Does it matter or not?

[Steven Coyle]

Its a question of realization.

One has attained a conscious view of Nirvana, while the other remains on the cycle of rebirth within samsara.

[Laird]

I see: so even though the unenlightened person acts in accordance with the buddha nature, s/he doesn't have much understanding (realisation). But if both are acting in accord with their buddha nature, then the only distinction between an enlightened person and an unenlightened person is the enlightened person's superior understanding. And what's the point of that understanding if it doesn't affect their actions, which you seem to imply it doesn't by saying that both enlightened and unenlightened act in accordance with buddha nature? Is it simply that the enlightened person feels liberated? So in your opinion enlightenment is nothing at all to do with external actions, but everything to do with personal realisation? Am I understanding you correctly?

[Jehu]

Laird wrote:

Well sure, they act automatically and without thinking because there is nothing blocking their recognition of the right action for the right circumstances, but they nevertheless have a motive - it's just that their motive is always the correct/noble/righteous/appropriate/compassionate one.

I’m afraid I may not have expressed myself clearly: when I say ‘motive’ I mean that one has a purpose or goal in mind; an end, if you will. For example, we see suffering in the world, and given that the sight of suffering brings us pain, we set about to alleviate all suffering. But the world does not require anything at all, except that everything function in accordance with its true nature (Buddha nature). For when a thing act in accordance with it true nature, then it is not the thing itself that acts, but that which is real (The Absolute), and all is in harmony; this is what it means to do without doing.

[Steven Coyle]

Laird,

An unenlightened person is unenlightened due to their lack of realization by definition. Also by definition both (enlightened & unenlightened) would be acting in accord with their Buddha Nature at all times - the difference being that the unenlightened person would be ignorant of what to look for. A Buddha is actually able to spot another's Buddha Nature, in order to help assist them. In this sense, their actions would be affected by their realization. The enlightened person also follows Tao, so this is also a factor in their decision making, and greatly guides their actions.

[rpl]

LOL-Actually, God doesn't have any shortcomings, but I (my ego) does and always will. This is good, because in this way, there's tons of room for improvement, so life goes on...

Laird,

It might liberate you from the qualms that you might otherwise suffer over engaging in acts that you would otherwise view as morally reprehensible. And liberation is one of the qualities of enlightenment.

It wouldn't be, if it wasn't meant to be. Great, now I can go kill someone and if I'm smart enough, I'll get away with it and maybe even improve my life. Right, that makes sense!

Sure. There's enough variety to keep a chap interested though, especially if he makes a contribution - that way he gets to direct the conversation into areas that he finds interesting.

And then what?

I have my own opinion on this but I'd like to read other people's opinions.

Okay, let's see it?

[brokenhead]

And then I think: but how does my being depressed help to change any of those things? And wouldn't the people in dire straits give anything to have the chance to be happy, and isn't it disrespectful of me to then throw away my own chance at happiness given that those people would damn well make the most of it?

My thoughts precisely. Because you never know when the bubble could burst for you. My guess, Laird, is that you do your duty as an adult and let yourself feel the pain in the world. I know I do. I enjoy life, but I am a serious person. If I run into a fellow traveler in dire straits, of what possible use to that person could I be if I permitted myself the luxury of melancholia? I keep myself up because others depend on me.

[HYPNOSIS]

Why should a movie goer go watch flicks..?

Does it matter or not?..Definitely.

From a social aspect people aren't finding a better path to reality, much less an ultimate one.

[HYPNOSIS]

A DEATH-BLOW is a life-blow to some who, till they died, did not alive become; who, had they lived, had died, but when they died, vitality began.

E. D.

[Laird]

LOL-Actually, God doesn't have any shortcomings, but I (my ego) does and always will. This is good, because in this way, there's tons of room for improvement, so life goes on...

MindExpansion/sagerage, is that you?

Laird; It might liberate you from the qualms that you might otherwise suffer over engaging in acts that you would otherwise view as morally reprehensible. And liberation is one of the qualities of enlightenment.

rpl: It wouldn't be, if it wasn't meant to be. Great, now I can go kill someone and if I'm smart enough, I'll get away with it and maybe even improve my life. Right, that makes sense!

I'm glad that you reject that viewpoint, because so do I. I put it to you to test your reaction.

Laird: Sure. There's enough variety to keep a chap interested though, especially if he makes a contribution - that way he gets to direct the conversation into areas that he finds interesting.

rpl: And then what?

That depends on what you want. Personally out of this board I want the chance to express myself, to have others appreciate my self-expression, to appreciate the self-expression of others, to learn about other people, to learn about what other people think, and to form relationships.

Wow, that answers a question that Kelly Jones asked me months ago last year, and which I didn't answer because she had abrogated my trust. There you go Kelly: you finally get an answer.

Laird: I have my own opinion on this but I'd like to read other people's opinions.

rpl: Okay, let's see it?

OK, I'll share it with you then. My version of enlightenment corresponds almost exactly with the former proposition that I put: acting in accordance with the knowledge that every single thing that one does is infinitely important, being that its effects stretch out infinitely into the unknowable future, and placing the utmost concentration and effort into making every single act a perfect one. That's what I get out of Jesus' life. He didn't at any point say "well, I'm enlightened, so I can kick back in my self-realisation and watch the world of samsara go by". No, he did his best to live a perfect life. Every opportunity that he had, he made the most of: when the temple was overridden by greedy merchants and he happened upon it, he didn't shirk his uncomfortable duty, he got in amidst them and routed them out. When the crowds approached him begging for some wisdom, he didn't shrink into a hermit's cave: no, even though he was weary, he lectured them on how to achieve the perfection that he had mastered.

My idea of enlightenment is no mere proposition of understanding oneself and living in one-ness with causality. It means something to live in one-ness with causality and that is: perfecting one's actions. I disagree with brokenhead that this is "anal-retentive". Jesus wasn't anal-retentive, he was the manifestation of perfection, and that's what every enlightened person manifests. In my opinion, a fully enlightened person in this day and age would be fully visible. He or she would be pushing the evolution of the species forward to a point where warfare, starvation, poverty, sickness, torture and ignorance were unheard of. He or she would be constantly in the news, or at least in the alternative news. You would be able to approach this person in the street and put your criticism to him/her and s/he would effortlessly come up with a perfect response to put your mind at ease as to his/her actions. Every single word that this person spoke would resonate with appropriateness and clarity. Every single action that this person undertook would be sheer perfection.

Now you might say to me: come on Laird, this is an idle dream. But I counsel you: no, it is not! I see the realised potential for genius in those around me and I am satisfied that this is no mere vision. And more so, I have had inklings of it in myself. Times are at a certain point in my life-cycle when I combine a pre-ingestion of caffeine with a chaser of alcohol that I find myself a superman. I know exactly what to say and when to say it. I know exactly what response it will elicit. Most importantly, I know what is right and I know how to achieve it. If only I could harness this state. I would rule the world, for the greater good. The pity is that it takes drugs to achieve this state in me. But the fully enlightened person has no need of drugs nor anything else to manifest perfection: s/he acts effortlessly to perfectly evolve the world.

[Jason]

OK, I'll share it with you then. My version of enlightenment corresponds almost exactly with the former proposition that I put: acting in accordance with the knowledge that every single thing that one does is infinitely important, being that its effects stretch out infinitely into the unknowable future, and placing the utmost concentration and effort into making every single act a perfect one.

How would it ever be possible to perfect an action when its effects are going to be unknown by default? It seems impossible, nonsensical. Even just choosing actions which are slightly more positive than negative would be impossible given such a situation. And who is to say which outcomes are the more desirable anyway, isn't it rather subjective?

[Laird]

How would it ever be possible to perfect an action when its effects are going to be unknown by default? It seems impossible, nonsensical.

Who says that its effects are totally unknown? Life is like a game of chess. You make your move(s) based both on the best attack/defence that you can muster as well as the likely response of your opponent(s). You can predict both gross and more detailed effects with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Fair enough, you might not be able to predict chaotic effects, but you can in that case at least manifest pure intentions, which everybody else generally picks up on and appreciates you for.

Even just choosing actions which are slightly more positive than negative would be impossible given such a situation.

I disagree. As I said, life is like a game of chess. You choose actions that are more likely to lead to a positive outcome (as is the case for the enlightened person) or you instead choose actions that lead to a more negative outcome (as is the case for the unenlightened person who, perhaps trying his/her best, nevertheless fails).

And who is to say which outcomes are the more desirable anyway, isn't it rather subjective?

Do you believe in murder? Do you believe in rape? Do you believe in torture? If you said to yes to any of these, then I'd say that your "subjective" outcomes are contrary to the norm. Perhaps it's "rather subjective", but even in our subjectivity we have some strong degree of consensus.

[brokenhead]

My idea of enlightenment is no mere proposition of understanding oneself and living in one-ness with causality. It means something to live in one-ness with causality and that is: perfecting one's actions. I disagree with brokenhead that this is "anal-retentive". Jesus wasn't anal-retentive, he was the manifestation of perfection, and that's what every enlightened person manifests.

The way you had phrased it made it sound anal-retentive, Laird. "Be ye perfect, even as I am perfect." It is permission even to imagine such a thing. It is assurance that such striving is not a character flaw, nor is it the all-time Delusion of Grandeur. In fact, it is quite natural to aspire to perfection, even as it is quite natural to fail.

So to:

So what I want to know is this: is it enlightened to believe that every single thing that one does is infinitely important, being that its effects stretch out infinitely into the unknowable future[?]

I reply:

Sufficient unto the day are the troubles thereof.

[Laird]

So to:

So what I want to know is this: is it enlightened to believe that every single thing that one does is infinitely important, being that its effects stretch out infinitely into the unknowable future[?]

I reply:

Sufficient unto the day are the troubles thereof.

And I say: "Pah! Is mere trouble sufficient to distract you from your holy grail?"

[Jason]

How would it ever be possible to perfect an action when its effects are going to be unknown by default? It seems impossible, nonsensical.

Who says that its effects are totally unknown?

I didn't mean they'd be totally unknown, but you almost said as much, and that was one of the main points of my post - I thought what you said was contradictory. You said "effects stretch out infinitely into the unknowable future". Given such a situation, in which the overwhelmingly vast majority of effects from each action will be unknown/unkowable to you, it doesn't make sense to me to say that an action could be perfected relative to a particular set of values.

Kill a baby for kicks, bad. That baby was Hitler, good. Along with many others, a Jewish couple aren't killed in the holocaust now, good. A great great great great great great grandchild of that Jewish couple is responsible for releasing some nanobots which eliminate all human life and turn the planet into grey goo, bad. Of course the story doesn't end there, but you get the drift.

J: And who is to say which outcomes are the more desirable anyway, isn't it rather subjective?

L: Do you believe in murder? Do you believe in rape? Do you believe in torture? If you said to yes to any of these, then I'd say that your "subjective" outcomes are contrary to the norm. Perhaps it's "rather subjective", but even in our subjectivity we have some strong degree of consensus.

That type of consensus is no more than a bunch of subjective human perspectives in a very limited time and place that just happen to align, I don't see anything particularly significant about that when you're talking about trying to perfect actions that will supposedly have effects throughout the universe for eons. There have been times, places and peoples that shared consensus that what you'd likely class murder, rape and torture were right.

[Laird]

Given such a situation, in which the overwhelmingly vast majority of effects from each action will be unknown/unkowable to you, it doesn't make sense to me to say that an action could be perfected relative to a particular set of values.

I'm going to stick with the chess analogy, but at the same time I'm going to drop the notion of "perfection" for a merely enlightened being (you have convinced me that it is untenable). The merely enlightened being is simply a superlative chess player compared to the average chump. Perfection itself would be the realm of a god, who would be able to see far-reaching effects into infinity, and would be able to make his/her move based upon the ultimate best course of action, as opposed to the merely enlightened being who sees as much as any human being can and who makes the best (given his/her human capabilities) use of what s/he sees. The chess master (merely enlightened being) is not able to see all possible outcomes (the distant future is largely unknowable), and s/he may be oblivious to the most "perfect" move owing to factors that only a god could be aware of, but s/he can make the best use of what s/he knows to make a move that is as good as is possible given what s/he knows.

Kill a baby for kicks, bad. That baby was Hitler, good.

I don't believe in murder no matter what. How about: "expose that baby to conditions that prevent it from developing megalomaniacal ambitions, good"? But in any case, point taken: the knowledge that the baby would turn into Hitler is something that a merely enlightened being would be bereft of - that is something that only a god would know.

That type of consensus is no more than a bunch of subjective human perspectives in a very limited time and place that just happen to align, I don't see anything particularly significant about that when you're talking about trying to perfect actions that will supposedly have effects throughout the universe for eons. There have been times, places and peoples that shared consensus that what you'd likely class murder, rape and torture were right.

Oh, and are any of those time/place/people consensuses to be found in the traditions in which enlightenment is preached? They're not in my version of enlightenment anyway. So perhaps what I'm trying to say is that the values that I attribute to enlightenment are - at least partially - perfect. And then we get to debate whether this is the case or not, with you no doubt bringing subjectivity into it as much as you can. Fine, stress the importance of subjectivity, but I'm fairly certain that most of the values that I hold dear have for the most part been propounded by all of the major religious traditions. That's not a statement of objectivity, sure, but it's an indicator that reasonable and "spiritual" human beings tend to converge on a set of common values.

[rpl]

Laird,

Me:LOL-Actually, God doesn't have any shortcomings, but I (my ego) does and always will. This is good, because in this way, there's tons of room for improvement, so life goes on...

You:MindExpansion/sagerage, is that you?

Why would you think that...?

Sure. There's enough variety to keep a chap interested though, especially if he makes a contribution - that way he gets to direct the conversation into areas that he finds interesting.

Me: And then what?

That depends on what you want. Personally out of this board I want the chance to express myself, to have others appreciate my self-expression, to appreciate the self-expression of others, to learn about other people, to learn about what other people think, and to form relationships.

I know what you mean and it sounds like you're a great guy and all. However, we are on the internet and for some reason, some of these posts scare me (or more accurately: I scare myself). I'll be reading a thread and I'll start to physically shake. It can be mind blowing and some of these posts transfer me into another world; my own inner world and I sometimes have a hard time becoming sober again and it gets hard to verbally explain what's going on... It's a work in progress - has been for awhile now. It's very powerful and I intend to eventually collect myself long enough to write some good threads to describe this.

To gain a perfect logical comprehension of nature (our lives, views, etc) is so damn difficult. There isn't one path, it's a maze without a beginning, nor an end in sight. insights are gained instantaneously, but they are connected with other insights and these change their original meaning, or they appear to us as a different reality. There seems and in all respects there is an "outside" world, which our consciousness has developed in and yet this world is the product of our consciousness. It has developed in this world yet it also created this world as we know it. For ex. this chair that I'm sitting on in my room and everything else that I see. It represents whatever is out there (it's an appearance) or whatever is inside (but this inside, IS inside, it's nature, or God, etc...). These things are seen and come into being by the presents of our 5 senses. In addition, there's also a 6th sense, which can mimic these 5 senses. It's amazing. How do we truly know what is made up and what isn't. Even logic itself, seems to be part or this fabrication. And...I'm back.

Hard to explain, hard to comprehend. It is the way it is, but there's much, much, much, more...

So what I want to know is this: is it enlightened to believe that every single thing that one does is infinitely important, being that its effects stretch out infinitely into the unknowable future, and to place the utmost concentration and effort into making every single act a perfect one, or is it rather enlightened to believe that whatever happens, will just happen, and that active attempts to direct progress are futile: that "God's plan will unfold regardless of my intentions"?

I have my own opinion on this but I'd like to read other people's opinions.

I'm not sure if you answered your original question...

Jason,

How would it ever be possible to perfect an action when its effects are going to be unknown by default?

In the same way that we can learn to predict time. Or as Laird said: chess (I love this game!). A perfect game of chess would not necessarily need to be "perfect". It can be called perfect as long as the player remains undefeated. That's to say, if there's no one that has a superior game play strategy.

[Imadrongo]

Laird,

To "perfect" your actions requires a high level of strength and self-control. However a serial killer can maximize his kill ratio just well as Jesus can maximize his teaching. This perfection is actually irrelevant to the actions themselves, it is based on the underlying values.

Nihilists lack this strong drive; they lack conviction of some meaning or purpose, values.

To be a strong Christian one must be strong in one's actions and shape them around worshipping Jesus and doing evangelical work. In the same way, to be a strong sage one must shape their actions around spreading their teachings, rather than relaxing or being lazy.

The sage values: spreading enlightenment, being moral, self-preservation, etc.

However this is slightly paradoxical, as they teach that there is no meaning and yet they hold meaning in this very teaching.

[brokenhead]

That's not a statement of objectivity, sure, but it's an indicator that reasonable and "spiritual" human beings tend to converge on a set of common values.

I hope by reasonable and spiritual you are not implying these are two distinct groups. Laird, I have to tell you that what you said here is an observation that I made when I was in elementary school, more of a hope than an observation, I suppose, at that stage. If you're able to see past people's actions, you begin to comprehend the depth of that convergence you speak of. People are not responsible for the the race, gender, or socio-economic class into which they are born. They are not responsible for the genes that have governed their appearance and have either bestowed or denied innate physical abilities. A human being is the most neotenous mammal; even so, at some point there arises accountability in one's life. Life indeed happens to you, no matter what you do or fail to do. You are an organism with a boundary. There is will inside the boundary and there is will outside the boundary. So it becomes a dance. And like a dance, when it is done correctly, the feel of which one is leading seems to evaporate. The act, the performance, becomes everything. At which point there is a detached ego, the I, das Ich, the thinnest core of our many sheathes, which always and everywhere gets to decide. If these decisions can be made in the absence of fear and doubt, then it is incumbent upon us to strive for perfection. In other words, it does matter. Only when I see other people as imperfect, learning creatures, no matter how they regard themselves, does everything make sense.

[samadhi]

Laird,

Surely we do not need to think the matter over, in order to know what must be done. No, the enlightened ones do without ‘doing anything’, that is to say, they have no goal in mind, nor are they trying to accomplish anything - beyond the fulfilment of their function as a human beings.

Well sure, they act automatically and without thinking because there is nothing blocking their recognition of the right action for the right circumstances, but they nevertheless have a motive - it's just that their motive is always the correct/noble/righteous/appropriate/compassionate one.

You are confusing motive with nature. If one's nature is compassionate, there is no motive to acting with compassion. To make it into a motive is to posit some gain by acting compassionately. One can certainly benefit from the compassionate action but only in the sense that one always benefits in the fulfilling of one's nature. It doesn't mean one acts to benefit but that the benefit simply arises with the action.

[Laird]

Laird: MindExpansion/sagerage, is that you?

rpl: Why would you think that...?

Two reasons. The first is that you appeared very shortly after sagerage disappeared. Further, you wrote that you discovered this place about a year ago, and I find it hard to believe that you haven't been posting at all in that time, which suggests that you have had other usernames. The second is that you have a similar style as that character, for example the LOL. And now you've given me more evidence because in this latest post of yours there are hints of existential and psychological torment - hallmarks of the character that is/was MindExpansion/sagerage/friedbacon and others. For example, you write that:

some of these posts scare me (or more accurately: I scare myself). I'll be reading a thread and I'll start to physically shake.

You also write:

It's very powerful and I intend to eventually collect myself long enough to write some good threads to describe this.

That could be interesting. I suspect that you're somewhat unique in having that reaction whilst reading GF threads.

In addition, there's also a 6th sense, which can mimic these 5 senses.

What is this sense? Are you talking about ESP?

How do we truly know what is made up and what isn't. Even logic itself, seems to be part or this fabrication.

Well, exactly. How do we know for example that all of the quirky results of quantum mechanical experiments aren't the result of some supernatural being just messing around with our heads?

I'm not sure if you answered your original question...

Dude! I couldn't have been any more direct. Reread my original question and then reread the sentence after "OK, I'll share it with you then." I even quoted with minor changes the first part of the question! What more do you want in an answer?

Jason: How would it ever be possible to perfect an action when its effects are going to be unknown by default?

rpl: [A]s Laird said: chess (I love this game!). A perfect game of chess would not necessarily need to be "perfect". It can be called perfect as long as the player remains undefeated. That's to say, if there's no one that has a superior game play strategy.

The idea of perfection is a little sketchy, which is why after Jason's critique I modified it a little. I like brokenhead's description of "the dance". "The dance" is like the game of chess - move and counter-move - except that it captures the cooperative aspect better. Sometimes we move cooperatively, sometimes antagonistically. There are a multitude of strategies to choose from: the enlightened person is very flexible. Perfection is not just in each move but in the quality and creativity of the dance/game as a whole. A game of chess might be evenly balanced between two players who are very poor or between two players who are very good, and to the casual observer it might not be apparent which is which. In a similar way, the actions of very enlightened people as they interact with others, particularly with other very enlightened people, are not always easily recognised for what they are: there are so many subtleties and nuances and reasons for acting that escape casual observation. Such is my opinion anyway.

One of the reasons then that I started off by saying that the idea of perfection is a little sketchy is because there is not always a single "best move", and there is no single "perfect game/dance", although there are certainly better and worse moves; less creative/skillful and more creative/skillful games. However I want to pose this question: is the potential of the dance/game unlimited? Will chess computers surpass humans and continue to increase in skill forevermore? Or is the improvement an asymptotic line that reaches towards an upper limit? I suspect that some form of limitation applies. So in this way, in real life, perfection - or something very close - is perhaps achievable after all. The main problem in actually achieving it - and the main difference to a simple game of chess - is, as Jason has pointed out, that there is so much that is unknown. There is not a single "opponent"/"partner" and a single "move" to respond to but rather a multitude of simultaneous and overlapping moves that might come from any one of billions of other humans as well as any number of natural sources (e.g. the weather), and the effect that one's own move has might be governed by chaotic principles. It is, however, my belief that for the most part an enlightened person is capable of choosing his/her move well enough on average to have the intended effect or something close enough that the move is vindicated.

(And yeah, I love chess too - I played a game as I composed this post. I lost quite badly. Ah, dear Helm you cunning strategist, one day I'll have you!)

To "perfect" your actions requires a high level of strength and self-control.

Agreed. As well as experience, wisdom, spontaneity, creativity and skill.

This perfection is actually irrelevant to the actions themselves, it is based on the underlying values.

The perfection of the actions is judged according to as set of values, sure.

I hope by reasonable and spiritual you are not implying these are two distinct groups.

My conception of spirituality includes reasonableness. Not necessarily the reverse though.

Laird, I have to tell you that what you said here is an observation that I made when I was in elementary school, more of a You are an organism with a boundary. There is will inside the boundary and there is will outside the boundary. So it becomes a dance. And like a dance, when it is done correctly, the feel of which one is leading seems to evaporate. The act, the performance, becomes everything. At which point there is a detached ego, the I, das Ich, the thinnest core of our many sheathes, which always and everywhere gets to decide.

Very eloquently put. I once included in one of my posts here an aphorism that I concocted which seems to be along similar lines to part of what you've written there, and which I'll requote now: "Seeking to lead, I experience a shrinking. We lead each other."

If these decisions can be made in the absence of fear and doubt, then it is incumbent upon us to strive for perfection. In other words, it does matter. Only when I see other people as imperfect, learning creatures, no matter how they regard themselves, does everything make sense.

So you believe in human perfection purely as an ideal to be striven for, and not as a practical reality?

You are confusing motive with nature. If one's nature is compassionate, there is no motive to acting with compassion. To make it into a motive is to posit some gain by acting compassionately. One can certainly benefit from the compassionate action but only in the sense that one always benefits in the fulfilling of one's nature. It doesn't mean one acts to benefit but that the benefit simply arises with the action.

I suspect that this is mostly a discussion over semantics and that we basically have the same understanding. As far as I'm concerned we could say either that the enlightened person has a compassionate nature or that the enlightened person is motivated by compassion. In the end my point remains: that there is a reason behind every action, whether the actor is enlightened or unenlightened. One might choose to call that reason a "motive" or a "set of causes" or something else altogether. I'm comfortable with "motive", but perhaps you prefer "set of causes".

[rpl]

Laird,

I'm getting the impression that you are Dan!:D(~for ex. ....whether that's true or not is unknown. Even if you're right about me and I'm wrong about you, means... ?)(my evidence -the way you use the word "dude" and the way you two bicker with one another. Both of you are smart and show opposing view points, yet you do not want to discuss any common ground. This forum is about opening other peoples minds towards the beauty of nature in all its complexity. Exploring and discussing philosophy. After reading some QRS works, people might take it all in as a truth and not explore it, which isn't the point. So, by you two arguing and so on, you're both showing other people "parts" that I find very valuable and interesting and this is the point of these forums (and of what seems to be the QRS ...)

Btw.... I know you know, I thought you'd write about me not making sense and sounding dumb and so on and that being the main reason...(thanks...:D).

That could be interesting. I suspect that you're somewhat unique in having that reaction whilst reading GF threads.

It's not a bad thing as long as it helps me.

What is this sense? Are you talking about ESP?

Google:

ESP (extra sensory perception). The knowledge of facts, happenings, or presences through means other than the five senses of the physical body.

I think so, although I also realize that this is also the product of the 5senses. The 6thsense, for all intents and purposes, is "thinking".

Well, exactly. How do we know for example that all of the quirky results of quantum mechanical experiments aren't the result of some supernatural being just messing around with our heads?

Is there logical proof that this isn't a possibility? When we don't know enough, we can easily jump to false conclusions. The question is, how can we truly be sure that we have enough accurate proof. This is also why I constantly doubt everything, including my own thinking. maybe it's not the way to go, for it has the potential to have devastating consequences. Depends how it works out... in the end (and to know the ending of some moves in chess, would be great).

Dude! I couldn't have been any more direct. Reread my original question and then reread the sentence after "OK, I'll share it with you then." I even quoted with minor changes the first part of the question! What more do you want in an answer?

I was hoping you wouldn't take offense. When I read your original question, I had something else in mind, then what you wrote about in the response. That's all.

A few more thoughts about your intro...

For some people, everything should be in its right place, words are precious instruments to be used very carefully, and perfect concentration should be applied to every task that one embarks upon. These are the sort of people who have immaculate homes, who work diligently at their jobs and whose relationships are typically intimate.

We have to be careful about this. For most - if not everyone - feels they have reason to act and think the way they do and they are right. Wars, hatred, and violence, is a product of all this. It is wrong. Nature seems flawed - something is amiss, but it would not be any other way. ...

For other people, it doesn't really matter what you do because in the end one thing is as good as another. These are the sort of people who throw rubbish out of their car windows, who laugh at social conventions, who experiment with drugs and who couldn't care less whether or not you like what they have to say.

It's sorta like a trick of the mind.

Now your original question...

So what I want to know is this: is it enlightened to believe that every single thing that one does is infinitely important, being that its effects stretch out infinitely into the unknowable future, and to place the utmost concentration and effort into making every single act a perfect one

the very concept of someone trying to improve the world won't change the world, it's just another step (byproduct) of "cause and effect". Without this step (way of thinking) the future could not be (or would not be the way it was meant to be or would have been, but in a way it would not be - nothing would be, if it wasn't exactly the way it is). I can't get over... how it does make a very real difference, but it won't make any other difference then what it is meant to be. However, what it will be is unknown to us, so we all just ...do our best.

the next part...

or is it rather enlightened to believe that whatever happens, will just happen, and that active attempts to direct progress are futile: that "God's plan will unfold regardless of my intentions"?

Of course, in a sense this is the same thing. It's sorta like someone "inside" trying to comprehend the "outside" - but we want to, I'm just saying that none of our ideas are better then the others... The point is, we don't know. we all have ways of trying to know, however...

"God's plan will unfold regardless of my intentions"

Those "intentions" whether present or not are all part of the plan and this plan, we do not know, because we are just part of it. In it. In a very real sense, it's also just created by us, in our heads. Hence, the phrase: "it's all in your head".

Laird, the two parts of what you're asking is the same thing and if you don't see it in that way, then can it be the same thing? (is that impossible?)

Anyways, I thought you were going to write about an investigation into freewill and how you see it... which you did, but I thought it would be something original...Yet, it is... it's just I've heard it before. That's because it's all me, I need something extra... Damn!

You went on with this...

In my opinion, a fully enlightened person in this day and age would be fully visible. He or she would be pushing the evolution of the species forward to a point where warfare, starvation, poverty, sickness, torture and ignorance were unheard of. He or she would be constantly in the news, or at least in the alternative news. You would be able to approach this person in the street and put your criticism to him/her and s/he would effortlessly come up with a perfect response to put your mind at ease as to his/her actions. Every single word that this person spoke would resonate with appropriateness and clarity. Every single action that this person undertook would be sheer perfection.

In my opinion, it seems like you have something against QRS (or whatever) and their claim that they are enlightened and because of this you're trying to find something about it, which is what we all do and what they did to Jesus.

If you want to prove them wrong, you have got to find something illogical in their belief or works, but I don't see that happening, after all, they claim they've spent their lives thinking about logic and nature and all... Whatever. Let's just explore, without the ... But we can't can we? UGH. It's funny, I'm "charging" you with something that we all do. I want to stop, but can I...?

You know, nothing you or anyone says is wrong. I don't consider any of these things wrong. They all make sense and have their place.

[Sorry if some of it doesn't make sense, much has gone in, into it. I believe I'll improve!:D]

The pity is that it takes drugs to achieve this state in me. But the fully enlightened person has no need of drugs nor anything else to manifest perfection: s/he acts effortlessly to perfectly evolve the world.

I've had this experience (or inkling), but it's a false state. IMO, an enlightened person, doesn't need drugs in the same way that they don't need sex.

Would you agree if I said: the "whole" is perfect, but the parts aren't?

However I want to pose this question: is the potential of the dance/game unlimited?

I cannot comprehend how it would be, nor can I comprehend how it would not be. I don't know, but I can debate it either way.

It is, however, my belief that for the most part an enlightened person is capable of choosing his/her move well enough on average to have the intended effect or something close enough that the move is vindicated.

But of course, they're "no different" then any other person on earth.

(And yeah, I love chess too - I played a game as I composed this post. I lost quite badly. Ah, dear Helm you cunning strategist, one day I'll have you!)

I'll play you. It would be wicked if we had a chess game set up, where we'd be able to login and play at any time, so if we wanted to, we'd be able to think about a move for a week. No room for error! (we'd be sure of every move, so to speak.). If you can set up something like that, then I'm game!:D

Agreed. As well as experience, wisdom, spontaneity, creativity and skill.

Of which we "ultimately" have no control over.

If they both the enlightened and unenlightened are expressing their Buddha Nature, then what's the big deal about enlightenment?

What else could it be, if not ego... ?

[Laird]

I'm getting the impression that you are Dan!

Oh boy, I really can pass for a member of QRS! :-P

Both of you are smart and show opposing view points, yet you do not want to discuss any common ground.

I'm sure that we could find plenty of it, and I've even considered starting a thread where I describe all of the things that I like about QRS philosophy - I just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Btw.... I know you know, I thought you'd write about me not making sense and sounding dumb and so on and that being the main reason...(thanks...:D).

You haven't written anything particularly foolish in this incarnation. I was quite impressed with your sagerage incarnation too - he made a lot of well-considered and thoughtful contributions. It was a pity that he kind of self-destructed in the end. How do you think that we (you included) might avoid that happening this time?

When I read your original question, I had something else in mind, then what you wrote about in the response. That's all.

Ah, judging by what you wrote later, you had in mind something about free will - yes?

For most - if not everyone - feels they have reason to act and think the way they do and they are right. Wars, hatred, and violence, is a product of all this. It is wrong. Nature seems flawed - something is amiss, but it would not be any other way. ...

Yes, recently I was considering starting a thread on something related to this - the tendency for each person to want to be or to know or to have "the best", or to at least be considered worthwhile, interesting and respectworthy, and how getting on well with other people is in part about acknowledging the areas in which they are the best, or particularly unique, and about demonstrating to them that one believes that they are worthwhile, interesting and respectworthy. In other words, I reckon that some of these problems would dissipate if more of us were willing to forgo our desire to be recognised as the best and to rather allow other people to be recognised as the best in our place. Of course, one has to be careful because one doesn't want to support lunacy and foolishness - there's a time and a place for asserting oneself too. Anyway I'm probably presenting a bit of my personal philosophy of relating to the world here, and yes, I know what some of you are thinking: spoken like a true beta male. Oh well, I guess I just value getting on peaceably with other people more than dominating others.

the very concept of someone trying to improve the world won't change the world, it's just another step (byproduct) of "cause and effect". Without this step (way of thinking) the future could not be (or would not be the way it was meant to be or would have been, but in a way it would not be - nothing would be, if it wasn't exactly the way it is). I can't get over... how it does make a very real difference, but it won't make any other difference then what it is meant to be. However, what it will be is unknown to us, so we all just ...do our best.

Would you accept this as a summary of that paragraph: "even change is part of the way that it already is"?

Laird: or is it rather enlightened to believe that whatever happens, will just happen, and that active attempts to direct progress are futile: that "God's plan will unfold regardless of my intentions"?

rpl: Of course, in a sense this is the same thing.

Well it's a pretty weak sense - so weak as to be non-existent in my opinion. The first alternative is about people caring about the consequences of their actions and the second alternative is about people not caring about the consequences of their actions.

I gather though that what you're trying to say is "it doesn't matter which attitude you take, because everything will be as it must be (is) in the end anyway, and even the attitude itself is part of the way that it must be (is)". Am I right?

Anyways, I thought you were going to write about an investigation into freewill and how you see it... which you did, but I thought it would be something original...

I don't have anything original to say on the topic of freewill, except to say that I suspect that there is such a thing as "true" free will. In other words, I suspect that determinism will one day be superseded. Of course it already has been due to quantum randomness but as David points out in Wisdom of the Infinite, randomness can't be considered to be the basis of free will any more than determinism can. I have no idea how "truly" free will would be conceptualised, and I suppose that in writing that I disappoint you. My friend, the understanding of free will is one of my goals too and I regret to say that I am probably no closer to this goal than you are. Perhaps, like the mystery of how existence exists, it is one of those things that we simply cannot comprehend as human beings.

In my opinion, it seems like you have something against QRS (or whatever) and their claim that they are enlightened and because of this you're trying to find something about it, which is what we all do and what they did to Jesus.

Oh heavens above, rpl, way to feed the QRS messiah complex!

I do happen to think that the QRS version of enlightenment is weak, yes. It amounts to an intellectualisation and an attitude resulting in behaviour that - as I've demonstrated - can be fairly easily mimicked. I don't think that there's a lot of substance to it either. I don't think that there's anything particularly impressive about devoting one's life to "the propagation of wisdom" when this planet is beset by all manner of practical problems which are unaffected by this abstract "wisdom". QRS wisdom doesn't put food in the starving bellies of children in Africa. QRS wisdom doesn't extract third world factory workers from the situation of ineluctable poverty-slavery in which they find themselves. Enlightenment is supposed to be about compassion for life. What could be more compassionate than changing the circumstances of the world such that physical suffering is for the most part eliminated?

And as for this notion of the enlightened person being completely unemotional: I just don't buy it. I don't see why one would want to give up the incredible experience of an emotional life. I'm all for avoiding the clouding of one's judgement due to emotions, but that doesn't mean that one has to give them up, it just means that one has to process them carefully. Sometimes it's harmless and even beneficial to allow one's emotions to affect one's behaviour anyway, such as when one cares deeply about another person and gets a little carried away in telling that person how much one cares.

If you want to prove them wrong, you have got to find something illogical in their belief or works, but I don't see that happening

Well I've tried to point out some of what I see as the deficiencies of their beliefs in threads such as "The affirmative nature of femininity", "Naturalistic philosophy denies life" and "How to PROVE GOD EXISTS?"

There are quite a few aspects to their philosophy but let me take for an example their notion of the Totality. For a start what's illogical about it is that they describe it as wholly and necessarily deterministic, when quantum mechanics strongly suggests to the contrary that true randomness exists. But OK, let's grant them the possibility that the randomness of quantum mechanics actually has a deterministic basis (this seems very unlikely but it's at least a possibility). The fact is though that the current scientific model incorporating quantum randomness is at the very least a highly viable one, so *poof* goes the "logical necessity" of QRS's determinism. What this "logical necessity" amounts to is "I can't and don't want to imagine anything else, even though science tells me that I'm wrong".

If you can't pick a million and one other similar flaws and deficiencies in the QRS philosophy then you're just not analysing it carefully enough.

Would you agree if I said: the "whole" is perfect, but the parts aren't?

Perhaps. I'm not really sure.

Laird: It is, however, my belief that for the most part an enlightened person is capable of choosing his/her move well enough on average to have the intended effect or something close enough that the move is vindicated.

rpl: But of course, they're "no different" then any other person on earth.

Well, in the sense of their superior ability to choose the most appropriate actions they're different.

I'll play you. It would be wicked if we had a chess game set up, where we'd be able to login and play at any time, so if we wanted to, we'd be able to think about a move for a week. No room for error! (we'd be sure of every move, so to speak.). If you can set up something like that, then I'm game!:D

I already play like that on Facebook. If you'd like to play me then set up a Facebook account and drop me a message - I'll send the chess application over to you. My profile is "Laird Shaw".

Laird: If they both the enlightened and unenlightened are expressing their Buddha Nature, then what's the big deal about enlightenment?

rpl: What else could it be, if not ego... ?

Indeed.

[Shahrazad]

Laird,

I was quite impressed with your sagerage incarnation too -

Not me.

There ought to be a limit as to how many times a poster can be banned and let back in under another name. The game is getting old.

How do you think that we (you included) might avoid that happening this time?

Encourage him to keep taking his pills. That would really help.


-

[Laird]

rpl: Both of you [Dan and Laird] are smart and show opposing view points, yet you do not want to discuss any common ground.

Laird: I'm sure that we could find plenty of it, and I've even considered starting a thread where I describe all of the things that I like about QRS philosophy - I just haven't gotten around to it yet.

I decided that this was important and I've now started that thread: Common ground.

[samadhi]

Laird,

I suspect that this is mostly a discussion over semantics and that we basically have the same understanding. As far as I'm concerned we could say either that the enlightened person has a compassionate nature or that the enlightened person is motivated by compassion. In the end my point remains: that there is a reason behind every action, whether the actor is enlightened or unenlightened. One might choose to call that reason a "motive" or a "set of causes" or something else altogether. I'm comfortable with "motive", but perhaps you prefer "set of causes".

I still think you are missing a key point. Animals for instance don't act with motive. They simply do what is in their nature to do. When a lion kills a zebra, we don't say the lion is evil because it has motive to kill. In the same way we can't say an enlightened person deserves our praise because of their motive for compassion. As long as you seek to act out of pure motive, you are trying not only to live out of an image but assuming that a selfish motive can create an unselfish result. Living out of an image requires you to adopt someone else's idea of what is best way to live, living by your own nature doesn't. Assuming your motive is not harmful is self-serving, whereas one's own true nature doesn't create harm. One chooses motive, one doesn't choose nature and as long as you are choosing, you can be sure the ego is involved.