Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/
I take it you have been certified over here as an enlightened one in the A=A church?prince wrote:Buddy, you aren't even close to being enlightened.
Give up the charade, for your own good. Your ego, as little as you may see it as? is gigantic.
General question, Trev-Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Fujaro, what's your opinion of mikiel, based on say, the last 3 of his posts in this thread? Do you consider his replies enlightened?
Drunk? If humans are bio-robotic programed units before awakening and free beings after, would you call this freedom (classical "liberation") drunkenness?is it possible to be drunk on the truth? What do you think?
No. At most a person can be drunk on false expectations for truth, which are still delusions.brokenhead wrote:is it possible to be drunk on the truth? What do you think?
I have no judgement on someone on the other side of the globe I don't really know based on three posts. It does not seem right to me to judge others on expressed opinions alone. And what I observe is that the name calling (with strong words like 'hypocryte' and alike) got out of hand considerably prior to that 3 posts. This whole thread reveals an interesting facet of GF for a relative outsider as me: the unbalance between claimed enlightenedment and enlightenedment in practice. I'm afraid the world peace talks will take longer than hoped for.Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Fujaro, what's your opinion of mikiel, based on say, the last 3 of his posts in this thread? Do you consider his replies enlightened?
So, are you sure he is not a hypocrite? Or, if he is, are people not allowed to call him one?Fujaro wrote:And what I observe is that the name calling (with strong words like 'hypocryte' and alike) got out of hand considerably prior to that 3 posts.
Please reread my answer. It's all in there.Trevor Salyzyn wrote:So, are you sure he is not a hypocrite? Or, if he is, are people not allowed to call him one?Fujaro wrote:And what I observe is that the name calling (with strong words like 'hypocryte' and alike) got out of hand considerably prior to that 3 posts.
Moral judgments are more fundamental, as they tell us whether or not we should be taking any kind of action to begin with. For instance, if the reason you are faced with the task of using screwdrivers is because you are putting together (or fixing) a barb-E-Q - then there is a moral judgment which underpins this task. Namely, you have judged that it's good to buy/fix a barb-e-Q. (e.g., I ought to have a barb-e-Q because it would give me more happiness). Or maybe you decide not to (I ought not to have a barb-e-Q because it would titillate the evil that is my ego)Dan Rowden wrote: What I'm doing, primarily, is rejecting all conventional ideas of morality - which spring from false sources. But really, "moral" judgements for a wise person are indistinguishable from logical judgements, so the label "moral" seems redundant to me, and echos false mindstates. They are just judgements, discernments. One wouldn't classify the judgement that a Phillips head screwdriver is a bad tool to use for a standard slot screw as a moral one.
Telling some truth would be a start.mikiel wrote:What would it take to convince you that I am an absolute truth teller?
A person can't hide what he is. He reveals himself in everything that he says and does. A perceptive outsider can know more about a person at a glance than the person himself can with decades of unperceptive observation.I'll be the judge of who's deluded around here if I'm the subject.
You're not judging people by their posts, by any chance?Fujaro wrote:I have no judgement on someone on the other side of the globe I don't really know based on three posts. It does not seem right to me to judge others on expressed opinions alone. And what I observe is that the name calling (with strong words like 'hypocryte' and alike) got out of hand considerably prior to that 3 posts. This whole thread reveals an interesting facet of GF for a relative outsider as me: the unbalance between claimed enlightenedment and enlightenedment in practice. I'm afraid the world peace talks will take longer than hoped for.
No I'm judging the content of their argument.David Quinn wrote: You're not judging people by their posts, by any chance?
Incidentally, why do you assume that enlightened people are concerned with things like peace?
-
Poison for the Heart is a book which has partly inspired this forum, and here is what it has to say about violence:Fujaro wrote:No I'm judging the content of their argument.David Quinn wrote: You're not judging people by their posts, by any chance?
Incidentally, why do you assume that enlightened people are concerned with things like peace?
-
I do admit however that I have used ad hominems myself, and that I probably cannot totally refrain from it in the future, I'm only too human, but that does not mean a judgement from me of the person involved.
About peace and enlightenment: I read it somewhere on GF, I can't recall where that was, but when I stumble on it again I will let you know. Is there a connection according to you?
Our violence
Where there is ego, there is violence. The two always exist together because they are actually one and the same.
Violence is usually kept below the surface where it manifests as hatred and fear. It surfaces as physical violence and war.
Our violent forms of entertainment act as a safety valve, releasing pent-up tension and stress, helping us to work off our inner violence and hatred in the relative safety of the imagination. If the stress is not released in this way the pressure of it will build up to a level where it can no longer be contained, and will burst forth destructively.
Thus, violent forms of entertainment help to keep ugliness from reaching the surface. But meanwhile, inside, the seething mass of delusion we call "the soul" is being perpetually exercised and strengthened. Through such entertainment the seeds of physical violence are sown, and the fruit is sure to follow. When that time comes the release valves of wit and distraction will not be enough to cope.
There is only a hairsbreadth between the imagination and physical reality. It doesn't take much to push one into a mental state of no longer wishing to draw-up the line that separates the two. When the going gets tough, we do not hesitate to make our own reality. When desperate, we cannot afford to stop to consider the niceties of social behaviour and the rights of others. Happiness is a matter of life and death!
Do not think you can avoid the violent end. Your time will come when things change - and change is the way of Nature. Your happiness will come and go as Nature breathes in and out.
We are all murderers. Perhaps you have not yet murdered. Does this make you exempt? You may not have murdered, but have you been pressured to do so? Only when we are pushed to our limits do we reveal ourselves for who we really are.
Violence is very easy to understand. The ego feels it has a fundamental right to happiness, and will destroy anything that stands in its way. This may mean killing a mosquito - or a person. Yes, to kill even a mosquito out of anger reveals the mind of a murderer. So I say, where there is ego, and the hatred of suffering, there is violence.
This looks like a good time/place for direct Q&A clarification.David Quinn wrote:Telling some truth would be a start.mikiel wrote:What would it take to convince you that I am an absolute truth teller?
A person can't hide what he is. He reveals himself in everything that he says and does. A perceptive outsider can know more about a person at a glance than the person himself can with decades of unperceptive observation.I'll be the judge of who's deluded around here if I'm the subject.
-
mikiel wrote:This looks like a good time/place for direct Q&A clarification.David Quinn wrote:Telling some truth would be a start.mikiel wrote:What would it take to convince you that I am an absolute truth teller?
A person can't hide what he is. He reveals himself in everything that he says and does. A perceptive outsider can know more about a person at a glance than the person himself can with decades of unperceptive observation.I'll be the judge of who's deluded around here if I'm the subject.
Upon what exactly do you base your accusation that I am lying?
Do you really think you know me better "at a glance" than I know myself? You seem unfamiliar with what transcendence is, but I've spent about 14,000 hours in that realm, able to observe my life from totally objective perspective, in spite of your apparent belief that such is not possible.
If you do, your delusion is one of the most grandiose I've ever encountered in my whole career as a psychotherapist.
This imho is a severe case of mindreading.David Quinn wrote:I don't think you consciously try to lie. It is more a case of not having enough ability to tell the truth due to some large mental blocks, an over-inflated opinion of yourself, and a lack of insight into your own psychology and behaviour. Your belief in your perfect enlightenment has unwittingly become your prison.
Good point, David.David Quinn wrote:No more so than judging a bible-thumping, frothing-of-the-mouth Christian fundamentalist to be seriously deluded.
-
Ah, I see you agree that it is mindreading and that you have found a reason for this one special oscasion to indulge in it. Excellent!David Quinn wrote:No more so than judging a bible-thumping, frothing-of-the-mouth Christian fundamentalist to be seriously deluded.
It's that gran' ole hotline with god, that hits us with apriori knowledge ;-)David Quinn wrote:It isn't mind-reading, but the mundane act of observing actions and words and drawing conclusions from them.
-