why wont QSorR answer Lairds fair question?

[spelnxpert]

Ok, here below, pulled from the Common Ground thread, for some reason the sage's who blame forum members for lackluster inactivity repeatedly refuse to answer a question that I and probably several others would like to know- can we have a show of hands, who else is brave enough to admit interest here?

Dan Rowden wrote:
[E]motions are a consequence of a deluded mind; that being derived from such a mind set they naturally fall away (cease to arise) when such a mindset is transcended.


Yeah, that's the bit that I disagree with and furthermore that I don't fully understand. I've requested for both David and Kevin (David on two occasions, Kevin just the once) to explain the relationship between "transcending the deluded mindset" - which I believe can in other words be stated as "realising the illusory nature of the self" - and the "falling away" of emotions. I was disappointed that they ignored my request on both occasions. Perhaps you will be more obliging. For reference, here is the exact wording of the request that I have already posted twice and which was originally addressed to David:

I'm interested in seeing you elaborate on the relationship between this intellectualisation as to the illusionary nature of self and its supposed effect of dissolving emotion, because that's the most detail in which I understand your claim. I've discussed it with Kevin in person and that's as far as he goes too. You guys are claiming a cause (an intellectualisation) and an effect (the dissolution of emotion). OK, so then what's the mechanism by which this cause effects its result?

[Dan Rowden]

Either you're not paying enough attention or you're not paying enough attention. There is probably a third possibility, but I suspect that is you're not paying enough attention. In what sense did my Emotions, Attachment and Wisdom thread not answer his - and similarly asked - question? If you can point this out I'll try and expound a little more.

[sue hindmarsh]

spelnxpert,

Laird says that he has already been given all the information he would require to understand this truth by Kevin, but he still doesn't understand it. This means that no amount of telling him is going to change his inability to understand its meaning.

This isn't a surprise - some people have the necessary prerequisites in place that ready them to understand these truths, others do not. I'm sure you have experienced not understanding something, and then some time later, when you've had time to consider the matter, you get it.

Laird just needs to spend some time thinking on it.

[Laird]

Either you're not paying enough attention or you're not paying enough attention. There is probably a third possibility, but I suspect that is you're not paying enough attention. In what sense did my Emotions, Attachment and Wisdom thread not answer his - and similarly asked - question? If you can point this out I'll try and expound a little more.

I'd rather ask: in what sense did your thread answer my question? Please provide a direct answer to my long-unanswered question, if necessary by cutting and pasting the relevant quotes. I could make a go of it myself (and I actually have done) but I'd rather not at this stage publicly guess which quotes you think are directly relevant to my question - I'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth so to speak.

While we're on the subject of questions unanswered, you didn't answer my last response in the Nuthin' thread, instead closing the forum (I'm not implying that the two are related). Perhaps you would care to respond to the two questions in my response, namely:

Dan: You tend to set a different standard for yourself than you set for others in terms of defending a position. On this issue you've offered nothing beyond platitudes and hand waving. If that's the best you can do, that's fair enough. It's a tough issue. My point is that it's not enough for you to pontificate on the errors or lack of substance of the position of others. Do you get that?

Laird: I get that, so then let's cut to the chase. You supposedly have had this intellectual realisation about the non-inherent, illusory nature of the self. You still have emotions. If this magic trick hasn't worked for you, as a member of QRS, then what hope do the rest of us have?

and

Laird: Show me someone who has achieved this [the dissolution of all emotions].

Dan: That request is inherently silly.

Laird: On the contrary, it cuts right to the heart of the matter. You're claiming something, and I'm claiming that it's not possible. If you can't find even a single person who substantiates your claim then it's looking pretty weak, isn't it?

Sue,

Of late you have been making a habit of misrepresenting people. You consistently misrepresented Nat in the thread that you recently started. Now you've misrepresented me. I did not say that I have "already been given all the information would require to understand this truth by Kevin". I actually wrote that "that's as far as he goes", clearly implying that I expected more information to be able to make sense of what he is saying. Please quit with the misrepresentations. It's very irritating. It's also dishonest.

[Unidian]

A person who engages in willful misrepresentation as a rhetorical device deserves no respect on either a personal or an intellectual level. Are propaganda techniques consistent with a "Genius" mindset? I wouldn't have thought so until recently.

[Dan Rowden]

Either you're not paying enough attention or you're not paying enough attention. There is probably a third possibility, but I suspect that is you're not paying enough attention. In what sense did my Emotions, Attachment and Wisdom thread not answer his - and similarly asked - question? If you can point this out I'll try and expound a little more.

I'd rather ask: in what sense did your thread answer my question?

Ok, well, last time we spoke about this you said you were re-reading my thread to see if you missed anything. I take it you didn't find anything satisfying in that re-read. I'm going to answer your questions - should I feel that I haven't actually done so - in the appropriate thread (i.e. the Emotion, attachment and wisdom thread), as one of the things I've also gotten tired of with the board is the creation of gratuitous threads. The OP of this one should have gone in that other thread.

[David Quinn]

Sue,

Of late you have been making a habit of misrepresenting people. You consistently misrepresented Nat in the thread that you recently started. Now you've misrepresented me. I did not say that I have "already been given all the information would require to understand this truth by Kevin". I actually wrote that "that's as far as he goes", clearly implying that I expected more information to be able to make sense of what he is saying. Please quit with the misrepresentations. It's very irritating. It's also dishonest.

No, Sue is right on the mark. You have been given more than enough information about the path to enlightenment, both from Kevin and this forum, but you lack either the willingness or capacity to put 2 and 2 together and make the necessary mental connections.

You said yourself that you have no real interest in the subject. Your priorities lie elsewhere - in socializing, meeting women and politics. Given this, you don't have the energy and drive to perform the kind of intense introspection needed to understand these difficult matters. Whatever effort you have put in has been done in a negative, defensive sense of trying to tear down the lines of thought prematurely, without properly understanding them beforehand.

Even the most driven and intelligent of people have difficulty in understanding these subtle, yet profound, matters of wisdom and have to put in a lot of effort and sacrifice. So what chance does a half-hearted individual with differing priorities have? None whatsoever.

As regards this topic of the emotions, it is a subject that has been dealt with many times before on this forum. An emotion is the result of a complex physical and psychological process which involves various elements such as perception, hormones, muscle contraction, neuronal firing, etc. It involves a chain of events that begins with perception and ends with an emotional response affecting thought and behaviour.

Perception is the weak link in this chain. While all the other elements are hard-wired into the body's chemistry and nervous system and cannot be changed by mere reasoning and wisdom alone, perception is flexible and open to change. And that is where reasoning and wisdom can have their impact.

If we take fear as an example, it should be obvious that if a person doesn't perceive a threatening situation, either in the physical world or in the mind, then the emotion of fear will not arise. Even though the physical underpinning of fear is hard-wired into the body, it cannot be activated unless a perception of threat occurs. If, by chance, a person were never to perceive a threatening situation in his whole life, then he would go through to his death bed without ever experiencing fear, despite the fact that the potential to experience fear was hard-wired into his system all along. It simply didn't get activated.

When a person understands the illusory nature of his own self and allows this understanding to filter into every nook and cranny of his being, thus altering his perceptions, he is in effect removing the possibility of fear, and any other emotion, ever arising. A particular situation can only be perceived as threatening if one believes there is something real to begin with that needs protecting.

There is an old saying that a man without possessions can never experience theft. If a person empties himself so much that there is no longer anything inside him, except pure reality, then nothing can possibly threaten or harm him. In effect, he has cheated Nature's ability to threaten or harm him. He is beyond the emotions.

-

[Dan Rowden]

Laird,

Re: the two questions you posed aside from the emotion-ego material:

While we're on the subject of questions unanswered, you didn't answer my last response in the Nuthin' thread, instead closing the forum (I'm not implying that the two are related).

You do know if I stopped and answered every question put to me I wouldn't have time to piss and would eventually die, right?

Perhaps you would care to respond to the two questions in my response, namely: You supposedly have had this intellectual realisation about the non-inherent, illusory nature of the self. You still have emotions. If this magic trick hasn't worked for you, as a member of QRS, then what hope do the rest of us have?

Firstly, there's no "intellectual realisation"; that's an understanding (this is a lexicographical matter but I may as well help you understand the language).. "Realisation" is where you move beyond possession of an understanding, which can be and often is restricted to the purely intellectual dimension of consciousness, and literally become that understanding. In short, realisation is the direct and complete experience of reality. Secondly, I certainly still have residual emotions. This is natural where vestigial mental forms remain - mental habits, if you like. Till such time as I'm able to shut them down I'll still experience emotion at some level and be denied perfection. Why does the lack of perfection in QSR mean anything to you? Are you a wimp that can only strive for things that you know others have achieved? Do you get that no-one would have ever climbed My Everest with that sort of mindset?

Your other query:

Laird: Show me someone who has achieved this [the dissolution of all emotions].

Dan: That request is inherently silly.

Laird: On the contrary, it cuts right to the heart of the matter. You're claiming something, and I'm claiming that it's not possible. If you can't find even a single person who substantiates your claim then it's looking pretty weak, isn't it?

No, it's not. Your question is silly for the reason I mention in the previous answer, but also for 2 other reasons: 1) it's not possible to know what all people on the planet have achieved; to say you haven't met anyone who has attained this lofty goal is to say very little, inductively; 2) you can't tell for sure from a person's demeanour and actions if they are generating and experiencing emotion. None of us read minds so we can never be sure. This means that your proposal of judging the possibility of the goal of the elimination of emotion via observation of other people is inherently flawed. It can't be done with any certitude. You are your own petri dish. If you had any real feel for philosophy you'd know this is true for almost everything that philosophy is.

[Unidian]

Secondly, I certainly still have residual emotions. This is natural where vestigial mental forms remain - mental habits, if you like.

Well, I think there's a difference between emotions and bad mental habits. I don't reject emotions, but I do think certain emotional responses can be closely linked to lingering bad habits. For example, my primary lingering bad habits are argumentativeness and contentiousness. I understand the pointlessness and fundamentally misguided nature of these habits but I continue to engage in them, primarily because they are deeply ingrained in my personality at the subconscious level.

Without addressing the crucial issue of the subconscious mind, I can't see how discussions of this nature could possibly be productive. For the most part, it doesn't matter in the slightest what goes on at a conscious level as long as it remains superficial and does not sink deeply into the subconscious mind. I'll address the rest of this to "everyone," because it's more of a general commentary.

The real issue, as I see it, centers around whether or not an experience exists which can be consciously triggered through an intellectualization and has the effects of causing instant or very rapid large-scale change in the subconscious neural networks. Some traditions, apparently including the QRS one, seem to suggest that such an experience does exist and can be accessed. Given that I have had no such experience, I have no basis to believe that it exists other than taking someone's word for it, which is in general a remarkably bad policy. That is why I tend to identify with those traditions and ideas which hold that any intellectual "breakthrough" is of fairly limited significance, and it is the ongoing long-term process of restructuring the subconscious mind which is actually responsible for any change or improvement over time.

To put it another way, the experience of myself and QRS in response to what is apparently the same thing has been markedly different. Without pretense, I can say I feel fairly certain that I've had any intellectual "breakthrough" regarding the nature of reality which exists to be had - and the effect has been essentially nil, except perhaps to initiate a slow and damnably gradual unloading of subconscious baggage. Interestingly, this also appears to be more or less the case for Dan, but supposedly not for David Quinn. It appears to me that although Dan and I are largely in the same boat, Dan has chosen to take David's word for it regarding the "liberating" nature of certain intellectualizations despite that presumably not being Dan's experience. Why Dan would choose to do this is still something of a mystery to me.

If intellectualizations can trigger an experience which sets us free, then both Dan and I should be "free." But we are not, at least in the conventional sense, which is the only sense in which we can discuss any of this meaningfully. Emotions, bad mental habits, and a subconscious sense of self remain, even though the conscious idea of inherent existence and other such empty concepts been blown to bits intellectually. In my view, this sort of discussion would be more more productive if we focused on discovering why that is the case. I submit it is the case because thoughts do not and cannot liberate.

[David Quinn]

If intellectualizations can trigger an experience which sets us free, then both Dan and I should be "free." But we are not, at least in the conventional sense, which is the only sense in which we can discuss any of this meaningfully. Emotions, bad mental habits, and a subconscious sense of self remain, even though the conscious idea of inherent existence and other such empty concepts been blown to bits intellectually. In my view, this sort of discussion would be more more productive if we focused on discovering why that is the case. I submit it is the case because thoughts do not and cannot liberate.

On the contrary, it is primarily due to the presence of attachments - which is what this forum constantly focuses on. Liberation depends on the willingness of the individual to allow his intellectual understanding (assuming that it is a genuine realization of Truth) to filter into every aspect of his existence, such that it permanently alters his perspective and relationship to all things - which in turn depends on his willingness to eject from his life everything that contradicts it.

Thought can only do so much. It depends on the willingness of the individual to act upon it and bring it to full fruition. But this is the point where we all balk. Even in the best of us, it often seems like too big a sacrifice.

Blaming one's failings in this area on thought is a cop-out. It's a way to settle down into mediocrity without a conscience.

-

[Unidian]

David,

Liberation depends on the willingness of the individual to allow his intellectual understanding (assuming that it is a genuine realization of Truth) to filter into every aspect of his existence, such that it permanently alters his perspective and relationship to all things - which in turn depends on his willingness to eject from his life everything that contradicts it.

And this "willingness" is itself outside the scope of the intellectual understanding to which it refers. Just as you say, one could have a perfect intellectual understanding and still utterly refuse to admit that understanding to any region of the mind other than the conscious left brain hemisphere. So you auto-owned yourself, essentially, although you probably don't realize it. Intellectual understandings are admittedly powerless according to what you just said, and everything depends on some vaguely-defined "willingness" which is another matter entirely. It is probably vaguely-defined because you realize full well that it involves emotional motivations. What stops anyone from having the intellectual realization "all attachments are deluded" but also having an emotional prompt which says "who cares, because embracing attachments are more fun that chasing after some thought?"

Nothing prevents this, and that's why your elaborate whole system falls down. As you've cautiously alluded to (but wisely avoided explicitly stating) in the past, "liberation" depends utterly on the Grace of God and nothing else. All the rest is smoke and mirrors, and you should be more honest about this. Kevin is.

Thought can only do so much. It depends on the willingness of the individual to act upon it and bring it to full fruition. But this is the point where we all balk. Even in the best of us, it often seems like too big a sacrifice.

Blaming one's failings in this area on thought is a cop-out. It's a way to settle down into mediocrity without a conscience.

It's up to Nature who gets what, where, when, and how. Neither one's failings or one's strengths are of any consequence whatsoever. One cannot intellectualize their way to "liberation," granting (for the sake of argument) that the term is meaningful. Nor can one detach their way there, pray their way there, meditate their way there, read their way there, argue their way there, earn their way there with good deeds, or follow any other path to that which is pathless.

[Sapius]

Nat,

David: Liberation depends on the willingness of the individual to allow his intellectual understanding (assuming that it is a genuine realization of Truth) to filter into every aspect of his existence, such that it permanently alters his perspective and relationship to all things - which in turn depends on his willingness to eject from his life everything that contradicts it.

Nat: And this "willingness" is itself outside the scope of the intellectual understanding to which it refers.

Not exactly, Nat; Let me put it this way; it is not really the “willingness”, but on the contrary ones strong opposition to irrationality, that develops strong respect for rationality because otherwise it seems counterintuitive to the nature of existence, which one concludes through intellectual understanding to begin with, and the firm belief that truth has to necessarily be accessible if there is one, be it even a realization that ultimately there isn’t one.

There is no “willingness” really involved I would say; willingness to have an open mind, yes, but actually it is the ‘unwillingness’ to accept the irrational, which automatically thrusts one in the direction of being as much rational as possible, and hence alters ones perceptions or being. Willingness is not enough to help sink in a realization I’m afraid, nor does it really make much of a difference, but either way, it is necessarily the blind emotional strength, very strong convictions in your own reasoning and conclusions, that helps sink in a realization, or reject it and one continues the search until there is no more to search, and only an individual can know and judge that for himself. None other can actually see or judge that.

So, say the “willingness” to rationalize and reject the irrational is the first step so to speak, but that doesn’t happen unless one rationalizes that for oneself in the first place, which plays a huge part in creating ones values. However, irrationality can also be responsible for ones values, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that, only that what it entails does not conform with what another finds irrational.

Further more…

It's up to Nature who gets what, where, when, and how. Neither one's failings or one's strengths are of any consequence whatsoever. One cannot intellectualize their way to "liberation," granting (for the sake of argument) that the term is meaningful. Nor can one detach their way there, pray their way there, meditate their way there, read their way there, argue their way there, earn their way there with good deeds, or follow any other path to that which is pathless.

May be, but “Nature” does not bother who gets what or when, and if you separate ones self from ‘nature’, then yes, one can sit tight and wait for nature to do its thing, unwittingly holding nature “responsible” for whatever it does, but are we really any different than any other thing that make-up nature itself? On the other hand, existence (or nature) simply brings forth things, but it is the dynamic efforts of an individual thing that contribute greatly in its own change of perspective, and that of existence itself.

Nature does not carry water or chop wood, we do, but we are actually a part of existence, and it is our intellectualization that helps us to realize that, and one tries to fully conform to its own nature so to speak, by letting go of the clinging, but not intellectualization itself. Carrying water and chopping wood still requires intellectualizing however. And the real Ego, a particular “I”, still remains, simply the perspective changes.

[divine focus]

Nature does not carry water or chop wood, we do, but we are actually a part of existence, and it is our intellectualization that helps us to realize that, and one tries to fully conform to its own nature so to speak, by letting go of the clinging, but not intellectualization itself.

But in order to begin to conform, so to speak, to one's nature, the approach to intellectualization has to change. Instead of seeking answers within a specific framework, there must be an allowance of answers to be revealed through the framework--and a trusting of the answers! Not a further intellectualizing of the answers to "check" their validity, but a noticing of the "sense" that the answers make and of the limits or applicability of the them.

[Sapius]

Nature does not carry water or chop wood, we do, but we are actually a part of existence, and it is our intellectualization that helps us to realize that, and one tries to fully conform to its own nature so to speak, by letting go of the clinging, but not intellectualization itself.

But in order to begin to conform, so to speak, to one's nature, the approach to intellectualization has to change. Instead of seeking answers within a specific framework, there must be an allowance of answers to be revealed through the framework--and a trusting of the answers! Not a further intellectualizing of the answers to "check" their validity, but a noticing of the "sense" that the answers make and of the limits or applicability of the them.

I’m sorry, that’s not very clear to me. Could you elaborate it in a different way; perhaps give examples.

[divine focus]

When you receive an impression, such as "it might not be a good idea to go outside," no amount of intellectualizing will prove it if you are trying to do so based on your previous knowledge. Only your experience will prove the impression true if you are noticing afterwards that it has started raining and are recognizing connection to the impression. When you create an impulse to call someone, no amount of asking "why should I call?" will prove the validity of the impulse.

The impressions that can be considered "answers" to questions may be more complex or wide-ranging in nature, but the same applies.

[Sapius]

DF;

When you receive an impression, such as "it might not be a good idea to go outside," no amount of intellectualizing will prove it if you are trying to do so based on your previous knowledge.

Hummm.... Prove what? That ‘intellectualizing’ is not based in my previous or current knowledge? Then why and how did I arrive at the idea that ‘it might not be a good idea to go outside”?

Only your experience will prove the impression true if you are noticing afterwards that it has started raining and are recognizing connection to the impression.

Well, there you go… it started raining and you reasoned it might not be such a good idea. Perhaps you don’t like getting wet in the rain, but then again, how did you arrive at that idea unless you have not experienced it earlier, which is part of your knowledge. I enjoy getting wet in the rain, and at times go out in a 120km per hour wind speed hurricanes. Experiences are part of knowledge, and “knowledge” is not only in terms of humans. Animals have the “knowledge” that strolling over open grounds is dangerous, through previous experience.

How else does one gain knowledge except through expereince? Thinking itself is experiencing too. Don't you experience 'thinking'?

When you create an impulse to call someone, no amount of asking "why should I call?" will prove the validity of the impulse.

There are logical reasons to every impulse, because existence is logical to its core; that I may not be aware of every reason behind every impulse is my limitation being a ‘part’ of existence.

The impressions that can be considered "answers" to questions may be more complex or wide-ranging in nature, but the same applies.

Every impulse that I may have is ruled by my personal likes and dislikes, so in a broader sense that covers it all. Does it not?

So, if I do not ‘intellectualize’ the action of carrying water, I might as well end up ‘chopping’ it with an axe; so in that case I would be coherently conforming to what? The idea of ‘carrying water and chopping wood’ does not imply, to me at least, that I live like a mindless zombie, but rather that I drop all emotional attachments to such or any acts and rationalize my thoughts as much as possible before I ACT. It has more to do with how I think rather than how I act.

[divine focus]

DF;

When you receive an impression, such as "it might not be a good idea to go outside," no amount of intellectualizing will prove it if you are trying to do so based on your previous knowledge.

Hummm.... Prove what? That ‘intellectualizing’ is not based in my previous or current knowledge? Then why and how did I arrive at the idea that ‘it might not be a good idea to go outside”?

Only your experience will prove the impression true if you are noticing afterwards that it has started raining and are recognizing connection to the impression.

Well, there you go… it started raining and you reasoned it might not be such a good idea. Perhaps you don’t like getting wet in the rain, but then again, how did you arrive at that idea unless you have not experienced it earlier, which is part of your knowledge. I enjoy getting wet in the rain, and at times go out in a 120km per hour wind speed hurricanes. Experiences are part of knowledge, and “knowledge” is not only in terms of humans. Animals have the “knowledge” that strolling over open grounds is dangerous, through previous experience.

How else does one gain knowledge except through expereince? Thinking itself is experiencing too. Don't you experience 'thinking'?

You didn't arrive at the idea that "i wouldn't want to go outside;" it was an impression. It was not intellectual, but a feeling. The raining in my example came after the impression. Thinking is a part experience, but if you are distracted by the thinking, you will not notice the rest.

When you create an impulse to call someone, no amount of asking "why should I call?" will prove the validity of the impulse.

There are logical reasons to every impulse, because existence is logical to its core; that I may not be aware of every reason behind every impulse is my limitation being a ‘part’ of existence.

The impressions that can be considered "answers" to questions may be more complex or wide-ranging in nature, but the same applies.

Every impulse that I may have is ruled by my personal likes and dislikes, so in a broader sense that covers it all. Does it not?

Yes, but not everyone is aware that following impulses is a natural action. Blocking impulses is how anger and resentment build up, because you are making yourself miserable! Also, impulses are not the same as impressions--although an impulse may be an answer to a question, as well.

So, if I do not ‘intellectualize’ the action of carrying water, I might as well end up ‘chopping’ it with an axe; so in that case I would be coherently conforming to what? The idea of ‘carrying water and chopping wood’ does not imply, to me at least, that I live like a mindless zombie, but rather that I drop all emotional attachments to such or any acts and rationalize my thoughts as much as possible before I ACT. It has more to do with how I think rather than how I act.

Not chopping water requires no intellectualizing. You cannot be that mindless if you tried! It is about how you think, but also not how you act but what you do. Your attention determines what you're doing, but your thoughts are not your attention.

[Sapius]

DF; I’m actually quite lost here. I have no idea how you employ your words or how you define them. So I will go with the traditional meanings and you can tell me how and where I go wrong.

You didn't arrive at the idea that "i wouldn't want to go outside;" it was an impression.

You mean it unintentionally or magically appeared?

It was not intellectual, but a feeling.

So, the idea that “I wouldn’t want to go outside”, which appeared for no apparent reason, is because I “felt” that ‘idea’?

The raining in my example came after the impression.

So it was not really because it was raining that you didn’t want to go out, but because an ‘impression’ (I wouldn't want to go outside) appeared, without rain ever coming into the picture at the time when it was an impression. Humm… so there was not apparent reason for you to not want to go outside, but you didn’t want to go anyways. So why did you “later” bring up the rain then?

Thinking is a part experience, but if you are distracted by the thinking, you will not notice the rest.

I agree that thinking is a part of experience, but are you saying that a cat notices the rest since most probably thinking does not distract it?

Yes, but not everyone is aware that following impulses is a natural action. Blocking impulses is how anger and resentment build up, because you are making yourself miserable!

Well, I don’t know…… Do you think that would be your best advise to a serial killer?

Also, impulses are not the same as impressions--although an impulse may be an answer to a question, as well.

Examples please.

Sap: So, if I do not ‘intellectualize’ the action of carrying water, I might as well end up ‘chopping’ it with an axe;

DF: Not chopping water requires no intellectualizing. You cannot be that mindless if you tried! It is about how you think, but also not how you act but what you do.

……… I really beg your pardon… it seems your words are too Divine for me… either you come down to earth, or wait for me until I arrive up there… and that I think would take quite sometime though.

Your attention determines what you're doing, but your thoughts are not your attention.

Again...this is too high for me…. I mean only someone who is almost enlightened could grasp that, say someone like David or Kevin perhaps.., I think I better stick to reading your discussions with them.

[Laird]

Sue,

Of late you have been making a habit of misrepresenting people. You consistently misrepresented Nat in the thread that you recently started. Now you've misrepresented me. I did not say that I have "already been given all the information {I}* would require to understand this truth by Kevin". I actually wrote that "that's as far as he goes", clearly implying that I expected more information to be able to make sense of what he is saying. Please quit with the misrepresentations. It's very irritating. It's also dishonest.

No, Sue is right on the mark.

No, David, please read what I wrote again. Sue specifically wrote that I thought that I'd been given enough information, which belief I do not hold and which my post made clear that I do not hold such belief. Apparently you believe differently; presumably Sue does too. Fine - you're both entitled to your opinions, but then please don't justify Sue's mischaracterisation of my own opinion.

* In the original quote these braces were square rather than curly but for some reason the forum software keeps converting a capital I in square braces into a lowercase i in square braces - the start of an italicisation.

You said yourself that you have no real interest in the subject. Your priorities lie elsewhere - in socializing, meeting women and politics. Given this, you don't have the energy and drive to perform the kind of intense introspection needed to understand these difficult matters. Whatever effort you have put in has been done in a negative, defensive sense of trying to tear down the lines of thought prematurely, without properly understanding them beforehand.

My priorities do lie elsewhere, but I spend a significant portion of my time here and I do think a lot about the ideas that are promoted on this forum. Effective criticism requires understanding of the object of the criticism, so my "tearing down the lines of thought" has required me to think carefully about exactly what I'm attacking. I've asked where I need more clarification.

[...]

If we take fear as an example, it should be obvious that if a person doesn't perceive a threatening situation, either in the physical world or in the mind, then the emotion of fear will not arise.

Well, not entirely obvious. I wouldn't be surprised to find that some people simply feel fear for no particular reason that they can identify. Certainly it's happened to me before with anxiety - a feeling of constant butterflies in my stomach when outwardly, nothing seemed to be wrong with my life. I took that as a sign that I needed a break from the routine of my life and I went travelling around Australia for a year. It was one of the best decisions that I've ever made - a case of listening and responding to one's emotional state.

Even though the physical underpinning of fear is hard-wired into the body, it cannot be activated unless a perception of threat occurs. If, by chance, a person were never to perceive a threatening situation in his whole life, then he would go through to his death bed without ever experiencing fear, despite the fact that the potential to experience fear was hard-wired into his system all along. It simply didn't get activated.

When a person understands the illusory nature of his own self and allows this understanding to filter into every nook and cranny of his being, thus altering his perceptions, he is in effect removing the possibility of fear, and any other emotion, ever arising. A particular situation can only be perceived as threatening if one believes there is something real to begin with that needs protecting.

There is an old saying that a man without possessions can never experience theft. If a person empties himself so much that there is no longer anything inside him, except pure reality, then nothing can possibly threaten or harm him. In effect, he has cheated Nature's ability to threaten or harm him. He is beyond the emotions.

Oh yeah, well then kidnap that man, strip him naked and tie him up spreadeagled on a hard table, light up a blow-torch and tell me that the bugger doesn't feel more terrified than he's ever felt in his life. See, you can philosophise about lack of boundaries all that you like, but when it comes down to it, we're human beings who can be hurt and pleased, and that's what your philosophy of emotionlessness is in denial of.

[Laird]

Ok, well, last time we spoke about this you said you were re-reading my thread to see if you missed anything. I take it you didn't find anything satisfying in that re-read.

I reread your thread-starter and a couple of the subsequent posts on the first page. As I wrote in the post to which you responded, I did find things that might constitute an answer of sorts, but I'm loath to decide on my own what is relevant. I'd like you to point out to me the specific quotes that you intended as an answer to my question. Dan, I don't expect you to put any new wording in (although I'd be pleased if you'd address my question directly), just pick out the quotes that constitute an answer.

I'm going to answer your questions - should I feel that I haven't actually done so - in the appropriate thread (i.e. the Emotion, attachment and wisdom thread)

Well it's been a few days now and so far you haven't followed through. Shall I assume that this is yet another instance of Dan Rowden promising a response and failing to deliver? I'm literally not exaggerating when I write that every time that you have promised me a response you have failed to deliver. Isn't it about time that you recognised this habit and stopped promising responses? I've noticed that you do it to other people too - in particular I recall you doing it to Leyla in that thread that Bilby started last year that got a bit messy and I remember Leyla commenting on the tumbleweeds - so I don't take it personally, but I do think that it's something that you should become aware of and deal with.

Or perhaps you simply "feel that [you have] actually [answered my question]". Regardless, my criticism remains pertinent to the other occasions on which you have failed to deliver a response, and in any case, even if you feel that you have answered my question, I'd really like you to pick out the appropriate quotes and present them in the form of a direct answer. Please.

[Laird]

You do know if I stopped and answered every question put to me I wouldn't have time to piss and would eventually die, right?

That might make an interesting documentary film. We could title it "The man whose bladder burst answering questions". Kind of catchy I think.

Laird: Perhaps you would care to respond to the two questions in my response, namely: You supposedly have had this intellectual realisation about the non-inherent, illusory nature of the self. You still have emotions. If this magic trick hasn't worked for you, as a member of QRS, then what hope do the rest of us have?

Dan: Firstly, there's no "intellectual realisation"; that's an understanding (this is a lexicographical matter but I may as well help you understand the language).. "Realisation" is where you move beyond possession of an understanding, which can be and often is restricted to the purely intellectual dimension of consciousness, and literally become that understanding. In short, realisation is the direct and complete experience of reality. Secondly, I certainly still have residual emotions. This is natural where vestigial mental forms remain - mental habits, if you like. Till such time as I'm able to shut them down I'll still experience emotion at some level and be denied perfection.

So in other words: no, the magic trick hasn't worked for you. There's more that's required to dissolve emotions than this intellectual understanding. In other words, you guys are peddling misinformation. So then, please elaborate on what further requirements there are to fully dissolve all emotions other than understanding the illusory nature of the self.

Why does the lack of perfection in QSR mean anything to you? Are you a wimp that can only strive for things that you know others have achieved? Do you get that no-one would have ever climbed My Everest with that sort of mindset?

Hey, I'm not even playing the game. I'm not a wimp for not following procedures that I hold to be bogus.

Laird: Show me someone who has achieved this [the dissolution of all emotions].

Dan: That request is inherently silly.

Laird: On the contrary, it cuts right to the heart of the matter. You're claiming something, and I'm claiming that it's not possible. If you can't find even a single person who substantiates your claim then it's looking pretty weak, isn't it?

Dan: No, it's not. Your question is silly for the reason I mention in the previous answer

I don't know which reason you're referring to. I don't recall you giving a reason.

but also for 2 other reasons: 1) it's not possible to know what all people on the planet have achieved; to say you haven't met anyone who has attained this lofty goal is to say very little, inductively

This is obviously something that you have an interest in, and by those who subscribe to it it is held to be a lofty achievement. Surely word would have got out about someone who had achieved it? Surely, even if I hadn't heard of such a person, you would have, and would be able to point me to him/her?

2) you can't tell for sure from a person's demeanour and actions if they are generating and experiencing emotion. None of us read minds so we can never be sure. This means that your proposal of judging the possibility of the goal of the elimination of emotion via observation of other people is inherently flawed. It can't be done with any certitude. You are your own petri dish. If you had any real feel for philosophy you'd know this is true for almost everything that philosophy is.

I think that there are some pretty good behavioural indicators that a person is experiencing emotion - aggression and excitement; tears and hearty laughter for example. And at the very least one could ask any other person whether s/he feels emotions and then assess his/her claim based on his/her behaviour. Of course it's not certain, but you can't even point me to someone who claims to have dissolved all emotions.

[Dan Rowden]

Well it's been a few days now and so far you haven't followed through. Shall I assume that this is yet another instance of Dan Rowden promising a response and failing to deliver? I'm literally not exaggerating when I write that every time that you have promised me a response you have failed to deliver. Isn't it about time that you recognised this habit and stopped promising responses? I've noticed that you do it to other people too - in particular I recall you doing it to Leyla in that thread that Bilby started last year that got a bit messy and I remember Leyla commenting on the tumbleweeds - so I don't take it personally, but I do think that it's something that you should become aware of and deal with.

Or perhaps you simply "feel that [you have] actually [answered my question]".

I haven't made up my mind on that. I tend to feel that what I wrote and David's subsequent post ought be more than enough food for thought. I've also been kinda busy with other replies. Sorry if you feel I haven't given you the priority you deserve. You really need to get over yourself on this point. I'm very tempted to say you're lucky I bother at all. See, I couldn't resist the temptation, could I?

[Dan Rowden]

Why does the lack of perfection in QSR mean anything to you? Are you a wimp that can only strive for things that you know others have achieved? Do you get that no-one would have ever climbed My Everest with that sort of mindset?

Hey, I'm not even playing the game. I'm not a wimp for not following procedures that I hold to be bogus.

So, I'm basically wasting my time explaining anything to you. I figured as much. I don't know where you get the idea that I feel the need to convince anyone of these ideas, Laird. I have zero interest in that kind of baloney. I'm only interesting in speaking to people who have some desire to make a true effort at understanding. It's perfectly evident you're only in this for something to do.

See you in the funny pages.

[Laird]

So, I'm basically wasting my time explaining anything to you.

I'm not the only reader of this forum, and I'm surely not the only one who wants an answer to this question - just ask spelnxpert. If your aim is "in speaking to people who have some desire to make a true effort at understanding" then you'll be doing so in making a public response to me.

[Dan Rowden]

Then let those with a genuine desire for understanding ask about these matters. The problem is that responding to you is problematic because you're entire MO is just about reacting to the superficiality of the words on the page and whatever seeming logical problems you can create from them. That doesn't make for a worthwhile discourse, even from the audience perspective.