How do you judge without having reached the highest pinnacle

[Unidian]

Well, how do you? Without knowing that of which you attempt to speak, are you even speaking?

Unless you are quite certain that you are enlightened (or enlightened with mere traces of ego residue left to extinguish), how do you judge?

I am eager to initiate a discussion on this matter. Who here is enlightened, or virtually so?

For the record and the purposes of this discussion, yes, I am making the claim. At long long last.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

A better question might be: how would one ever reach even the lowest pinnacle without being really judgemental?

The questions do not exist for me to be honest. They have no meaning but I think I can understand why you would ask. And if you are enlightened, why would you want to know? As for any enlightenment, I'm still falling.

[Unidian]

I wouldn't want to know, I am just curious. It is a distinction between desire and conventional inquisitiveness.

If you are still falling, why?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If you are still falling, why?

Like all things that fall I suppose, cause, effect. But without the noise!

[Unidian]

There is no cause and effect at this level. Nor is there "free will."

[Dennis Mahar]

The reason we want to become Buddha's is to help others.

James Quirk lives and breathes that Context.
That's what is obvious about James.

Sometimes in pressing circumstances we can't help ourselves and need help.

James Quirk the showman, the 'circus act'.
I 'get' it.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I'm certain.

"how do you judge?"

Somehow find the answers to the questions:

"Are you enlightened?" "Have you overcome suffering?" "Have you completely let go of past and future?" " Do you know experience is eternal?" "Do you know the world, and your body, exist only as experiences of the mind?" "Have you discovered completely your own ignorance and "not-knowing"?" "Have you found serenity and peace in non-being?" "Have you let go of all your desires?" "Have you denounced "evil ways" in your heart?"

If they are in competition, angry, sad, planning for the future, chasing after illusions, dwelling on the past, have ongoing vanity, if they think they know, or if they aren't sure they are enlightened and liberated from delusion, then they probably aren't.


I think the best indicator is to find out how the person lives their life, if they flow with whatever happens in the moment without trying to resist, if their mind is free from preconceived notions and the cloud of the past (familiarity and bias), and if they have a good grasping of illusion and emptiness.

I believe you by the way, don't listen to anyone who is still contending! Let them be in their own games, whoever is treating you like they are your brother or Self and with love is clearly "further ahead". There is one truth and one supreme Way.

[Unidian]

Dennis, you hate me, that's well known. OK, but why attack others for any reason? I'm not bothered, just curious.

Seeker,

Yes and yes.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

There is no cause and effect at this level. Nor is there "free will."

You asked "why" out of curiosity but since you say now there's "no cause and effect" there couldn't have been interest in any "why" or "cause" either.

Ah well, you never were any good in philosophy or deeper meanings in general but perhaps you indeed found something, some peace at least. Enjoy it!

[Dennis Mahar]

James,

Is there any ken in this?
It's basically a nutshell of what you have declared of yourself at one time or another.

The reason we want to become Buddha's is to help others.

James Quirk lives and breathes that Context.
That's what is obvious about James.

Sometimes in pressing circumstances we can't help ourselves and need help.

James Quirk the showman, the 'circus act'.
I 'get' it.

On attacking,
If someone's putting themselves in the 'hot seat' with a winning formula that always has a complaint attached.
It's a failure to be because it's suffering supply problems.
Pleading for supply.

It's up for interrogation.

John's been in full battle dress all along whilst pleading innocence.

cut off thinking he says
cut off philosophy he says

and then he floods the market with the thoughts of philosophers because it matters.
a confusion about supply.

the left hand doesn't know what the right hand's doing.

[brad walker]

I'm opposed to the type of discussion, not thinking and philosophy. Rather than a discussion based on presumed good will that often seems pre-scripted, I think it's more fun and fruitful to pose puzzles to one another—an art of provoking thought. One reason I continue to play this game, other than the joy and challenge of it (best game on earth!) and for healing, is that I've been exploring the idea of structuring and scaling this textual game into a web game for a wider community. I'll post a link if anything comes of the idea.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

One could admire James his hidden game plan: challenging the validity of any judgment on what enlightment is from the point of view of a self-declared enlightenment, while any judgmental response would be then automatically pre-empted with the disabling it takes one to know one fallacy. It invites a showing of cards, assuming they are held close.

My countering of that fallacy is judgement is sage-neutral: some ignorance turned against itself at best. It's doesn't take a genius to be reasonable.

[Dennis Mahar]

If you take all the beliefs in Buddhism out of the picture,
enlightenment means there are causes for suffering.

If James whacked his thumb with a hammer he might well recognise causality.

Your model Diebert saves the appearances and sticks in the philosophical domain of what it means to be human.
which is where it should be.
Not too much concerned with the why of religion which is trying to find a way out of the humaness of it.

Philosophy concerns the subjective experience.
Science deals with 'out there' and messes up 'in here'.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

If there is battle dress it is you wearing it not me Dennis.

Thinking always happens, cut off negative thinking, and you may still call this a philosophy, cut off erroneous philosophy.

What you guys try to do too often is make guesses on the psychology of the Tao,

Anyone that is trying to make guesses on an individuals psychology clearly hasn't yet figured out there is no individual.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Btw,

Dennis is the one complaining ^


What do you lack Dennis? Not enough supply? What's with all the armor?



Just look at which guys hear "Enlightenment" and immediately start a fight or go off topic/inquiry, (Set the Genius Forum trap for argument) and which can actually speak freely without contention.

[Dennis Mahar]

What you guys try to do

Thanks for individuating us.

[brad walker]

My countering of that fallacy is judgement is sage-neutral: some ignorance turned against itself at best. It's doesn't take a genius to be reasonable.

Sporting shot, David. True, the devil is in the details of the machinery...

[brad walker]

I have been grateful for this experience. I have fallen for some mirrors, otherwise learned lessons and have grown tremendously. I continue to speak cryptically because I've found it's a way to protect myself in a dangerous, ever-evolving world of rich and possibly polarized possibilities. However, I admit that the reasons I have given for my participation here are true. To expand on one that has been inferred, from my experience the dialogue of this forum and some of the surrounding literature is vitally dangerous and my presence has been one of petty, sustained vengeance. I interpreted a comment by an intelligent friend and adversary, some time ago, as a call to arms to rip this place apart. I paid close attention to the group intention and incrementally pushed the envelope under a liberal interpretation of the forum introduction. Over the past week or so the drama has gone nuclear as an attempt to pressure the site's administrators to close the forum and reexamine the publication of some of the surrounding literature. I'm sorry for the pain that I have caused and I love you all.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

This place has always been falling apart. Somewhat the point. You appear to cycle rather fast through your observations, Brad! Or at least relative to my frame of reference. Different speeds perhaps, slight of tilt. I'm sometimes still digesting what has been written five years ago. Or five hundred. But good ideas always resurface again, like good people and good stories. They don't die.

[Dennis Mahar]

Brad,

I'm sorry for the pain that I have caused and I love you all.

Transformation.

and so, the Lotus breaks free of mud and opens.

walking free.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

This place has always been falling apart.

There is no incentive for productive....anything. Why not find some kind of agreed upon "moral action" we could carry out together?

[brad walker]

.

[brad walker]

A simple public "Is Seeker for real?" would have saved so much trouble. Sorry.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I couldn't answer that question, not sure myself

[Pam Seeback]

This place has always been falling apart.

There is no incentive for productive....anything. Why not find some kind of agreed upon "moral action" we could carry out together?

The nature of wisdom dictates that any agreed-upon moral action would be an immoral action. Why? Wisdom arrives individually, gradually, singularly: I am.

Speak your truth of I am and let it be. If it inspires another I am or ten I am's or a hundred I am's or a thousand I am's so be it. If it inspires no one, so be it.

"Be passersby" from the Gospel of Thomas comes to mind.