The Larkin Debate revisited

[Leyla Shen]

Lol Laird

What a ruckus you've caused!

You wrote:

What I continue to think, Leyla, is that the phrase is empty sophistry. To be alive itself is to "engage in life". No matter what attitude, approach or behaviour we adopt, whether it be emotional or "non-attached", deluded or "enlightened", that is simply how we are "engaged in life". One day, too, we will all "engage in death", and no attitude, approach or behaviour can avoid that (assuming we don't find the secret to immortality at some point). So, to me, the phrase beguiles with its promise of the impossible, which in fact it has no means of delivering: sophistry. Too, it plays off the Eastern notion of release from the cycle of rebirth, but the true Eastern notion is a literal release, literally, upon death, ceasing to be reborn into this mortal realm; David's attempt to turn it into a figurative release is incoherent and, again, sophistical.

In any case, the notion that David or anyone else on this forum has reached nirvana and can speak of it from experience is ridiculous. I mean, give me a break!

I understand what you’re saying, Laird. However (and this is an important however for me); if speaking of nirvana from experience is ridiculous, what would you call the notion and act of speaking of nirvana from non-experience. Moreover, what are your views regarding whether or not (and, in either case, why or why not) anything should be done or spoken of about that?

Isn't the notion of not dying even when you've died (as you express is: "the true Eastern notion is a literal release, literally, upon death, ceasing to be reborn into this mortal realm") even more ridiculous and incoherent? (I don't find anything remotely plausible about it, myself!) Really, what's the flippen difference!?

[Leyla Shen]

As for "neurosis", I don't see it that way: I think a passionate approach to life is as valid as a non-attached approach - being passionate about meaningful things though, things such as shaping the world for the better and eliminating suffering, or about art which "enlightens".

Well, could we call — since you clearly make a distinction here — being passionate about non-meaningful things neurotic?

[guest_of_logic]

guest_of_logic: What I continue to think, Leyla, is that the phrase is empty sophistry. To be alive itself is to "engage in life". No matter what attitude, approach or behaviour we adopt, whether it be emotional or "non-attached", deluded or "enlightened", that is simply how we are "engaged in life". One day, too, we will all "engage in death", and no attitude, approach or behaviour can avoid that (assuming we don't find the secret to immortality at some point).

David: As Jesus says, the apostle is in the world, but not of it.

And by that he meant something different than what you appear to mean. Jesus spoke of a spiritual kingdom of God, which we are to aspire to in preference to the "kingdom" of the world; you don't even believe in the God of Christ, let alone His spiritual kingdom.

guest_of_logic: As for your interpretation of life = form and death = formlessness, I would suggest again that this is David's attempt to dilute the true teaching of release from literal rebirth into a materialist philosophy of mere non-attachment.

David: Not sure what you mean by that phrase. Non-attachment means the rejection of both matter and spirit.

What I mean is that you reject the notion of anything "beyond" this world of matter; you reject the notion that a spiritual aspect of a person exists and can survive physical death, and so, your principle of "non-attachment" isn't predicated on any philosophy or metaphysic that I would term truly spiritual.

In any case, the truth is opposite to what you are saying here. Those who seek salvation in a release from literal rebirth are diluting the far more powerful goal of seeking release from all forms.

"Release from all forms" and then what? The released ones just die and that's the end of them? And to you, that's "more powerful" than the original teaching?

guest_of_logic: I think the Buddhist tradition of masters validating their students is a reasonable one, but for David to just proclaim out of thin air, "Oh, yeah, I'm this random dude on the internet but trust me, I'm enlightened because I'm enlightened and I know it", is... pretty preposterous, don't you think?

David: It does sound preposterous, yes. Which perhaps explains why I never say anything along those lines.

Oh, please. It's what you said in the debate, doing some (very elementary) reading between the lines.

guest_of_logic: Why even bother is to bust the myths of the self-proclaimed-but-really-snake-oil-salesmen.

David: What am I selling, exactly? Who am I ripping off?

You're selling a package of thought, and you're ripping off those who buy into it wholesale, wasting their time thinking they've found a gem.

People can take or leave what I say. It makes no difference to me.

You've written a supposed guide to enlightenment, why would you do that if it made no difference to you whether people are interested in it?

How is a "Buddhist master" having the gall to claim that he has the authority to validate another's enlightenment any less galling than a person validating their own enlightenment? Makes no sense to me.

If the former is "reasonable", then the latter is equally so.

OK, well, then, even though I've never studied under a coach, I happen to know that I'm the world's greatest soccer player, and it doesn't matter whether anybody else validates that, because I have validated it for myself. Do you see the problem here? People are generally unable to assess themselves objectively, it takes a third party to do that, particularly one who is knowledgeable in the domain in question. Why do you think we have universities which assess degrees? How confident would you be in a man who told you, "Yeah, I'm a skilled mathematician - based on my own self-validation" versus a man who told you, "Yeah, I studied mathematics at university and graduated with honours"?

Ah, loopy jupi, all you do is prompt the obvious question: how does one know that one is enlightened oneself? Unless one is to just make up a meaning for enlightenment out of the air (is this what David has done?), then one's enlightenment must accord with a pre-existing meaning for the term, no?

And where did the pre-existing meaning of the term come from? From someone who at some point made it up.

Right: someone other than you! And yet you assume you understand someone else's notion well enough to confer it upon yourself. The idea is that the person who made it up best understands it, and s/he is best placed to judge who else understands it, who is then best placed to judge who else understands it, who is then ... etc. Enlightenment and the approach to it in Buddhism are not a simple affair, it is like studying for a degree - again, do you trust people who confer degrees upon themselves? This approach is much more reasonable than any random person simply declaring their own judgements of themselves to be valid. There are a lot of kooks in this world, David, who will unjustifiably confer all sorts of honours upon themselves. How could you possibly differentiate yourself from them?

Ah, loopy jupi, all you do is prompt the obvious question: how does one know that one is enlightened oneself?

By using one's mind to ascertain whether one's thoughts and actions are in accordance with the definition of enlightenment. That's the only way to know anything.

Which was my entire point! From where does one get the definition of enlightenment? From those who coined the term in the first place: i.e. from the Buddhist scriptures.

Your analysis was wrong because, as you yourself stated, you don't understand Nagarjuna's teachings. For example, you're unable to figure out how it is possible to value A above B while recognising that they are both the same in the sense of being parts of Nature.

You'll have to elaborate, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything in my analysis.

guest_of_logic: My understanding is that Robert was simply asserting that Weininger's views on Jews are so contemptible as to be endorsed by Hitler.

jupiviv: And that by extension David Quinn's views are contemptible as well since he supports Weininger.

Sure, but that's different to saying "David is Hitler!!!1!!!1".

Lol Laird

What a ruckus you've caused!

And it's not even my analysis that caused it, it's my comments afterwards.

if speaking of nirvana from experience is ridiculous

Whoa, I didn't say that. I said it's ridiculous to believe that anyone on *this* forum is in such a position as to do so. I'm somewhat open to the idea that enlightened people exist somewhere, and in their case, speaking of nirvana from experience would of course be valid.

As for whether nirvana could or should be spoken of by those lacking the experience, I think it's reasonable to summarise and reiterate what those with experience say (e.g. in the scriptures), whilst making it clear that one does not possess that experience oneself.

Isn't the notion of not dying even when you've died (as you express is: "the true Eastern notion is a literal release, literally, upon death, ceasing to be reborn into this mortal realm") even more ridiculous and incoherent? (I don't find anything remotely plausible about it, myself!) Really, what's the flippen difference!?

To someone, as many on this forum are, without any inkling of a non-material aspect to one's being, it might well seem ridiculous and incoherent. That doesn't include me though. There is too much evidence for a spiritual aspect of the person for me to deny it. To do so seems, to me, short-sighted and foolish.

Well, could we call — since you clearly make a distinction here — being passionate about non-meaningful things neurotic?

For sure!

[Kelly Jones]

Jupiviv asked:

Uh...shouldn't this be a pm?

No. Laird has slandered me and others, basically calling us brain-washed cult-followers. That's defamation. I have called him to provide evidence, and he has refused, declaring basically that he doesn't trust me. What does that mean? He doesn't trust me to accept his evidence? So the only refutation I can give, is that he has privately shown he does trust me, to the point of wanting me to look after his house and personal belongings. If he can trust someone to look after his house, something he values very highly, then this is evidence he trusts them to be honest in interactions with him. I only mentioned the facts about why I refused his offer, in case he had forgotten or had interpreted these as "personal". (I was just being fastidious).

In other words, he's refused to respond to my questions not because of personal differences, but because he doesn't want to think about the logical problems and contradictions in his own thinking. That's why he baulks.

He's declared as an absolutist, unqualified, uncondition, undoubted, uncompromising statement that specific people on this form have no qualifications for claiming enlightenment, on the basis that no one can justify absolutist statements. That's a dead ringer for illogic.

The other point I made was that he thinks the only authentic way to know what enlightenment is, is by reading what someone else writes or says, rather than by direct and personal experience and authorisation. So I asked him, how did he determine evil spirits and angels exist? From reading the Christian Bible, or by direct and personal experience and authorisation?

He can respond in only two ways:
(1) he "swallowed" the Bible like one of those brain-washed Genius Forum cult members (thus, he puts himself in the prison he's thrown me into), or
(2) he has done what David did, and attested to the experience privately (thus, he puts himself in the prison he's thrown David into).

Now, you see why he refused to answer either of my questions, and excused himself by claiming we had "private, irreconcilable differences". He's actually blaming me for his act of defamation, to try to escape his own snare.


.

[jupiviv]

Ah, loopy jupi, all you do is prompt the obvious question: how does one know that one is enlightened oneself?

By using one's mind to ascertain whether one's thoughts and actions are in accordance with the definition of enlightenment. That's the only way to know anything.

Which was my entire point! From where does one get the definition of enlightenment? From those who coined the term in the first place: i.e. from the Buddhist scriptures.

Well one could always coin a new definition oneself, and not everyone agrees on the meaning or validity of definitions coined by people in the past.

Your analysis was wrong because, as you yourself stated, you don't understand Nagarjuna's teachings. For example, you're unable to figure out how it is possible to value A above B while recognising that they are both the same in the sense of being parts of Nature.

You'll have to elaborate, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything in my analysis.

I was referring to:

On the other hand, it appears that, whatever Nagarjuna means, David disagrees with him, because whilst Nagarjuna seems to be maintaining one thing explicitly (that samsara and nirvana are not distinct) and the opposite implicitly (that nirvana is a victorious achievement), David maintains explicitly what Nagarjuna maintains implicitly (that nirvana is a victorious achievement), whilst rejecting explicitly that which Nagarjuna maintains explicitly (that samsara and nirvana are not distinct). It's a weak point to Robert here.

Firstly, what you called Nagarjuna's "implicit" meaning was stated explicitly by him multiple times in his writings. Secondly, David didn't explicitly reject what you called Nagarjuna's "explicit" meaning because that was also his own meaning. Since emptiness is not itself a third finite thing apart from samsara and nirvana, the fact of their oneness as manifestations of emptiness doesn't negate any distinction that they may have in relation to each other as finite things.

guest_of_logic: My understanding is that Robert was simply asserting that Weininger's views on Jews are so contemptible as to be endorsed by Hitler.

jupiviv: And that by extension David Quinn's views are contemptible as well since he supports Weininger.

Sure, but that's different to saying "David is Hitler!!!1!!!1".

Yes, it's an indirect personal attack as opposed to a direct one, both of which when used in a discussion detract heavily from the attacker's credibility.

[jupiviv]

No. Laird has slandered me and others, basically calling us brain-washed cult-followers. That's defamation.

I'm not sure citing email exchanges about offline affairs is a good way to respond to that kind of defamation. You could have explained why those charges are injudicious without bringing up private affairs.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Jupiviv, why are you talking about interpretations of meaning related to enlightenment?

You thought the repeating process of aging, death and rebirth wasn't actually a reference to death and that the dissolution of the brain is hence the dissolution of the mind. The exact opposite of Buddha's teaching.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

. Too, it plays off the Eastern notion of release from the cycle of rebirth, but the true Eastern notion is a literal release, literally, upon death, ceasing to be reborn into this mortal realm; David's attempt to turn it into a figurative release is incoherent and, again, sophistical.

Damn Laird. David's description is exactly that, a literal release.

To be 'born' requires egotism, there is no engagement in the process of life and death without egotism.

Conceptualize a fantasy in which you imagine being hunted, attacked, or killed, there is the sense that it is happening to 'me', a false sense of an "ego-entity and what it possesses", something to lose, hence there is fear and other related emotions. Only you find out nothing actually occurred to "me", non-attachment.

"One is free of all attachment to form. And because of this, one ceases to engage in life and death"

[David Quinn]

guest_of_logic: What I continue to think, Leyla, is that the phrase is empty sophistry. To be alive itself is to "engage in life". No matter what attitude, approach or behaviour we adopt, whether it be emotional or "non-attached", deluded or "enlightened", that is simply how we are "engaged in life". One day, too, we will all "engage in death", and no attitude, approach or behaviour can avoid that (assuming we don't find the secret to immortality at some point).

David: As Jesus says, the apostle is in the world, but not of it.

And by that he meant something different than what you appear to mean. Jesus spoke of a spiritual kingdom of God, which we are to aspire to in preference to the "kingdom" of the world; you don't even believe in the God of Christ, let alone His spiritual kingdom.

You mean the Jesus who says things like, "Whoever believes that the All itself is deficient is himself completely deficient"....?

guest_of_logic: As for your interpretation of life = form and death = formlessness, I would suggest again that this is David's attempt to dilute the true teaching of release from literal rebirth into a materialist philosophy of mere non-attachment.

David: Not sure what you mean by that phrase. Non-attachment means the rejection of both matter and spirit.

What I mean is that you reject the notion of anything "beyond" this world of matter; you reject the notion that a spiritual aspect of a person exists and can survive physical death, and so, your principle of "non-attachment" isn't predicated on any philosophy or metaphysic that I would term truly spiritual.

How you must hate this world!

I do indeed reject your ego-based spirituality, yes. It is depraved.

Our true spiritual nature - the ALL - does continue to live on beyond our bodily deaths. It continues on forever.

However, it is evident that such a magnificent reality doesn’t please you. You can’t greedily extract anything from it, after all.

In any case, the truth is opposite to what you are saying here. Those who seek salvation in a release from literal rebirth are diluting the far more powerful goal of seeking release from all forms.

"Release from all forms" and then what? The released ones just die and that's the end of them?

They live and then they die.

Not that they care either way. Their minds are constantly taken up by something far more arresting!

And to you, that's "more powerful" than the original teaching?

Infinitely more powerful.

You truly have no idea ....

guest_of_logic: I think the Buddhist tradition of masters validating their students is a reasonable one, but for David to just proclaim out of thin air, "Oh, yeah, I'm this random dude on the internet but trust me, I'm enlightened because I'm enlightened and I know it", is... pretty preposterous, don't you think?

David: It does sound preposterous, yes. Which perhaps explains why I never say anything along those lines.

Oh, please. It's what you said in the debate, doing some (very elementary) reading between the lines.

I would never tell anyone to trust me just because I say I am enlightened. That would be preposterous.

guest_of_logic: Why even bother is to bust the myths of the self-proclaimed-but-really-snake-oil-salesmen.

David: What am I selling, exactly? Who am I ripping off?

You're selling a package of thought, and you're ripping off those who buy into it wholesale, wasting their time thinking they've found a gem.

Perhaps they really do find a gem....

People can take or leave what I say. It makes no difference to me.

You've written a supposed guide to enlightenment, why would you do that if it made no difference to you whether people are interested in it?

It’s called compassion.

How is a "Buddhist master" having the gall to claim that he has the authority to validate another's enlightenment any less galling than a person validating their own enlightenment? Makes no sense to me.

If the former is "reasonable", then the latter is equally so.

OK, well, then, even though I've never studied under a coach, I happen to know that I'm the world's greatest soccer player, and it doesn't matter whether anybody else validates that, because I have validated it for myself. Do you see the problem here?

The problem is your poor analogy. Unlike enlightenment, soccer is a human contrivance, with made-up rules. It is only appropriate that people interested in soccer conform to the pre-existing, made-up rules.

But with enlightenment, it is a very different matter. Here, people have to go beyond human contrivance, beyond human rules, beyond pre-existing ideas, beyond all history, and go directly to the source within their own minds. There is no other way.

People are generally unable to assess themselves objectively, it takes a third party to do that, particularly one who is knowledgeable in the domain in question. Why do you think we have universities which assess degrees? How confident would you be in a man who told you, "Yeah, I'm a skilled mathematician - based on my own self-validation" versus a man who told you, "Yeah, I studied mathematics at university and graduated with honours"?

I would first become an expert in mathematics and then assess his achievements. I wouldn’t throw a hissy fit and dismiss it, while ignorant, on the grounds that it conflicts with what I happen to believe in.

[Leyla Shen]

Leyla Shen wrote:
Isn't the notion of not dying even when you've died (as you express is: "the true Eastern notion is a literal release, literally, upon death, ceasing to be reborn into this mortal realm") even more ridiculous and incoherent? (I don't find anything remotely plausible about it, myself!) Really, what's the flippen difference!?

To someone, as many on this forum are, without any inkling of a non-material aspect to one's being, it might well seem ridiculous and incoherent. That doesn't include me though. There is too much evidence for a spiritual aspect of the person for me to deny it. To do so seems, to me, short-sighted and foolish.

Hm.

So... are you accusing such others as being foolish and short-sighted based on your own experience of/evidence for nirvana, or on your belief in someone else's experience of/evidence for it? In short, are you, unlike David, qualified to make plausible judgments about nirvana?

[jupiviv]

Jupiviv, why are you talking about interpretations of meaning related to enlightenment?

You thought the repeating process of aging, death and rebirth wasn't actually a reference to death and that the dissolution of the brain is hence the dissolution of the mind. The exact opposite of Buddha's teaching.

I said that it's not useful to interpret the terms "birth" and "death" as used in Buddhism to specifically mean the biological-physical birth and death of human beings. And yes, the dissolution of the brain is also the dissolution of the mind on the planet I inhabit. Even if it isn't, the mind/consciousness is impermanent, being a finite thing, and that is also what the Buddha taught.

[Russell Parr]

Laird, would it help if I and the others told you that we don't care if David claims to be enlightened?

To be honest, I never even cared much about enlightenment or buddhism before I found some of David's writings, because it didn't make any sense to me. Especially the whole reincarnation bit you seem quite fascinated with. Only after reading and reviewing over countless hours the material David and his friends have provided, have I found their descriptions to be sensible.

So please, stop with this harping on David's or anyone's self-validation. Anyone can read self-validation into your own writings as well. It's up to everyone as individuals to assess the accuracy of whatever anyone is saying.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Deebs, you talk a load of nonsense sometimes, exemplified by your notion that Alex might have "hidden multiple accounts" - paranoid much? What a crazy idea!

LOL! Yeah lets just say I know him a bit longer and better than you think. And he's perhaps suffering from bigger problems than you are. It's a fair warning which I admit is bordering on gossip (in the sense I cannot be bothered to substantiate it, again) but in this case of interest since you seem to be drawn to blow-hards with bigger issues than you are having yourself. As if you need them for something in some armed struggle. That's why this thread makes only sense in Laird terms.

And if you cannot recognise the "coherent system of thought" behind this forum

Thought itself is behind it. It's easy to find coherence between this and many wisdom traditions and ongoing dialogs outside this forum. It's really effortless and for me the ecosystem of this forum is just one link of a long chain of the insights life provides. So it's your perspective which seems utterly provincial and rather obsessed.

David, Dan and Kevin never (as far as I have observed) disagree on anything philosophical

Since they almost exclusively talk about philosophical fundamentals, it would be remarkable if they'd' differ on it and still cooperate. Perhaps there were formative years where disagreements were hashed out? Wise people should be each others enemies in that sense. Otherwise I wouldn't trust one. You are in dire need of more enemies, not "friends"!

I've written several essays outlining my objections to the house philosophy, and they have been completely original, not to mention dozens if not hundreds of minor posts.

It was about the authority behind your objections you are denying with the same breath. O the irony! And those essays never seemed very coherent though. They seemed stemming for an emotional need to throw something together. A neurotic exercise to fill the space. Like this thread! Then again it made David and Kelly post again so apart from an opportunity to demolish your idea of having any point at all, it's not a waste of space after all.

[Would you rent out your place to me, by the way? ]

[Kelly Jones]

Jupiviv wrote:

I'm not sure citing email exchanges about offline affairs is a good way to respond to that kind of defamation. You could have explained why those charges are injudicious without bringing up private affairs.

I think you missed the point of my posts. The best way to refute defamation is to show the description is a lie, and I did that by pointing out flaws in his thinking. That is, his claims are founded on (a) an internally contradictory statement, and (b) a completely hypocritical stance. When Laird announces he doesn't have to respond to these points because, he alleges, we have personal differences and can't communicate, I am forced to show that his private behaviour declares the direct opposite. The aim is to get him to respond to the flaws I pointed out, instead of hiding behind these extra lies.

But my honest impression of Laird is that my attempt to get him to treat me fairly is a lost cause. If he believes it's fine to treat me courteously in person, and even to state that he trusts me more than he does most people, and then to declare behind my back and in public that I'm basically a mindless, gullible, brain-washed cultist, then I can't rely on him to behave decently towards me or anyone else.

I've only posted again to try to get him to take responsibility for backstabbing and defamation. But I don't think Laird has the decency to take responsibility. He'll go on blaming me for his actions, even though he knows it's his own fault he has difficulties with me. That's all. I'm too busy with other matters to take interest in the Genius Forum. There is too much frightened huddling and quibbling, and not enough goodness.


.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Lol Laird What a ruckus you've caused!

You don't say! Alex is even emailing now suddenly like crazy to a couple of GF members here including myself. Who knows, soon he'll be demanding to post a rebutal!

[Leyla Shen]

Diebert (Jesus fucking Christ), stop it. If you don't stop subjecting Genius to your Alex obsession (since you're the only one who feels the need to keep everybody else updated on his internet activities as if of supreme relevance), I'm going to nail your arse to the cross so you can die for his sins.

It's like he's burrowed himself into your brain and you can't get him out.

Who cares if he's somehow part of an ulterior motive Laird has. I mean, really.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Leyla, it was Seeker who brought Alex up here by the way. No matter, it's still a good illustration of Laird's problem. The fundamental insincerity of our false self has to be faced first before any progress can be done. And why is it your business if I bring him up or not? Perhaps the obsession is yours? Geez. I already stated years ago he will not leave just like Laird keeps coming back to reiterate the same mistakes with nothing new. It's the nature of their deal. I think there's merit in understanding it deeper for some who are still involved in the false dilemma. Perhaps you just don't know yet what you're dealing with here [your self].

[Leyla Shen]

And why is it your business if I bring him up or not, [...]

My mistake. I thought it was a reply to something I wrote.

I'll make a note that you may not be talking to me even when you quote me for next time.

Leyla, that was basically my point you're making now, little sister, as response to Laird digging up Robert vs David from the grave. Too late now to make it your own!

Not even sure what to say about that, except that it's really childish.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

My mistake. I thought it was a reply to something I wrote.

Yes, I explained the "ruckus" you mentioned went beyond the forum. Your interested disinterest is noted :)

Leyla, that was basically my point you're making now, little sister, as response to Laird digging up Robert vs David from the grave. Too late now to make it your own!

Not even sure what to say about that, except that it's really childish.

To question the digging up of old stuff. Re-animation as sign that it hasn't died yet for some ("why you once needed to write this analysis of an already over-analyzed analysis of a buried corpse of a debate"). That was my point to Laird but I'm fully aware I brought back another one too. Who cares.

[Cahoot]

There is too much frightened huddling and quibbling, and not enough goodness.

Non-dual: goodness is everywhere you are, and you are only where goodness is.

[Leyla Shen]

Found it.

It's a fair warning which I admit is bordering on gossip (in the sense I cannot be bothered to substantiate it, again) but in this case of interest since you seem to be drawn to blow-hards with bigger issues than you are having yourself. As if you need them for something in some armed struggle.

I found this comment bloody hilarious, not in the least because the imagery in this video is the ultimate expression for this kind of "armed struggle":

Perfect!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

And I was thinking the humor was that I am obviously myself drawn to various armed struggles with blow-hards having the biggest issues! :-)

I prefer calling them expositions though.

[guest_of_logic]

Well, seemingly against my better judgement, here's another response amidst this "ruckus". I don't promise to keep on responding, so this might be my last, potentially excluding some sort of summing up or sign-off post.

guest_of_logic: Ah, loopy jupi, all you do is prompt the obvious question: how does one know that one is enlightened oneself?

jupiviv: By using one's mind to ascertain whether one's thoughts and actions are in accordance with the definition of enlightenment. That's the only way to know anything.

guest_of_logic: Which was my entire point! From where does one get the definition of enlightenment? From those who coined the term in the first place: i.e. from the Buddhist scriptures.

jupiviv: Well one could always coin a new definition oneself, and not everyone agrees on the meaning or validity of definitions coined by people in the past.

I covered that in my analysis: if David has coined a new definition, then there's really nothing to debate - who would bother to debate whether a man has "got" a term which he himself has defined? Of course he has!

David didn't explicitly reject what you called Nagarjuna's "explicit" meaning [that samsara and nirvana are indistinct --Laird] because that was also his own meaning.

You apparently haven't read the debate very closely. David very clearly does explicitly reject Nagarjuna's claim of the indistinctness of samsara and nirvana in his fourth post:

Note that the very first line of the quoted verse reads, "So, when the victorious one abides, ......" This shows that Nagarjuna is already creating the distinction between the "victorious one" and the ordinary person from the outset. This, in turn, means that he recognizes the distinction between enlightenment and ignorance, and between nirvana and samsara. It is the same with the Dhammapada passages quoted at the beginning of this essay; they too create the distinction between nirvana (the other shore) and samsara (the world of ignorance). In fact, you can go to any Buddhist sutra you like, and you will find that they are all based on the distinction between nirvana and samsara, enlightenment and ignorance, the wise man and the fool. These distinctions form the basis of every spiritual teaching in existence, even Nagarjuna's.

David explicitly asserts that distinction (i.e. and not indistinctness) forms the basis of Nagarjuna's teaching.

guest_of_logic: My understanding is that Robert was simply asserting that Weininger's views on Jews are so contemptible as to be endorsed by Hitler.

jupiviv: And that by extension David Quinn's views are contemptible as well since he supports Weininger.

guest_of_logic: Sure, but that's different to saying "David is Hitler!!!1!!!1".

jupiviv: Yes, it's an indirect personal attack as opposed to a direct one, both of which when used in a discussion detract heavily from the attacker's credibility.

Fine, whatever, that's beside my original point, which (the point) you just conceded.

David,

If you are suggesting that by "God", Jesus meant "the All", then you are deluded. A sane reading of the Gospels reveals that Christ believed in and prayed to a personal God. It remains the case that Jesus's saying which you quoted refers to a spiritual kingdom ruled by a personal God, which is an apostle's true home, as opposed to this material world, in which he is merely passing through. This is in contrast to your own words which draw from Buddhism but are incoherent to those such as yourself lacking a belief in a non-corporeal aspect to a person which can survive physical death, and thus can truly cease to engage in (physical) life and death.

As for my "hatred" of the world, I'm not sure where you get that from. I object to injustice, of which there is much in the world, and it might even be possible to say that I "hate" injustice, but I don't hate the world itself. As for my "ego-based" spirituality, I don't really care what you call it, I simply call it the most likely truth. Deal with it.

As for my soccer analogy, I'm afraid you can't squirm out of it that easily. It doesn't really matter whether or not one or the other (of soccer and enlightenment) is "a human contrivance", the point is that they are both complex and skilful practices, a fair judgement of the accomplishment of which is best made by a qualified third party, especially given the tendency of kooks (*cough*) to over-estimate their own achievements.

guest_of_logic: People are generally unable to assess themselves objectively, it takes a third party to do that, particularly one who is knowledgeable in the domain in question. Why do you think we have universities which assess degrees? How confident would you be in a man who told you, "Yeah, I'm a skilled mathematician - based on my own self-validation" versus a man who told you, "Yeah, I studied mathematics at university and graduated with honours"?

David: I would first become an expert in mathematics and then assess his achievements. I wouldn’t throw a hissy fit and dismiss it, while ignorant, on the grounds that it conflicts with what I happen to believe in.

And you don't see a problem with this approach? It takes years and even decades to gain skill in a field like mathematics, assuming you even have a good enough mind for it in the first place, not to mention that doing it yourself you cannot really be sure whether you've covered sufficient ground, or have sufficient skill - even if you are going to study independently, you would need to take external, objective tests to confirm your level of ability, wouldn't you? Do you really have years and decades to spend learning the craft of each supposed self-validated expert who comes your way so as to assess the credibility of their claims? Of course not - there are too many of them across too many different fields.

Leyla: Isn't the notion of not dying even when you've died (as you express is: "the true Eastern notion is a literal release, literally, upon death, ceasing to be reborn into this mortal realm") even more ridiculous and incoherent? (I don't find anything remotely plausible about it, myself!) Really, what's the flippen difference!?

guest_of_logic: To someone, as many on this forum are, without any inkling of a non-material aspect to one's being, it might well seem ridiculous and incoherent. That doesn't include me though. There is too much evidence for a spiritual aspect of the person for me to deny it. To do so seems, to me, short-sighted and foolish.

Leyla: Hm.

So... are you accusing such others as being foolish and short-sighted based on your own experience of/evidence for nirvana, or on your belief in someone else's experience of/evidence for it? In short, are you, unlike David, qualified to make plausible judgments about nirvana?

Ah, I see that I wasn't very clear in the above. I was calling short-sighted and foolish those who deny a spiritual (non-corporeal) aspect to the person, not those who deny nirvana as literal release from literal rebirth - the latter I don't know much about and wouldn't claim to.

Russell,

I don't see myself as "harping" on David's self-validation - it simply came up in a debate which I undertook to analyse, and so, naturally, I analysed it. There's not much more significance to it than that. And of course (this is addressed to Diebert too) there is "self-validation" in what I post here, but the claims I'm making are a far cry from enlightenment!

guest_of_logic: Deebs, you talk a load of nonsense sometimes, exemplified by your notion that Alex might have "hidden multiple accounts" - paranoid much? What a crazy idea!

Diebert: LOL! Yeah lets just say I know him a bit longer and better than you think.

Mate, if you think he would do something like that, then you don't know him at all.

guest_of_logic: David, Dan and Kevin never (as far as I have observed) disagree on anything philosophical

Diebert: Since they almost exclusively talk about philosophical fundamentals, it would be remarkable if they'd' differ on it and still cooperate.

I don't get it. You and jupiviv are both conceding the original point whilst continuing to argue. Do you simply like arguing for the sake of it? Here, you acknowledge that David, Dan and Kevin promote a common philosophy, implying that there is "a coherent system of thought" behind this forum, which was the original point of contention, and which you originally denied.

guest_of_logic: And if you cannot recognise the "coherent system of thought" behind this forum

Diebert: Thought itself is behind it.

In that sense, delusions of grandeur are behind it.

So, would I rent out my place to you? Got any references? ;-)

[Cahoot]

I found this comment bloody hilarious, not in the least because the imagery in this video is the ultimate expression for this kind of "armed struggle":

Perfect!

That is funny. Good comedic timing with the animation.

Since video protocol has been breeched, here’s something relevant. Three short films in one video. The last film begins at 51:10. In story form it tells of a balancing that occurs when delusion encounters non-delusion, in worlds created by mind.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Mate, if you think he would do something like that, then you don't know him at all.

No need to suspect or speculate, that's for the gossip crowd. He admitted to it himself on this very forum and elsewhere publicly. It's not like he's hiding it that much. It's for him an established vehicle to get debates going, to experiment. It's one of those things I disagree with him when it comes to forum behavior and establishing character. He just doesn't see it as a big deal.

guest_of_logic: David, Dan and Kevin never (as far as I have observed) disagree on anything philosophical

Diebert: Since they almost exclusively talk about philosophical fundamentals, it would be remarkable if they'd' differ on it and still cooperate.

I don't get it. You and jupiviv are both conceding the original point whilst continuing to argue. Do you simply like arguing for the sake of it? Here, you acknowledge that David, Dan and Kevin promote a common philosophy, implying that there is "a coherent system of thought" behind this forum, which was the original point of contention, and which you originally denied.

That's not what I wrote. They agree on fundamentals but there's nothing distinct about them in terms of "system of thought". Unless you want to call causality, logic, emptiness all a "philosophy". But they are presented as fundamentals of thought and thinking. Terms of awareness. They are selected because of the impossibility to disagree without affirming them at the same time. You cannot seriously hold a certain agreement between the founders and some members against them when that very forum announces to discuss what is fundamentally true and universally agreeable?

So, would I rent out my place to you? Got any references? ;-)

Leyla might vouch for me! I think.