Also Anti Atheism- Intelligence/spirituality will prevail

[Russell Parr]

Bluerap

Forming a group of genius/wise people. That is the route I was referring to. The potential is uncovering more of that simple truth that we know is always right in front of us, but we haven't realized yet, there is no limit... to go beyond we only need the will to "study everything".

It's still unclear what your goal is.. if there is no limit, what goal could we possibly reach? Studying everything is an infinite endeavor, if the potential is limitless.

What sort of purpose do you envision for this group?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

It's still unclear what your goal is.. if there is no limit, what goal could we possibly reach? Studying everything is an infinite endeavor, if the potential is limitless.

What sort of purpose do you envision for this group?

Why learn anything? It has benefits.

Why are you on this forum? The same reason is for the group, like a forum but much much more efficient, share what you've got. Hive mind.

[Dennis Mahar]

Right here, right now.
play of causality.
you are putting god where god isn't,
play of causality is.

what's the point of putting god where god isn't, isn't is.
Ising isn't isn't ising is.

not distinguishing causality is,
would be like getting in to a car and trying to steer it with the hub cap.
you'll head down the freeway and keep having accidents.

[Russell Parr]

It's still unclear what your goal is.. if there is no limit, what goal could we possibly reach? Studying everything is an infinite endeavor, if the potential is limitless.

What sort of purpose do you envision for this group?

Why learn anything? It has benefits.

Why are you on this forum? The same reason is for the group, like a forum but much much more efficient, share what you've got. Hive mind.

If enlightenment is the goal of this group, the "group dynamic" would actually work against it, in my mind. We can only get each other so far in words, as you know. "Groupthink" can often do more harm than good in regards to individual development. Plus, if the individuals of the group became enlightened, the group would naturally disperse.

Sorry if I'm still having trouble seeing what you're getting at.

[brad walker]

Brad Walker

The group was for people of wisdom, not you. People that know the truth.

I pre-empted this pointless, pompous post when I said "Prove that I don't get It or stop posturing". You can't and there are multiple lessons there.

I know I know the truth, that is the nature of truth, so, if you are saying that I do not know, that I have been vain, naive, or wrong, please, point out where...

No, you have a conceptual grasp on the Infinite that's making your ego rabid. It's obvious by how easily you can be baited. Nonduality is just the beginning. It's common for initiates to get carried away and want to shout it from the rooftops for foolish reasons. Expressing the philosophy of nonduality like in your many unnecessary posts can be like hyponotic self-affirmations. And the payoffs for playing wiseman are obvious.

I openly challenge you, only to show that I am of superior intellect and wisdom.

I already accepted the implicit challenge versus you when you clamed that anything rhyming with pee couldn't be intelligent and then I rhymed your name with "stinkers", a synonym for feces, in a limerick, the raunchiest poetry form. That was more novel and intelligent than most everything you have said. You haven't said anything the regulars here don't know and it was a waste of bandwidth and attention. You were like a kid giving an oral report about sex to all the adults at a family reunion. Cute at first but your persistance tests patience.

From now on, if anyone cares to mock me, thinking themselves superior, I will openly challenge them and shame them for doing so. Only because it is wrong to let fools like you go on insulting people, not knowing they are fools.

And if there is also anyone else reading, that thinks similar thoughts, as Brad suggested, I also challenge you, to show that I am of superior intellect and wisdom, so that you will not go through life, pretending to know, degrading the significance of wisdom by mocking it out of foolishness.

Otherwise, if you do not accept this, do not talk to me, I will not converse with someone who mocks me saying I have been naive and wrong without pointing out where and providing an alternative that is otherwise correct. If you cannot do this, it will make clear that you are only pretending to know better, that you don't actually know, and can't show that you do.

This is just a long-winded, more pompous version of what you said here. What kind of fool would take this bait? On many levels I already owned you laconically with a twist on an Internet catchphase: "'You' mad, bro?"

The Cosmos will give you progressively larger spiritual wedgies until you drop this reactionary supergenius crap.

[Pam Seeback]

Seeker, you asked about renunciation. Renunciation is the elimination of greed, desire and lust, the food of attachment [ego]. You desire/lust for a curriculum.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

moving,
Dennis desires a curriculum, apparently you can't form a group without one.

And Brad walker

You think I said all those things simply and so straight forward because I do not understand them?? Are you a fool?

"You haven't said anything the regulars here don't know"

Have you not seen many people on this forum showing a clear lack of understanding of these very simple concepts?... that you seem to agree are correct and simple minded understandings.

Is it not obvious that I was outlining the obviousness of these truths to the people that clearly disagree with these obvious truths? Or is it that you don't think I could explain this same simple truths in more detail? Or that I know nothing else besides these simple minded truths I have outlined?

What you don't know is, the mind of the child which you were referring to as a horrible state to be in, to be stating things so clearly and childishly.....is actually the wisest and best way to state things, when over half the readers on this forum clearly aren't up to these very childish and simple understandings..... namely the illusory nature of the universe which exists only in sensual experience.

Also I said I would directly challenge you in intellect and wisdom because you began talking to me by mocking me and insulting me... without ever once providing any insights of your own on any of the subjects I was talking about...


Would you rather listen to an idiot or a wise man? Since you began by showing you thought of me as the former, am I not to challenge this idiot who thinks me an idiot?

You have not said one thing philosophical in nature.... and so have shown absolutely nothing of intellect. The only thing you have shown is that you can start by saying "you do not have as great an understanding as me"
and
"you have shown a lack of understanding here and here"

but, have nowhere, not in one sentence, outlined your alternative or greater knowledge or understanding of nonduality or the philosophical topics we were discussing.

So, like I said brad, don't go around insulting people, mocking people, calling them naive and inferior, providing absolutely zero insight of your own on the subjects, and then going on to call them egotistical and childish for challenging you to show who is intelligent and who is not....

I am only defending the claim of the truths you have called naive and mocked me for saying, and defending the wisdom of those truths, so that as I said, other simple minded readers like myself, can know whether I am the idiot as you have accused, or you are the idiot as I have accused afterward.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

- Movingalways

Also, don't be so picky as to say we can't want to form a group for progress because that's a desire... that's just silly for so many reasons.

I have renounced then,, In the same way that the world can be viewed as alien, also lust is alien, worth of possessions are alien, trying to hold on to illusions is alien....

But remember there are no rules holding us down, I am a witness to these miraculous creations, and through non-desire there is non-interest, and through non-interest, there is complete freedom of experience.

Freedom to do and say anything in this dreamlike world, being at one with your experiences, recognizing their eternity. Even freedom to argue with brad here and practice some wisdom raping similar to how Socrates would do.

[brad walker]

You think I said all those things simply and so straight forward because I do not understand them?? Are you a fool?

You can't read? My last post granted that you have an intellectual understanding of nonduality. You're nothing special or interesting, yet. Conditions are ripe for learning this in the Information Age; anyone with the Internet and persistence can figure it out. There are probably hundreds of thousands or possibly millions with a similar understanding in the West. Welcome, initiate.

Have you not seen many people on this forum showing a clear lack of understanding of these very simple concepts?... that you seem to agree are correct and simple minded understandings.

I don't see much of any real communication happening on these forums. I don't have time to penetrate everyone's (sometimes incoherent) styles and pet jargons so I can't verify that everyone's understanding is perfect. But I stand by the claim that the regulars here get the gist of nonduality conceptually. I can't prove it but it's a safe bet. If you want to make your claim then name names and quote quotes.

Is it not obvious that I was outlining the obviousness of these truths to the people that clearly disagree with these obvious truths?

At first but you went on and on. Also nonduality is only obvious to someone who has performed the necessary radical skepticism. I doubt your thread retitled "Enlightenment" affected Alex Jacob, who seemed to be the inspiration for it based on the comment that you deleted.

Or is it that you don't think I could explain this same simple truths in more detail? Or that I know nothing else besides these simple minded truths I have outlined?

Explaining and understanding the theory is easy. It's far harder to do or assist others effectively in the painful deconditioning. My last post described two reasons why initiates might prematurely jump into teaching; another one is that it's a way to procrastinate at the hard work.

What you don't know is, the mind of the child which you were referring to as a horrible state to be in, to be stating things so clearly and childishly.....is actually the wisest and best way to state things, when over half the readers on this forum clearly aren't up to these very childish and simple understandings..... namely the illusory nature of the universe which exists only in sensual experience.

What? Quote me where I said anything about a childlike mind. A clear, simple vocabulary is best for explaining the concepts but it's often useless for deconditioning because clear, simple things are likely to be cliché.

Also I said I would directly challenge you in intellect and wisdom because you began talking to me by mocking me and insulting me... without ever once providing any insights of your own on any of the subjects I was talking about...

I have dropped many insights and bread crumbs if you would actually read or respond to what I have said. The only thing I've been vague on is why your teaching approach is naive but that's because it's too large a subject for me to devote time. You'll either experiment and study history to learn the art of deconditioning or you'll be limited to the low-hanging fruit of explaining nonduality.

Since you began by showing you thought of me as the former, am I not to challenge this idiot who thinks me an idiot?

Last time I read the Tao Te Ching no one contends with Taoist sages because they don't contend with others. Is there a new 21st Century edition that recommends challenging fools to Internet duels?

Let's suppose I'm an idiot. Why would you waste your time pointing this out? Especially on this forum of wise people that you are propositioning to join Genius Squad. Isn't my idiocy self-evident to the wise? Why waste their time and insult their intelligence by pointing out the obvious? But it's not even this complicated. This isn't "high level" Taoist wisdom but Internet 101: don't feed the trolls. What kind of "sage" bites bait? A phoney. And who allows themselves to be reeled in? Suckers.

You have not said one thing philosophical in nature.... and so have shown absolutely nothing of intellect. The only thing you have shown is that you can start by saying "you do not have as great an understanding as me"
and
"you have shown a lack of understanding here and here"


but, have nowhere, not in one sentence, outlined your alternative or greater knowledge or understanding of nonduality or the philosophical topics we were discussing.

I said something to get you moving again: "Nonduality is just the beginning." Again, I've said a number of substantial things in these posts.

So, like I said brad, don't go around insulting people, mocking people, calling them naive and inferior, providing absolutely zero insight of your own on the subjects, and then going on to call them egotistical and childish for challenging you to show who is intelligent and who is not....

I do as I wish and I wish to experiment with egos. I trust the moderators at keeping the forum productive. If you were sharp you would realize that I'm just mirroring your arrogance in a more colorful and creative style than you express with your thirty word vocabulary.

I am only defending the claim of the truths you have called naive and mocked me for saying, and defending the wisdom of those truths, so that as I said, other simple minded readers like myself, can know whether I am the idiot as you have accused, or you are the idiot as I have accused afterward.

The last time I'll respond to this--I've never disputed nonduality. If you want to do something big why are you wasting precious time white knighting on this microscopic nook of the Internet? Especially against someone who isn't disputing theory.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Never read alex jacobs post he writes too much. And yes my vocab is small hence why I pointed out that I only have a simple mind, also makes it harder to express what I'm thinking. But I am not at this initiate stage you keep referring too. It was you who brought up non-duality, I was explaining the illusion, non duality is part of the illusion of separation problem that results in only seeing manifestations, but its only a small part of bringing about deconditioning or helping others to realize their desire and forget what they think they know.

You also act like there is some strict set of guidelines for these sages on forums... actions do not effect you, they are only experiences and experience is eternal... there is no "you should do this" or "you shouldn't get in a fight with brad", no distinct right or wrong way, there is just it doing it's thing... Buddha, Lao Tzu.. they were just people like me or you.

If you do get these ideas, then you should know that all that exists for me is my experience, these forum posts have no effect on me the same way almost anything in the world of being doesn't, "like a fool drinking from the waters of a mirage", the fact that we are on these forums at all shows that we have not yet chosen complete detachment, so don't lecture me saying one has to always be writing wise things or acting like your idea of what wise is to be wise.

Since you seem to be on a similar page, we both know we don't know if the other is wise or an idiot because we don't know each other, so that's enough. In honesty we both have super genius minds capable of almost anything.

[oxytocinNA]

-Never-
The theory of atheism is insatiable.

I like this statement.
The well-substantiated explanation (of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed) of the rejection of belief in the existence of deities is impossible to satisfy
I expect nothing less from a thread with the following in the title: Anti Atheism.

That said - the word itself "atheism" is ill conceived.

Just goes to show how important concepts are, and how well they are explained.

[brad walker]

And yes my vocab is small hence why I pointed out that I only have a simple mind, also makes it harder to express what I'm thinking.

Sounds like mental constipation. Being a living thesaurus is a liability but so is losing Scrabble to a first-grader. Nonduality can be expressed in a small vocabulary because it uses a small set of concepts. The ten thousands things (the relative) need more words.

It was you who brought up non-duality

I only mentioned the history of it--the personalities, societies and politics of who embraced it. I already mentioned that I should have termed it as the Western history "of the Infinite" or "of the Absolute" for this forum.

You also act like there is some strict set of guidelines for these sages on forums... actions do not effect you, they are only experiences and experience is eternal... there is no "you should do this" or "you shouldn't get in a fight with brad", no distinct right or wrong way, there is just it doing it's thing... Buddha, Lao Tzu.. they were just people like me or you.

On the contrary, my posts (mostly elsewhere) show that I act like this is ego guerrila warfare. I said the Tao Te Ching said that sages don't contend. This was a trap! Maybe it's a bad translation, maybe Lao Tzu wasn't supremely wise or maybe he wasn't being entirely truthful. You might have agreed with it and then you'd really have been sunk. Yes, there are no strict rules.

My argument isn't that a sage would never duel, it's that they wouldn't challenge their opponent to a duel honorably. It's an analysis of argumentation tactics. Regarding the question of debating an apparent troll, most likely a sage would have higher priorities than an almost certainly fruitless argument. If a sage did engage they would have an aim and they would be aggressive and apparently deceptive, like that wisdom-raper Socrates. You started out quite defensive but improved, especially when you asked many questions.

If you do get these ideas, then you should know that all that exists for me is my experience, these forum posts have no effect on me the same way almost anything in the world of being doesn't, "like a fool drinking from the waters of a mirage", the fact that we are on these forums at all shows that we have not yet chosen complete detachment, so don't lecture me saying one has to always be writing wise things or acting like your idea of what wise is to be wise.

"Your" language, content and expression, has changed over the course of this conversation. Writing wisely is more indicative of wisdom than writing wise things. I wasn't trying to impose any absolute idea of wisdom, just asking questions to hone your discernment, tactics and strategy.

In honesty we both have super genius minds capable of almost anything.

Thank you but I don't understand "super genius". Genius here is defined to be something of a litmus test ("chief characteristic is independence of mind") and the bar is set very high. According to this definition there is a range of genius ("The more one is conscious of the true nature of Reality, the more one is a genius.") but I don't know if there is another bar meaningful enough to be set above or beyond some of the names mentioned.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Brad

You did it again, my vocabulary isn't large, but you act like if I put effort in I wouldn't be able to write with more detail, more expression, to achieve even more understanding, but, I come on here at different times, I could be writing tiredly, in a rush, quickly or with more thought, sober or not sober... There is no "mental constipation" whatsoever, I thought we agreed to end the assumptions, name calling and attitude of war?

I speak honestly, so that my meaning is always heard, no matter the simplicity of my words, it is others who look at the specific detail of my writing, or look to see that there is little detail, little explanation and then to assume there is little understanding. That is the mistake, if you were to forget my words, and hear only my concepts, you will probably agree with most, and if not, at least there will be better communication in disagreeing.

I am not putting thought into my tactics, If I were I would only be saying things that were agreeable, then you would be on here going "yes this is all good and true" as we do when we hear anything that is agreeable to us, but as I said, I am being honest in my views, not agreeable.


When I said the super genius thing, I was mostly referring to every human, being capable of incredible work at any subject, whether its music or writing, I regard the minds we experience as God-like machines capable of reality manipulation.

[brad walker]

You did it again, my vocabulary isn't large, but you act like if I put effort in I wouldn't be able to write with more detail, more expression, to achieve even more understanding, but, I come on here at different times, I could be writing tiredly, in a rush, quickly or with more thought, sober or not sober...

Once I engage an opponent I reply to every post. More effort into posts should reduce the total posts required to end the conversation. Once a post has nothing objectionable I don't reply.

There is no "mental constipation" whatsoever, I thought we agreed to end the assumptions, name calling and attitude of war?

No, earlier in this thread I indirectly hinted that peace may not be possible. You dialed down the arrogance and I reciprocated by dropping my mockery from a 7 or 8 to a 2 or 3. You're free to assume, name call and all-out war and I'm free to do my best to evade the traps, reflect the heat and surgically strike soft spots.

I speak honestly, so that my meaning is always heard, no matter the simplicity of my words, it is others who look at the specific detail of my writing, or look to see that there is little detail, little explanation and then to assume there is little understanding. That is the mistake, if you were to forget my words, and hear only my concepts, you will probably agree with most, and if not, at least there will be better communication in disagreeing.

Honesty doesn't impress me. Blaming "others" for not hearing "you" is just rationalizing failure to communicate. It's not "their" fault "they" can't hear directness, it's just ego's inexhaustable craftiness at avoiding reality. Often egos must be confused and forced to think in order to get a message.

I am not putting thought into my tactics, If I were I would only be saying things that were agreeable, then you would be on here going "yes this is all good and true" as we do when we hear anything that is agreeable to us, but as I said, I am being honest in my views, not agreeable.

I don't understand what you mean here. Honesty and bootlicking aren't the only two possibilities. Play mind games.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Mind games are for noobs who want to waste time and can't say what they know straight forward enough because they either aren't sure of what they know or are afraid it will be denied if they just speak honestly for one of the first times in their lives.

Go take a look at every comment on this forum, and you will see a bunch of people avoiding constantly any kind of real philosophical conversation, and if they are having some, they are avoiding constantly any kind of straight forward opinion on the matters, hiding what they think is plain truths in case it is challenged or denied for not being obscure enough, for not being one of the mind games. You are being like them brad, because you still want to waste time, drop the mockery to 0 or it will always be a waste of time, wouldn't you agree?

For example brad, if you were to speak honestly about your reason for posting on here, you would know it is not because of me or anything I've said, as I cannot effect someone else's mind unless they agree to be effected, the honest reason is because you are as bored as I am, just as everyone else on this forum is, you have a lot to say but no one intelligent enough to hear it or use it, sadly it is as much a waste to say it on this forum as it is to not say it at all, hence the group idea

[brad walker]

Mind games are for noobs who want to waste time and can't say what they know straight forward enough because they either aren't sure of what they know or are afraid it will be denied if they just speak honestly for one of the first times in their lives.

No, mind games are for post-initiates who want to decondition. Philosophy discussion here is mostly contrived competition and unconsciously willful misintepretation. This forum doesn't seem to be concerned with anything of the world so what is there to discuss honestly? Mind games can be played at high levels for those who want to think or want to force others to think.

Go take a look at every comment on this forum, and you will see a bunch of people avoiding constantly any kind of real philosophical conversation, and if they are having some, they are avoiding constantly any kind of straight forward opinion on the matters, hiding what they think is plain truths in case it is challenged or denied for not being obscure enough, for not being one of the mind games. You are being like them brad, because you still want to waste time, drop the mockery to 0 or it will always be a waste of time, wouldn't you agree?

The problem isn't mind games themselves but that they're largely being played unconsciously and they're centered around beating a dead horse (metaphysics). If you want to show these mind-gamers who's supergenius, beat them at their own games. And no, mockery, sarcasm, etc. are key to hooking and affecting certain egos.

For example brad, if you were to speak honestly about your reason for posting on here, you would know it is not because of me or anything I've said, as I cannot effect someone else's mind unless they agree to be effected, the honest reason is because you are as bored as I am

"I cannot effect someone else's mind unless they agree to be effected"
That's because you've limited yourself to honesty. Where's the rule for 100% honesty? Reasons for talking grandly of honesty might include a) self-righteousness, b) seeking to impress, c) self-righteously rationalizing failure to communicate, and/or d) guilting others into reciprocating honesty so the ego doesn't have to suffer deception.

It's not true that minds can't be affected without consent or otherwise there wouldn't be multiple multi-billion dollar industries of manipulation. "Their" agreement is an illusion that can be manufactured by skillful manipulators. "Their" thoughts can also be manufactured.

Motivations rarely have one sole reason. You are one reason, entertainment is another and I have other reasons as well.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

All of your options were insults.

e) the honesty is out of a want of real conversation. Honesty of opinion, as opposed to obscure views and imitation, which I find torturous and slow, sheep speech vs free speech, which would you rather?

Examine yourself in that last comment, you gave a bunch of options, all of which were insulting, is it possible someone asked for honest speech so they could hear honest speech? Or only because they are being self-righteous or stupid?

You can keep twisting what I say to try and insult me every comment, but what is one showing when calling another self-righteous simply for speaking about a virtuous quality like honesty?

Anyone who calls another person self-righteous shows a great amount of hypocrisy, they are the kind of people who, upon seeing someone giving to the poor, says " Oh that person doesn't care, he is just being self-righteous". Surely you would rather abandon this attitude?

In your last post you were being honest with your reasons for doing things, examining yourself, this is what I mean by honesty. It requires honesty to honestly examine oneself.

honesty + simplicity: Forgetting prejudice and bias + stating ones own opinions and thoughts with clarity ( without riddles and sarcasm)

If you think mockery and sarcasm is a better route to clear communication than being open with our thoughts, you are going to have a lot of very unproductive conversations. It might work for the other people on this forum, but as you have seen, I am not speaking to you in riddles like Dennis does, so there is no need for your mockery and sarcasm any longer, we have gone past that.

I pointed this out to you because I had hoped that you would be willing to stop speaking like everyone else on this forum, which we have already agreed is a conversation trap.

( A trap I am in right now, I would really like to move on)

[brad walker]

All of your options were insults.

e) the honesty is out of a want of real conversation. Honesty of opinion, as opposed to obscure views and imitation, which I find torturous and slow, sheep speech vs free speech, which would you rather?

Examine yourself in that last comment, you gave a bunch of options, all of which were insulting, is it possible someone asked for honest speech so they could hear honest speech? Or only because they are being self-righteous or stupid?

You don't want "honest" conversation. Most of what I have written for the past several posts has been straight-forward and time and time again "you" ignore or twist it. Your latest reply didn't acknowledge my criticism of honesty or the implicit accusation of hypocrisy of the guy who in one post says there are no absolute rules but then in the next says we should be honest.

Examine your comment and you'll see that you're essentially admitting option d but you spin it into your option e. Your ego doesn't want to think or to suffer being fooled so to minimize pain you want others to meet your expectations. You extoll honesty as an absolute virtue and try to shame others for not being honest. You agreeing with me without realizing it is an example of ego's inexhaustible cunningness at unconcious deception. Ego always finds an escape route. This is also an example of why simple honesty isn't sufficient on competitive Internet forums; minds needs to be pressured with rhetoric to change.

What else is "slow and torturous"? Defecating while constipated. Deconditioning is torturous, no doubt about it.

You can keep twisting what I say to try and insult me every comment, but what is one showing when calling another self-righteous simply for speaking about a virtuous quality like honesty?

I'm showing you what you're incapable of seeing. You haven't justified why honesty is virtuous because you never rebutted my arguments against honesty. Sure, honesty's great for most day-to-day practical situations, but it's often worse-than-useless when battling ego, the most deceptive, dirty-fighting force on the planet.

Anyone who calls another person self-righteous shows a great amount of hypocrisy, they are the kind of people who, upon seeing someone giving to the poor, says " Oh that person doesn't care, he is just being self-righteous". Surely you would rather abandon this attitude?

This is incoherent. If you are being self-righteous it's in a very specific sense regarding honesty as absolute. An ego that holds honesty as absolute can easily use it to power a perpetual emotion machine. If someone drones on and on about honesty and how others should be as honest there's probably a prideful motivation at work.

In your last post you were being honest with your reasons for doing things, examining yourself, this is what I mean by honesty. It requires honesty to honestly examine oneself.

Actually I wasn't being entirely honest. You made a ridiculous claim that I only post here for entertainment but that's not true; my posts exhibit way too much discipline, focus and freedom to be some muppet who can't help himself from arguing. I just stated the obvious (does that make me enlightened!?): motivations are usually multi-faceted and two self-evident reasons, entertainment and affecting you. But you were wrong to pat me on the head for honesty and give me a preschool lecture: I deceptively said I have other reasons as well.

Outward honesty has no necessary relation with inward honesty. Study psychopathy/sociopathy. They can lie as effortlessly as they breathe and some are some of the most clear-eyed homo sapiens on Earth.

honesty + simplicity: Forgetting prejudice and bias + stating ones own opinions and thoughts with clarity ( without riddles and sarcasm)

While you're definining basic terms, define Enlightenment.

If you think mockery and sarcasm is a better route to clear communication than being open with our thoughts, you are going to have a lot of very unproductive conversations. It might work for the other people on this forum, but as you have seen, I am not speaking to you in riddles like Dennis does, so there is no need for your mockery and sarcasm any longer, we have gone past that.

I said cutting humor is needed for certain ego types, not that it's a absolute path to clear communication. It's nothing personal, it's just that certain rhetorical styles counter certain thought patterns. All my conversations are productive for me; if one of my (hyper)textual experiments fails I analyze it and apply the new knowledge in the next experiment.

I pointed this out to you because I had hoped that you would be willing to stop speaking like everyone else on this forum, which we have already agreed is a conversation trap.

I don't speak like anyone else on this forum. I don't speak as a personality but as a warring rhetorical machine. Any resemblance to any other personality is a transient illusion produced by a temporary commonality of tactics. You might be able to affect my output but you'll have to do better than this transparent honesty schtick.

( A trap I am in right now, I would really like to move on)

You can post whatever you want and I will address all the content to the best of my ability. You can just move on and post what you want without rebutting my latest reply, can't you? Or you could move on altogether and not reply. Why can't you do that?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Brad

It's very clear you have fallen for the same trap that arises naturally on this forum.

You really think that after writing all of that, you haven't shown the exact same ego and "escape routes"?

Stop pointing the finger with such dirty hands. Almost every comment of yours has been hypocritical.

Unless you have completely overcome the ego?

"I'm showing you what your incapable of seeing", why not over analyze yourself?

But you would never do that would you? The notion must frighten you, to do such a thing in public would be to point out clearly all of your own flaws for the first time after having tried to desperately point out all of everyone elses.

I was talking about honesty of philosophical opinion, simplicity of speech, rather than deliberate obscurity that people use in fear of what might happen if they weren't obscure about their beliefs.

You are clearly almost exactly the same person as me, you won't believe it or understand why I'm saying this but it's true, although it might just be because of how similar we all are.

Going to quit it now? Are you not overly bored with this yet? (You are). So much time wasted.

Feel free to get in a few more insults guised as intelligent critical analysis before you stop, I don't blame you, it is not easy to stop.

[Cahoot]

Forbidden

Why does everyone on this forum speak in indirect stories and metaphors?

Forum communication is hard enough, and open to enough misunderstanding, why not be straight forward with what your trying to say, and honest with the reason you are saying it?

The Buddhist view is that sense awareness is but one type of mind. Dreams are classified within mental awareness, another type of mind.

"From the point of view of their uncommon dominant condition, minds can be divided into two types: sense awareness and mental awareness."

"As with other minds, the nature of sense awareness is clarity, but it has different functions from other types of mind."

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso
Understanding the Mind
Sense and Mental Awareness
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Min ... 0948006781

This is a straightforward book that does not speak in metaphors, and does not use stories as examples. An excellent reference of classification. If you have to memorize a book, this is a good one.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Sounds great thanks for the suggestion cahoot, I bookmarked the page and will get around to downloading an ebook to take a look.

Yes mental awareness is obviously different to every day sense experience that is shared, but mental awareness still involves the same senses does it not?

[Cahoot]

Not exactly.

For example, Geshe says, "The practice of meditation depends almost entirely upon mental awareness because we cannot contemplate or meditate with our sense awarenesses."

The book hasn't been digitized yet. Probably better read in print, as it requires cross referencing to get the jargon.

I'll do some transcribing for you, to see if it's your cup of tea.

"Divisions of Mind:

There is a twofold division of mind into conceptual minds and non-conceptual minds; a twofold division into sense awareness and mental awarenesses; a sevenfold division into direct perceivers, inferential cognizers, re-cognizers, correct beliefs, non-ascertaining perceivers, doubts, and wrong awarenesses; a twofold division into valid cognizers and non-valid cognizers; and finally another twofold division into primary minds and mental factors."
- Geshe Kelsang Gyatso

These divisions have divisions, which have divisions.

Buddhists break it down.

[brad walker]

Brad

It's very clear you have fallen for the same trap that arises naturally on this forum.

Which one? I guess it's the next question but to improve clarity please use paragraphs.

You really think that after writing all of that, you haven't shown the exact same ego and "escape routes"?

The defendant pleads innocent and is presumed so until proven guilty. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution.

Stop pointing the finger with such dirty hands. Almost every comment of yours has been hypocritical.

If nearly every comment has been hypocritical then it should be trivial to substantiate this claim with examples. But to claim that I am being hypocritical you'll first have to define my values. My only value in these exchanges has been to destroy ego. I didn't always say the most effective thing the first experiment but I have followed through in this process. It may appear that I have said many contradictory things but that's just the nature of battling ego. If your claim is that I'm being hypocritical because I appear to use egotistical language then we have already touched on that a few times. If I must elaborate I can completely turn that claim on its head.

Unless you have completely overcome the ego?

This is another good trick to smoke out a low-grade phony. To someone who questions authority and all appearances any answer is meaningless. Someone who has might say nothing, a lie, the truth or something altogether depending on circumstances. And of course phonies would do the same so you're still stuck reliant on your judgement. Whatever you think I am, from this instructional duel hopefully you're appreciating at least three things: 1) ego's seemingly inexhaustible craftiness, 2) this Enlightenment business is far more than realizing that all is one and the self is illusory and 3) lessons can be anywhere.

"I'm showing you what your incapable of seeing", why not over analyze yourself?

But you would never do that would you? The notion must frighten you, to do such a thing in public would be to point out clearly all of your own flaws for the first time after having tried to desperately point out all of everyone elses.

I take it by overanalysis you mean "reading too much into things". No such thing exists, there are only claims of greater or lesser specificity that have varying probabilities of being true or false. Naturally the more specific a claim one makes the more risk one takes in staking it. That's why I poke and prod before pinning anything down.

I can understand being upset and wanting a sense of fairness. Hopefully this experience has imparted that it's much better to do this deconditioning with oneself or with a cooperative person rather than a combative one. I did this hoping to save you from the worse experience of predator egos consciously and unconsciously exploiting your flaws for their own gain. What would happen if one or more psychopaths wanted to infiltrate your hive mind?

I was talking about honesty of philosophical opinion, simplicity of speech, rather than deliberate obscurity that people use in fear of what might happen if they weren't obscure about their beliefs.

I get it but you still haven't addressed any of my arguments. This is just another attempt at poopooing deception, those cowardly liars! How cowardly is that majestic owl in my avatar? It's not a matter of irrational fear, just a rational recognition of what is effective in battling ego. And of course there are pragmatic reasons for holding your cards to your vest, right SeekerofWisdom?

You are clearly almost exactly the same person as me, you won't believe it or understand why I'm saying this but it's true, although it might just be because of how similar we all are.

I think we share a rebellious, tenacious spirit and we're both skeptical of eliminating desire but beyond that is speculation and I'm sure we have some profound differences.

Going to quit it now? Are you not overly bored with this yet? (You are). So much time wasted.

Actually now that you have taken off the handcuffs and played back more this continues to be interesting. Ultimately it's up to you. Keep things interesting, significant and productive and I'll respond.

Feel free to get in a few more insults guised as intelligent critical analysis before you stop, I don't blame you, it is not easy to stop.

Nice try, but mirroring typically is only effective against unconscious tactics. From my experience with another longterm member here I know that some people here without realizing it post here almost purely as catharsis and they seem to get a (false) sense of victory as long as they get the last word. When I engage anyone here I do so with the intention to reply every post to deny the victory until they get past that or I sense a stalemate.

If I just wanted to abuse people I could do so more efficiently on a thousand places on the Internet. If I just wanted to abuse you I would stalk your every post and I wouldn't bother giving a line-by-line, content-rich reply. It's hard to swallow this now but I am doing this for your benefit and the nastiness was just a necessary, effective appearance.

P.S. Regarding your bet of what you think I am, you're already betting your tiny timeslice of Infinity on this Enlightenment business.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Cahoot

Labels and manifestations, particulars.

"And it is impossible that any one can explain the passing out of one
existence, and the entering into a new existence, or the growth,
increase, and development of consciousness, independent of
corporeality, feeling, perception, and mental formations."
Buddha

You see that thing your feeling right now? The senses and thoughts, that is what exists, that screen, that stream of sensation, there is naught but this, there is no division in this, no physical change, nothing that is effecting your witnessing of this stream. (to be completely blatant..... you aren't even moving when you think you are, only the stream of feeling is changing, if someone hacked open your brain and eyes, you still just see something else, "shared dream" is a good phrase)

There is no division, death,life,knowledge,thought,sight,dreams,sex, they are all part of this same stream of miraculous sensation.

The author of the book has not yet understood what it means to "not-know", something the sages kept trying to point out.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Have you looked into what it really means to "not-know" ?


If you believe in the existence of an external physical world which we are interpreting, which I still find most people on this forum do, then you have not yet.