Can someone confirm my understanding the QRS philosophy?

[jupiviv]

However, practically speaking I feel I have a oneness with the Infinite that is sufficient enough to effectively move others to radical change and/or enlightenment, and then assist in their continuing spiritual development towards perfection.

Many people feel that they have a oneness with the Infinite. That doesn't mean they actually do. You have to define what the Infinite is, and why you are one with. Otherwise you'll just go around in circles, viz., I have conceived of something that I call "the Infinite" - I feel I have a oneness with it - Therefore, I am one with it.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Seems to me that no one herein has gone beyond the limits of logic and reason and has thereby entered into that rare mystical and all-knowing dimension of existence.

Nobody ever does. However once everything is burned up which can burn, and rarely it comes that far, the simple and ordinary can describe the ashes better.

And in the ashes one will find that a radical shift in mind or brain function and a restoration to sanity have taken place.

The ashes could contain the always ongoing shifts, breaking and restoring of brain functions just as they would contain the walking down of stairs, opning doors and greeting neighbors.

Ashes to ashes!

[Anders Schlander]

You're definitely overflowing with something, but it isn't Truth. Not yet at any rate.

What might it be then, David?

You're not in a position to speak about "going beyond" logic and reason, when you haven't yet travelled the path of logic and reason to the very end. One can only go beyond logic and reason by pushing through them to the very limit and out to the other side. What you're doing instead is casting aside logic and reason prematurely because of a desire to experience emotional joy. It is causing you to be satisfied with lesser attainments that are far short of the ultimate.

-

when you mention "going beyond" logic and reason, my guess is that you're referring to the attachment of logic and reason that is shed off at a stage, and not logic and reason that still exist in humans?

@Bob, forgive me if I thought you were attached to the idea of leaving beyond logic and reason in a more literal sense, cause that is what I were given to understand, hence the last paragraph of my previous reply

[cousinbasil]

On whether his words to David could be regarded as offensive, Bob answers:

Yes, I suppose it could be, and especially if the shoes happen to fit.

And if the shoe doesn't fit, it's just the inconsequential ruminations of a bitter old man?

cousinbasil: So then why are you "filled with much joy and gratitude" if the future of man is as desolate as you paint it?
Bob Michael: Joy and gratitude can indeed be experienced in the now regardless of the darkness or the tragic nature of present or future circumstances.

Sounds like a cosmic case of Schadenfreude to me. Everyone else is in Hand-basket, you'll be in your comfy Ark.

Though a great hell must and will come upon the earth in order for these things to finally take place.

Whether or not one or more nuclear incidents, or global-warming-caused weather upheaval, or both, occur is anybody's guess. Great solar flares, global economic collapse, another World War... which one(s) of these would satisfy you that you were right all along? But I know your reply already. None of these would be satisfying to you, as cataclysm is assured and is completely out of your hands.

It could be argued that "all life is suffering" and that this world is and always has been a "great hell."

The reason why "enlightenment" is tenuous is that mortal life continues until its time is finished. Avoidance of suffering in this life can only be accomplished, and imperfectly at that, if one is also engaged in avoiding personal enlightenment. I think you are mistakenly transforming your own personal journey into a sense of foreboding for humanity at large.

[Blair]

Climb aboard the Ark, n' Bob's your uncle.

[cousinbasil]

cousinbasil: No one said anything was wrong with the questions, Bob, but you did manage to evade the one I asked you. ["What exactly in Quinn's writings prompted this little personal insult and your present sarcasm?"]

Bob: Yes, I was well aware of that when I replied, but chose to let it slide rather than take the time to fit it in. However, the answer to your question of what exactly in David's writings (and mannerisms) prompted me to question his spiritual integrity and manliness would be his evasiveness, though there are many things. People tell on themselves to the wise and self-knowing. Likewise photos can also speak volumes.

I didn't ask about mannerisms, and I am not sure what you mean by that. I meant what he has written - or said - in these forums or on his site. Again, you didn't answer. Apparently, you are being the evasive one. I didn't say, "Bob, could you describe in one word something about Quinn's writing that prompts such a personal attack." Rather, I asked what specifically in his writings prompted your summary judgment.

The reason I am asking is simple. This forum is dedicated to enlightenment and springs loosely from the philosophies of its founders, of whom David is one. As well, it is maintained by them - in a sense, we are guests in their house. I may disagree with David from time to time - even in general on some things - but I would not be motivated to attack his integrity, manliness, and courage no matter what I thought of them and even if I considered myself in a place to judge them. I wouldn't think to do that. You seem to have no trouble with it. That immediately leads me to question you in these very areas.

[David Quinn]

We can never be separated from the Infinite, David. It's only the delusion that we are separated from it that causes the suffering - a delusion caused by miss-identification with the 'furthest' extension of consciousness - thoughts and emotions. Reverse the process and go head into the rabbit hole.
Worth mentioning again though is that we cannot be separated from it.

True. There isn't really an "us" that can be either separated from, or integrated into, the Infinite. At root, the Infinite is all there is.

My comments to Bob should be seen in that light. The act of "integrating oneself with the Infinite" is really the act of removing all the delusions and conceptual barriers that prevent us from realizing our infinite nature.

In turn, Bob's desire to experience joy and gratitude and the hills being alive with the sound of music are crude attempts to bridge the separation that his mind still experiences.

You're not in a position to speak about "going beyond" logic and reason, when you haven't yet travelled the path of logic and reason to the very end. One can only go beyond logic and reason by pushing through them to the very limit and out to the other side. What you're doing instead is casting aside logic and reason prematurely because of a desire to experience emotional joy. It is causing you to be satisfied with lesser attainments that are far short of the ultimate.

This didn't seem to be true with someone like Ramana Maharshi for example. And I doubt that Buddah pondered logically over cause and effect under the bodhi tree - I think his 'attention' was elsewhere, in deeper depths - neither with emotions nor rationality.

Not true. There is no doubt in my mind that when the Buddha sat down under the bodhi tree with the vow to never get up until he became enlightened, he finally, after years of being side-tracked by ignorant practices such as fasting and meditation, made the decision to fully utilize his reasoning powers in an effort to truly understand.

I say this because reasoning one's way into enlightenment is the only way enlightement can ever be attained. Not reasoning in an academic sense, but in a deeper, more powerful sense. Fully, madly, deeply.

As for Ramana Maharshi, he is not someone I rate very highly.

-

[David Quinn]

You're not in a position to speak about "going beyond" logic and reason, when you haven't yet travelled the path of logic and reason to the very end. One can only go beyond logic and reason by pushing through them to the very limit and out to the other side. What you're doing instead is casting aside logic and reason prematurely because of a desire to experience emotional joy. It is causing you to be satisfied with lesser attainments that are far short of the ultimate.

when you mention "going beyond" logic and reason, my guess is that you're referring to the attachment of logic and reason that is shed off at a stage, and not logic and reason that still exist in humans?

That's right. Going beyond logic and reason in a spiritual sense means no longer having any attachment to truth, or even to understanding. These attachments fall away as part of the overall letting go of attachments to all things, including life itself.

On the other hand, this letting go of all attachments can only be performed in the light of fully understanding what's involved, which means fully understanding one's infinite nature. One goes beyond understanding through understanding.

A sage who is perfectly enlightened still uses reason in his practical affairs, and when talking about spiritual matters, but for him personally, he longer has to make any movements, rational or otherwise, to sustain his enlightenment.

-

[cousinbasil]

I say this because reasoning one's way into enlightenment is the only way enlightenment can ever be attained.

And here I do disagree with you. Enlightenment obviously can be attained in this manner, but to assume it is the only way doesn't seem to be necessarily true. What I would grant is that enlightenment must be amenable to reason, to one's most rational self. As enlightenment entails being able to get at the truth, it cannot be opaque to reason. In my view, enlightenment must consist of the coherence of all of a man's faculties - any that resist are to be "plucked out."

[David Quinn]

I say this because reasoning one's way into enlightenment is the only way enlightenment can ever be attained.

And here I do disagree with you. Enlightenment obviously can be attained in this manner, but to assume it is the only way doesn't seem to be necessarily true.

What's another way of getting there?

-

[cousinbasil]

I say this because reasoning one's way into enlightenment is the only way enlightenment can ever be attained.

And here I do disagree with you. Enlightenment obviously can be attained in this manner, but to assume it is the only way doesn't seem to be necessarily true.

What's another way of getting there?

-

In some cases, enlightenment can come in a flash, the excruciating experience then can be analyzed rationally. Intentional, intensive physical training can also contribute. I am not arguing that reason has no role - ultimately, it must be brought to bear or there can be no true enlightenment. But the "ways" differ. I am basing this on testimonial evidence, which can be taken on a case by case basis. The ways differ because everyone's path begins at a different point. I personally think it is false to believe that, say, what may be another person's outwardly risible devotion (emotional) to his god or gods will preclude him from attaining enlightenment or "salvation."

What I am saying is that I think enlightenment can come from step-by-step dialectic, sudden insight, devotion, or more likely a combination of these things.

[David Quinn]

What you're talking about here isn't enlightenment, but rather things like insights, intuitive leaps, altered states, mystical experiences, and so on. I agree that these sorts of things can occur suddenly, needn't have any connection to reason and can sometimes be useful in propelling the mind towards true understanding.

But enlightenment itself is a different kettle of fish. It can only be approached consciously by a mind that is intensively focused on ridding itself of all delusions, as the Buddha did while sitting under the bodhi tree.

-

[Bob Michael]

The reason I am asking is simple.

I really don't think it's so simple, c/b, and I have nothing further to add here. Engaging in foolish and spiritually non-productive argument or debate as a means of ego-stroking or trying to fill an inner void is no longer my bag. So I think I shall become a rhinoceros and move on and head for the next town.

[Sphere70]

Not true. There is no doubt in my mind that when the Buddha sat down under the bodhi tree with the vow to never get up until he became enlightened, he finally, after years of being side-tracked by ignorant practices such as fasting and meditation, made the decision to fully utilize his reasoning powers in an effort to truly understand.

I say this because reasoning one's way into enlightenment is the only way enlightement can ever be attained. Not reasoning in an academic sense, but in a deeper, more powerful sense. Fully, madly, deeply.

I don't know about this 'Hegel on Cappuccino' method.
And I think you are absolutely and incredible wrong about Buddha reasoning his way into Enlightenment - no matter how madly and frantically he whipped around with his faculties of thought. Buddha sat where he sat, and surrendered all his strength and will, and sank into what was, without force or contrived will. The rest took care of itself.

[Sphere70]

That is, if the story of Buddha isn't written by a teenage boy on mushrooms...

[cousinbasil]

The reason I am asking is simple.

I really don't think it's so simple, c/b, and I have nothing further to add here. Engaging in foolish and spiritually non-productive argument or debate as a means of ego-stroking or trying to fill an inner void is no longer my bag. So I think I shall become a rhinoceros and move on and head for the next town.

That's what I thought - you have no answer. But by all means, head for the next town, though I doubt rhino shit will be any more acceptable there.

[KillingMyself]

I say this because reasoning one's way into enlightenment is the only way enlightement can ever be attained. Not reasoning in an academic sense, but in a deeper, more powerful sense. Fully, madly, deeply.

How's that working out for you?

[Bob Michael]

That's what I thought - you have no answer. But by all means, head for the next town, though I doubt rhino shit will be any more acceptable there.

I have all the answers, c/b. However, I too have the wisdom to know when and where it's no use talking. Along with the fact that talk is cheap and actions speak far louder than words.

Enjoy your days everyone, and thanks for having me QRS. Or perhaps I should say thanks for putting up with me.

[Tomas]

-cousinbasil-
That's what I thought - you have no answer. But by all means, head for the next town, though I doubt rhino shit will be any more acceptable there.

-bob-
I have all the answers, c/b.

-tomas-
Yeah, right.

-bob-
However, I too have the wisdom to know when and where it's no use talking.

-tomas-
Wisdom is better than words but one rotten apple can spoil the barrelfull.

-bob-
Along with the fact that talk is cheap and actions speak far louder than words.

-tomas-
You got that back asswards.

-bob-
Enjoy your days everyone, and thanks for having me QRS.

-tomas-
Keep the midnight oil burning.

-bob-
Or perhaps I should say thanks for putting up with me.

Your ark has a long way to the last oasis. Dock back in now and then. Anchors ain't cheap.

PS - Keep it starboard.

[David Quinn]

I say this because reasoning one's way into enlightenment is the only way enlightement can ever be attained. Not reasoning in an academic sense, but in a deeper, more powerful sense. Fully, madly, deeply.

How's that working out for you?

Can't complain.

Not true. There is no doubt in my mind that when the Buddha sat down under the bodhi tree with the vow to never get up until he became enlightened, he finally, after years of being side-tracked by ignorant practices such as fasting and meditation, made the decision to fully utilize his reasoning powers in an effort to truly understand.

I say this because reasoning one's way into enlightenment is the only way enlightement can ever be attained. Not reasoning in an academic sense, but in a deeper, more powerful sense. Fully, madly, deeply.

I don't know about this 'Hegel on Cappuccino' method.

Hegel was an academic, of course, confining reason to academic concepts and keeping it well away from the more personal areas of his life, as is the academic way. No amount of caffiene would have helped him.

Personally, I prefer the 'Hakuin on fresh air' method.

And I think you are absolutely and incredible wrong about Buddha reasoning his way into Enlightenment - no matter how madly and frantically he whipped around with his faculties of thought.

Think calmness, simplicity and single-minded focus, rather than frantic running around like a mad dog chasing its tail.

The "truly, madly, deeply" bit is an allusion to the power of love. Ultimately, it is love of truth which carries a person into enlightenment. If that love is missing, then nothing will ever happen - aside from minor attainments like peace and feelings of bliss and other such ego heavens. That is what the Buddha called upon when he sat down under the Bodhi tree, vowing to never get up until he became enlightened. He could no longer stand being separated from his lover for a moment more.

Buddha sat where he sat, and surrendered all his strength and will, and sank into what was, without force or contrived will. The rest took care of itself.

Oh no, you haven't fallen for that naffy nonsense, have you? Please say it isn't so!

It's a disease that's everywhere nowadays. Wherever I go, people are surrendering all their strength and will and sinking into the myths perpetuated by modern Buddhism and other similar forms of New Agey pap.

What could give a guru more happiness than to see people before him surrendering their will? How could religion survive without it .....?

Becoming enlightened does involve a form of surrendering, but only if it is exclusively directed to the truth, the great truth of existence which the mind uncovers with its reasoning. Previous to his sitting beneath the Bodhi tree, the Buddha spent years trying to surrender his will in all sorts of ways, always coming up blank. And the reason for this? Because he was still surrendering to a delusion.

That is, if the story of Buddha isn't written by a teenage boy on mushrooms...

There is that. :)

Although he would have to have been an incredibly wise teenage boy! The wisdom within the Buddha's teachings didn't just spring up from nowhere.

-

[cousinbasil]

You have a splinter somwhere in there, Bob Michael. Apologies if GF couldn't get it out.

[Blair]

Yeah he;s got a self-righteous splinter in his ass the size of a broomstick.

[Sphere70]

David,

Oh no, you haven't fallen for that naffy nonsense, have you? Please say it isn't so!

It's a disease that's everywhere nowadays. Wherever I go, people are surrendering all their strength and will and sinking into the myths perpetuated by modern Buddhism and other similar forms of New Agey pap.

What could give a guru more happiness than to see people before him surrendering their will? How could religion survive without it .....?

Becoming enlightened does involve a form of surrendering, but only if it is exclusively directed to the truth, the great truth of existence which the mind uncovers with its reasoning. Previous to his sitting beneath the Bodhi tree, the Buddha spent years trying to surrender his will in all sorts of ways, always coming up blank. And the reason for this? Because he was still surrendering to a delusion.

It's so easy throwing the new age label around. Meaningless. In some eyes everything eastern is New Age, in some eyes, mentioning something like the Infinite and Ultimate Truth / Truth is New Age, same goes with God, Nirvana, Enlightenment and so on.

You cannot willfully surrender your will. This is the case with this; the Buddha spent years trying to surrender his will in all sorts of ways - he tried (!) surrender his will, he hit his head against the wall for many a years to find that which was ever present. When he then sat under the tree as the story goes, he didn't "try" to surrender his will, but in the more proper terms 'ceased to resist' that which always was/is/will be. Bada-bing Bada-boom.

About falling for a guru in the dangerous sense - this is not surrendering your will in proper terms. This is aligning your will to the will of an outside authority (keeping in mind that this is also the will of the devotee - they like this and have always sought this play of roles). This has nothing to do with the 'ceasing to resist' to that which one really is - even though that this cannot willfully be done either. So you don't "surrender" to anything outside yourself - you find that deepest entity within yourself, the deepest grain of illusion, then an authority can never come in your way - your way is your own from here. If this is understood (in a direct and non-blueprinted way) then the discussion about the dangers of a guru / teacher / philosopher is eliminated - and they will only, if anything, be seen as pointers.

[David Quinn]

You cannot willfully surrender your will. This is the case with this; the Buddha spent years trying to surrender his will in all sorts of ways - he tried (!) surrender his will, he hit his head against the wall for many a years to find that which was ever present. When he then sat under the tree as the story goes, he didn't "try" to surrender his will, but in the more proper terms 'ceased to resist' that which always was/is/will be. Bada-bing Bada-boom.

About falling for a guru in the dangerous sense - this is not surrendering your will in proper terms. This is aligning your will to the will of an outside authority (keeping in mind that this is also the will of the devotee - they like this and have always sought this play of roles). This has nothing to do with the 'ceasing to resist' to that which one really is - even though that this cannot willfully be done either. So you don't "surrender" to anything outside yourself - you find that deepest entity within yourself, the deepest grain of illusion, then an authority can never come in your way - your way is your own from here. If this is understood (in a direct and non-blueprinted way) then the discussion about the dangers of a guru / teacher / philosopher is eliminated - and they will only, if anything, be seen as pointers.

Well, I've met too many people who hold the same views as you and who still continue to bow down in reverence to a guru. That they see no contradiction in this suggests that the type of surrendering they are engaging in in each case is identical. The hope that something will come along - either a guru or reality itself, it doesn't matter which - and unburden them from everything (or at least, everything unpleasant). If they submit enough, so the thinking goes, perhaps it will happen for them.

Personally, I have no idea what "will" is, let alone what it means to surrender it. Nor do I know what "resistence" means, let alone what it means to cease it.

-

[Sphere70]

Well, I've met too many people who hold the same views as you and who still continue to bow down in reverence to a guru. That they see no contradiction in this suggests that the type of surrendering they are engaging in in each case is identical. The hope that something will come along - either a guru or reality itself, it doesn't matter which - and unburden them from everything (or at least, everything unpleasant). If they submit enough, so the thinking goes, perhaps it will happen for them.

Personally, I have no idea what "will" is, let alone what it means to surrender it. Nor do I know what "resistence" means, let alone what it means to cease it.

Well, I don't care what people you've met and what simple conclusions you drawn from them. It has nothing to do with me.

If you read Schopenhauer you know what will is. It's the everything appearing as a seemingly dualistic being through a body. The surrender is the understanding (direct, not abstract / rational) that there is no separate experiencer / doer - thus understanding its illusionary nature. Resistance is still identifying with the manifested (including thoughts).