isn’t “thinking” an act of delusion itself?

Scott to Trevor:

Saying "I did this" or "I did that" is false. So if you have that feeling, or that thought, in any way...that's an indicator that you believe in an inherent self.

So you believe in an inherent self. Why didn’t you say so earlier?

Imagine what it would be like to not have your point of view as "me". If you could exist as a human body but have absolutely no self conception. That's what it would be like to overcome the delusion of the inherent self.

Have you achieved that? Do live by that?

It's close to impossible for you to decide consciously "I want to change who I am at my core" and actually do it. Your core, who you truly are, is what's determining what you're deciding consciously.

I don't know, kind of hard to explain. Does it make more sense now?

May be it is hard to explain because as you already mentioned that actually there is no other “point of view” than the one you already have, but since it fancies one to imagine that the “true core” is something else other than what you already are, hence the thought to change the core in the first place. Is it not possible that the core is trying to change its core?

Scott to Leyla,

When you look at an orange and percieve it to be that color, is it really that color? Do colors really exist, or is something causing them to appear?

This gives me a pretty good idea on what your entire philosophy is based on.

There is nothing that is literally causing anything to appear. It is all absolutely relative. Things are caused interdependently, not independently, disconnected from that which is an appearance, one to another, according to its own relative wave-length. “You” is as true as the color “Orange”, referentially, and referential is existence, otherwise….

That's right. Have you ever seen the world through another beings POV? Me either. How could I possibly compare my POV to another POV when I know of nothing but my own?

All I know, by inference, is that mine is flawed.

Hence, the knowledge that it is flawed, could be flawed. No?

Pretty much. I personally consider most things people say to be bullshit, but people can have words of wisdom.

Hahahahahaa.. :D Such as yourself, right? Well, that does it for me at least; I concede, you do not exist.

Xerosaburu: would a truly enlightened person ________?

Concerned, yes, bothered otherwise, no.



My apologies to Trevor and Leyla for responding to some of Scotts posts address to you folks, but I couldn’t help. :)

[sschaula]

Sapius,

Frankly, I couldn’t stop laughing for an hour actually. Dan does really come up with some very brilliant jests, full of wise advices. :D

In your opinion. I just think he's a smartass.

However, I started with this because this alone tells me that I can safely ignore you then, but I am still willing to go along since I see that some of your recent posts kind of clarify your thinking, not that I agree to them though.

You couldn't safely ignore me before? I don't get what you're saying here.

Then why are you doing just that with the rest of the world, my friend?

Why am I talking about enlightenment? To clarify that such a thing doesn't exist outside of fairy tales, and is impossible. I don't get what you're actually asking here though. Maybe you were asking about something else I'm doing with the rest of the world? Please be clear.

According to your core understandings, even your protest against enlightenment (as defined by others or yourself), IS essentially delusional, isn’t it?

No, that's according to your misunderstanding of things I've said.

I have no real problem either, but your definition of ‘a person with no delusion’ emerges out of and from delusion itself, because according to your understandings absolutely all is delusion, including an UNDERSTANDING that it is indeed a delusion.

Please don't say "according to your understandings" when you don't understand my understandings.

Other than that, I don't know what you're saying. My definition of "a person with no delusion" emerges out of delusion? Absolutely all is delusion? When have I said these things? You're just misinterpreting me.

I don’t know about naming it differently, I'm not good at that, but you could make up a new word to describe that since it does not conform to the conventionally accepted meaning of enlightenment, and the dictionary is open to being updated on a regular basis. You could always call it a realized awareness or the likes.

Haha, realized awareness? That's even worse than the word enlightenment itself.

How about this...when someone believes in and knows the truth, they are considered a philosopher. When someone has eliminated all non truth from their awareness, they are considered enlightened.

Why isn’t the thought that ‘its illusory or a mirage’ not reality?

Nothing is not reality, except for things which don't exist.

Humbug! That is, according to your own claims that utterly every thing or though is utterly deluded-ness.

Show me where I claimed that. I may have made a mistake, and actually said something close to that. I don't claim to be perfect.

Thanks for the advice, but you need not worry about someone that does not exist. BTW, isn’t “thinking” an act of delusion itself?

I don't need to remind myself of the truth when I live and believe in a mirage, and when there's no escape from it.

It may be true that people are simply made up of atoms, but I don't view the world that way. I'm not going to sit here and repeat to myself, "Sapius is nothing but atoms". So yeah, maybe I don't NEED to believe in someone that doesn't exist, but I am going to. I have no choice. I am deluded.

Thinking is an act of delusion when it spawns from the delusion of selfhood. But that doesn't make the truths you find through reasoning to be any less true.

So you believe in an inherent self. Why didn’t you say so earlier?

I have been saying that sort of thing the whole time! You know, "enlightenment is impossible", "I am deluded" etc...

Have you achieved that? Do live by that?

Obviously not. If someone did, they would most likely die of dehydration within a couple of days, unless someone were to help them out.

Haven't I been saying enlightenment is impossible?


May be it is hard to explain because as you already mentioned that actually there is no other “point of view” than the one you already have, but since it fancies one to imagine that the “true core” is something else other than what you already are, hence the thought to change the core in the first place. Is it not possible that the core is trying to change its core?

This gives me a pretty good idea on what your entire philosophy is based on.

There is nothing that is literally causing anything to appear. It is all absolutely relative. Things are caused interdependently, not independently, disconnected from that which is an appearance, one to another, according to its own relative wave-length. “You” is as true as the color “Orange”, referentially, and referential is existence, otherwise….

You've lost me completely. You may be right that it's what my philosophy is based on, it's just that it makes no sense to me at all...

Anyone care to interpret for me?

Hence, the knowledge that it is flawed, could be flawed. No?

A rose is a rose is a rose?

The knowledge that is incomplete could be true.

Hahahahahaa.. :D Such as yourself, right? Well, that does it for me at least; I concede, you do not exist.

Good luck with that theory in practicality. :) If you have to tell yourself that I don't exist, when you see my words, is that really an absence of delusion?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Scott,

The reason was pointing out how much of an impact the unconscious has on the conscious mind.

Indeed, there is an influence there, but you were making unconsciousness seem to completely overshadow consciousness. Doesn't the conscious mind also have influence on the unconscious mind?

I agree that you can, but in my opinion that's nothing special. I don't consider it enlightenment. I do think it is wisdom. For clarification: enlightenment is having no delusion, versus wisdom being where you know something true.

I'm trying to decide whether or not you are deliberately making enlightenment impossible by adding extra conditions. I would call someone whose consciousness was free of all delusions enlightened, but you want to extend this throughout his entire unconscious, which both of us, and apparently David, are in agreement is utterly impossible.

Enlightenment is different than God-hood. I see it as a possible and helpful achievement: the perfection of wisdom through elimination of delusional thoughts.

I think that there is more truth to what David said in his last sentence than you are willing to face. You are trying to define enlightenment as the impossible step after enlightenment -- the total diffusion into nothingness (Nirvana?) -- so there will be no guilt when you say enlightenment is impossible. But you are not really saying enlightenment is impossible: you are, instead, agreeing that enlightenment is as far as we can go but refusing to use the word "enlightenment" to describe that point.