The Larkin Debate revisited

[Russell Parr]

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!

You don't claim enlightenment because your premise actually renders enlightenment as an impossibility. Your premise also renders everything you (or anyone) claim(s) to be true to be questionable at best, including the people who's idea of enlightenment you happen to agree with.

Your entire position resembles this: "I don't think you're right, because no one can know for sure if they're right, not even me (or the originators of the ideas I've adopted). Regardless, I'm going to continue to try to persuade others of my not-so-certain truths."

Maybe you should create a signature that states "All of the above may or may not be correct." You know, just for consistency.

[guest_of_logic]

He admitted to it himself on this very forum and elsewhere publicly.

I don't believe you. Please link to these supposed admissions. Surely you can't be referring to his Talking Ass account, which was anything but "hidden", and which is singular not "multiple".

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.

guest_of_logic: 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.

Diebert: 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?

You're quite in thrall to the house philosophy, aren't you? - to the point that you describe it as "thought itself" and "universally agreeable". Well, friend, myself and plenty of others are proof that it is no such thing. It is in many ways idiosyncratic, not "fundamental" - its take on women, for example, and its affirmation of A=A as the basis of logic, to take a second example. These are far from "universally agreeable", in fact there are plenty of people, myself included, who find them ridiculous. So yeah, there's definitely a system of thought happening on this forum, and it's definitely commonly agreed upon by the founders and their supporters.

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

Diebert: Leyla might vouch for me! I think.

A vouchsafe from Leyla is good enough for me! When do you want to move in?

You don't claim enlightenment because your premise actually renders enlightenment as an impossibility.

Oh, Russell. Why do you misrepresent me? Is it willful or a lack of comprehension? I don't claim enlightenment because I don't recognise in myself anything corresponding to the descriptions of enlightenment I've heard of in the Eastern traditions, and because I haven't even attempted to engage with those traditions in order to gain enlightenment, not because of any premise I have. And none of my premises render enlightenment an impossibility - how could you say that? Instead, I've been suggesting that we need to engage with the traditions of enlightenment and their masters in order to have genuine confidence that we are anything approaching enlightened, just as we need to seek objective evidence that we are competent in any major field or practice.

Your premise also renders everything you (or anyone) claim(s) to be true to be questionable at best, including the people who's idea of enlightenment you happen to agree with.

Enlightenment as an idea can't really be "untrue" except insofar as it refers to something that is impossible. It might be more or less useful, or helpful, or meaningful, or whatever, but as a pure description of something that happens to a person or that a person can be or whatever, it simply is what it is, neither true nor false.

Your entire position resembles this: "I don't think you're right, because no one can know for sure if they're right, not even me (or the originators of the ideas I've adopted). Regardless, I'm going to continue to try to persuade others of my not-so-certain truths."

More blatant misrepresentation. It is for various rational and common sense reasons that I don't think you and the crew here are right, not "because no one can know for sure if they're right". We might not always be able to know definitively, but that ought not to prevent us from acting on our best intelligence.

Maybe you should create a signature that states "All of the above may or may not be correct." You know, just for consistency.

Ahaha. And perhaps you ought to create a signature that states, "Say what you like, I reserve the right to misrepresent it in my own interests".

[David Quinn]

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.

You mean the same Jesus who said things like, “It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying, 'Here it is', or 'There it is'. Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it".....

It’s interesting to note that Jesus deliberately confined himself to parables when speaking publicly because he knew that his message was far too subtle and difficult to grasp by the average person. Even his closest disciples had difficulty understanding his teachings. And yet here you are, Laird, turning this subtle, difficult-to-grasp message into a simple, common-place fantasy that any dull-witted fellow can follow.

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.

And yet look at what you write:

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.

Need I say more?

"Oh Lord, get me out of this world! But don't take any actual part of me, as I hate all of myself as well!"

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.

On the contrary, the "human contrivance" part is the critical element. It is the key difference between the two activities.

In any case, you get kooks within all spheres of life - even within religion where "validation" by "qualified third parties" is the norm. In fact, we can safely say that kooks run rampant in religion.

Kookiness can only be countered by increasing levels of truthfulness and honesty by each of us as individuals. By taking responsibility as individuals. Passing the buck onto "qualified third parties" is part of the problem, not the solution.

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.

True, no sane person would waste his whole life studying mathematics. But spirituality is a different matter. The future of one's own soul is at stake. It is far too important a task to leave it to others.

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.

That passage was actually part of a larger point I was making. Here are the next few passages from that part of the debate:

So when Nagarjuna says this .....

• There is not the slightest difference
  Between cyclic existence and nirvana.
  There is not the slightest difference
  Between nirvana and cyclic existence.

..... he is, as he already stated, articulating the vision from the perspective of the "victorious one". The person who abandons all delusions and becomes enlightened sees that nirvana is nothing other Nature itself. Nirvana is Nature experienced without the delusions. Whereas ordinary people experience Nature as samsara and get flung around on the emotional roller-coaster ride that goes with it (the wheel of birth, death and rebirth), sages experience Nature as nirvanic bliss.

Moreover, when he leaves ignorance behind and enters into enlightenment, the sage realizes that he has always existed in nirvanic bliss. But because of his past ignorance and delusions, he used to experience it as a kind of hellish, mundane world. His enlightenment has removed this false perception, along with every other false perception, leaving him free to dwell in a timeless Reality which has always been present. This is why it is regularly stated in Buddhist scriptures that the "Buddha attained nothing in his complete, unexcelled enlightenment", and that "nothing is added" by it. He is simply realizing what is already there.

There is a Buddhist story about a lion cub which gets separated from its clan and becomes lost in a forest. A herd of goats finds the cub, and they decide to raise it. The cub grows up believing he is just another goat and learns to do everything that a goat does. He even learns to run away from other lions in fear. But then one day, a kind, elderly lion forces him to look at his own reflection and in that instant he perceives the truth that has always been there - namely, that he is a lion.

This story illustrates how the distinction between enlightenment and ignorance is real, while at the same time affirming the truth that nirvana and samsara are, from the perspective of the enlightened mind, identical. The understanding of this dynamic is completely at odds with Robert's shallow post-modernist take on Buddhism, and the key to understanding my affinity with Nagarjuna.

There is nothing more to add, really.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

The person who abandons all delusions and becomes enlightened sees that nirvana is nothing other Nature itself. Nirvana is Nature experienced without the delusions. Whereas ordinary people experience Nature as samsara and get flung around on the emotional roller-coaster ride that goes with it (the wheel of birth, death and rebirth), sages experience Nature as nirvanic bliss.

Moreover, when he leaves ignorance behind and enters into enlightenment, the sage realizes that he has always existed in nirvanic bliss. But because of his past ignorance and delusions, he used to experience it as a kind of hellish, mundane world. His enlightenment has removed this false perception, along with every other false perception, leaving him free to dwell in a timeless Reality which has always been present.

That's perfect. Sometimes referred to as Buddha nature or simply "I am" referring to nothing more than one's everyday existence, sometimes even "Self", not to be confused with false ideas of ego possession. Our being, which is nature, the all.

Hearing it and thinking about it is nothing. Seeing it and knowing it is enlightenment.

And in terms of Laird completely misinterpreting Jesus, how does he explain this well-known quotes:

"The kingdom of God is within you"

Not to mention his completely unity with God, the idiotic christian calls Jesus alone God, not recognizing their own nature.

[guest_of_logic]

You mean the same Jesus who said things like, “It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying, 'Here it is', or 'There it is'. Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it".....

It’s interesting to note that Jesus deliberately confined himself to parables when speaking publicly because he knew that his message was far too subtle and difficult to grasp by the average person. Even his closest disciples had difficulty understanding his teachings. And yet here you are, Laird, turning this subtle, difficult-to-grasp message into a simple, common-place fantasy that any dull-witted fellow can follow.

David, you can cherry-pick quotes from a gnostic-influenced, non-canonical gospel, but an honest reading of the canonical gospels reveals a very different picture. For example, Luke 13, 23:30:

Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?”

He said to them, “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’

“But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’

“Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’

“But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’

“There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.”

Notice that Jesus talks about the possibility of being "saved", and of "entering" a literal heaven, and about himself being the gatekeeper to that heaven. Clearly there is some form of judgement by Christ going on - self-validation isn't going to cut it. Clearly there is a literal "place" where feasting occurs, from which people can be barred - by Christ, not by their own minds.

Or how about Matthew 7, 21-32?

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Again, we have entry to heaven based on doing the "will" of Christ's Father - clearly a personal God, for only personal entities have wills. Notice, too, that the Father is already in heaven - clearly a literal place. Notice, too, and again, that judgement as to whether a person may or may not enter heaven is by Christ, not by self-validation. Notice, finally, that Christ refers to "that day" - clearly a literal day of judgement.

Or how about John 6, 38-40?

For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

Notice that Jesus refers to heaven as a literal place from which he has "come down" (how do you "come down" from enlightenment?). Notice again that he is doing the "will" of a personal God. Notice mention of a "last day", and the raising up of the dead - clearly, this is a literal resurrection, for the purpose of judgement by Christ as to whether or not the individual is fit for eternal life in the kingdom of heaven.

Or how about John 18, 36?

Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

Notice reference to Christ's kingdom as another "place", "not of this world" - i.e. heaven is a place other than this world.

I could go on, but you get the point. David, your game is tired. You turn Jesus into what you want him to be, in support of your weak notion of spirituality, rather than allowing the majesty of his true message to be revealed.

"Oh Lord, get me out of this world! But don't take any actual part of me, as I hate all of myself as well!"

:-/ You're worse than Russell.

On the contrary, the "human contrivance" part is the critical element. It is the key difference between the two activities.

Oh, stuff and nonsense. Enlightenment is, in any case, as much a human contrivance as is soccer - both have been defined and refined by people over the ages.

In any case, you get kooks within all spheres of life - even within religion where "validation" by "qualified third parties" is the norm. In fact, we can safely say that kooks run rampant in religion.

Kookiness can only be countered by increasing levels of truthfulness and honesty by each of us as individuals. By taking responsibility as individuals. Passing the buck onto "qualified third parties" is part of the problem, not the solution.

Certainly, I agree that we need strong personal commitments to truthfulness and honesty, but if you think that's enough, then you're badly mistaken. I don't believe that you possess that commitment in any case - you are too loath to admit your mistakes. You are, in fact, one of "those" kooks who thinks he's enlightened. And nothing anyone says is going to sway you. You've convinced yourself.

True, no sane person would waste his whole life studying mathematics.

And yet you said that this is exactly what you would do. The point is, we are beholden to experts in all sorts of areas of our lives, and we cannot afford the time to become experts ourselves so as to judge them.

But spirituality is a different matter. The future of one's own soul is at stake. It is far too important a task to leave it to others.

Oh man, you crap on. You don't even believe in a soul, yet you're quite happy to trade on the implications of the term.

That passage was actually part of a larger point I was making. Here are the next few passages from that part of the debate

OK, I accept that you did, after all, state explicit agreement with Nagarjuna's doctrine of indistinctness. Turns out it was me who hadn't read the debate closely enough (more like it's been too long between writing my analysis and posting it). My bad.

[guest_of_logic]

And in terms of Laird completely misinterpreting Jesus, how does he explain this well-known quotes:

"The kingdom of God is within you"

Dude, my interpretation of Jesus is the most reasonable one; yours is the contortion. You don't even believe in a personal God, which is the cornerstone of Christ's message. As for interpreting that quote, other than suggesting that there are inconsistencies in the Bible, I would interpret it like this:

1. Certain people are worthy of the kingdom of God.
2. Those people have a certain inner attitude and approach.
3. That inner attitude and approach can be likened to the kingdom of God, in the sense that it will be possessed by all those who gain access to that kingdom, and, in that sense, the kingdom (as an attitude and approach) is "within" them.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I don't believe you. Please link to these supposed admissions. Surely you can't be referring to his Talking Ass account, which was anything but "hidden", and which is singular not "multiple".

Well I didn't mention "hidden accounts", just that for example Talking Ass arrived in April 2009 right after Alex Jacob left in April 2009 (and how many times he said goodbye's anyway?). No introduction or indication given although one was supposed to understand from the blow-hard style I suppose? The same behavior he was known for at other forums but I'm not going to look that up again. He commented himself on the persona problem here. Anyway, for Alex it's about control. A discussion, a forum, a little group of disillusioned loners. He's driven by only that, probably because he feels he hasn't any grip on anything else. Enough babying you here though, it's something people have to learn for themselves in the end.

You're quite in thrall to the house philosophy, aren't you? - to the point that you describe it as "thought itself" and "universally agreeable". Well, friend, myself and plenty of others are proof that it is no such thing.

Well, it would be too easy to say that you're are then in the thrall of that "proof" and those "others". The "philosophy" you're talking about is just not distinct enough or systematic to discuss like you're trying to do here. Even the "take on women" is although more psychological than philosophical not really an argument. So many men would concur with it that it's really not distinct as forum philosophy to my mind. Just because wise people have superior reasoning and observational skills doesn't mean that all that they arrive at is some common "system" that is "agreed" upon. Next thing is that atheism is part of the house philosophy and being preached!

It is in many ways idiosyncratic, not "fundamental" - its take on women, for example, and its affirmation of A=A as the basis of logic, to take a second example. These are far from "universally agreeable", in fact there are plenty of people, myself included, who find them ridiculous. So yeah, there's definitely a system of thought happening on this forum, and it's definitely commonly agreed upon by the founders and their supporters.

Something commonly agreed upon is not the same as a defined system of thought to accept or reject. It's like you see everything through the prism of faith and theory. And if you think the supposed fundamentals of this forum are so ridiculous, I'd find it more than ridiculous to remain exposed to it for so long and trying to discuss it. For example, I don't find your confusion ridiculous at all. It's just that you are stuck with a false sense of self, of womanhood, of religion and stuff. All in need of some "defense"! It's a situation I know intimately well and have mostly outgrown by now. Ridiculous no, false yes!

[guest_of_logic]

guest_of_logic: I don't believe you. Please link to these supposed admissions. Surely you can't be referring to his Talking Ass account, which was anything but "hidden", and which is singular not "multiple".

Diebert: Well I didn't mention "hidden accounts"

But earlier (emphasis mine):

How Alexian (who seems to have descended on yet another philosophy forum by the way (number five?) with the usual hidden multiple accounts or followers, hard to say... such an example of honesty, not!).

It seems you've forgotten your own words, my friend.

just that for example Talking Ass

In other words, yes, Talking Ass is all you've got: neither "hidden" - his identity was obvious from the start, and quickly revealed to those who were slow on the uptake - nor "multiple". Weak sauce, Deebs. I want to know about all of these other "hidden multiple accounts".

As for your comments continuing to deny that there is a GF house philosophy, I think you're simply in denial. And yes, atheism decidedly *is* a component of the house philosophy - where have you been, Diebert?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

How Alexian (who seems to have descended on yet another philosophy forum by the way (number five?) with the usual hidden multiple accounts or followers, hard to say... such an example of honesty, not!).

It seems you've forgotten your own words, my friend.

If you'd read carefully I wasn't talking about Genius Forum there my friend. He appeared to be doing it again on "yet another forum". Which would be the fifth forum adventure that I know of. However you're right that at Genius Forum he did the trick only once (but who knows) and I won't mention the two other sign-ups which were variations on his first account. But I stand with my assessment of him being in the habit of using multiple accounts at forums without announcing his switches up front. Which is what I meant with "hidden". Not sure if his motive is to deceive, who knows. In similar cases it's called trolling. But I digress. Better shut up before Leyla crucifies me or the Jew.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

And yes, atheism decidedly *is* a component of the house philosophy - where have you been, Diebert?

It's like saying that rejecting Islam is a component of Christianity. It makes more sense to say that the concept of one savior and scripture leaves no room for anything else.

The same with any "house philosophy" of knowing ultimate reality. It leaves no room for other ultimate beings and beliefs. It's something you arrive at through simply walking the path.

[Russell Parr]

Oh, Russell. Why do you misrepresent me? Is it willful or a lack of comprehension? I don't claim enlightenment because I don't recognise in myself anything corresponding to the descriptions of enlightenment I've heard of in the Eastern traditions, and because I haven't even attempted to engage with those traditions in order to gain enlightenment, not because of any premise I have. And none of my premises render enlightenment an impossibility - how could you say that? Instead, I've been suggesting that we need to engage with the traditions of enlightenment and their masters in order to have genuine confidence that we are anything approaching enlightened, just as we need to seek objective evidence that we are competent in any major field or practice.

So somehow you're in position to gauge the enlightenment of others without ever even having tried to engage in any of the methods you think would lead to it? You disqualify yourself from the jump, Laird. So much for third party evaluation.

You can claim misrepresentation all you want, but it doesn't mean anything until you tell us what enlightenment is. Otherwise, we'll have to draw our own logical conclusions based on your statements. But now that I see how much you adopt the Christian interpretation of the bible, it's become increasingly clear that you actually have no interest in enlightenment at all.

[David Quinn]

You mean the same Jesus who said things like, “It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying, 'Here it is', or 'There it is'. Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it".....

It’s interesting to note that Jesus deliberately confined himself to parables when speaking publicly because he knew that his message was far too subtle and difficult to grasp by the average person. Even his closest disciples had difficulty understanding his teachings. And yet here you are, Laird, turning this subtle, difficult-to-grasp message into a simple, common-place fantasy that any dull-witted fellow can follow.

David, you can cherry-pick quotes from a gnostic-influenced, non-canonical gospel, but an honest reading of the canonical gospels reveals a very different picture. For example, Luke 13, 23:30:

Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?”

He said to them, “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’

“But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’

“Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’

“But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’

“There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.”

Notice that Jesus talks about the possibility of being "saved", and of "entering" a literal heaven, and about himself being the gatekeeper to that heaven. Clearly there is some form of judgement by Christ going on - self-validation isn't going to cut it. Clearly there is a literal "place" where feasting occurs, from which people can be barred - by Christ, not by their own minds.

Or how about Matthew 7, 21-32?

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Again, we have entry to heaven based on doing the "will" of Christ's Father - clearly a personal God, for only personal entities have wills. Notice, too, that the Father is already in heaven - clearly a literal place. Notice, too, and again, that judgement as to whether a person may or may not enter heaven is by Christ, not by self-validation. Notice, finally, that Christ refers to "that day" - clearly a literal day of judgement.

Or how about John 6, 38-40?

For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

Notice that Jesus refers to heaven as a literal place from which he has "come down" (how do you "come down" from enlightenment?). Notice again that he is doing the "will" of a personal God. Notice mention of a "last day", and the raising up of the dead - clearly, this is a literal resurrection, for the purpose of judgement by Christ as to whether or not the individual is fit for eternal life in the kingdom of heaven.

Or how about John 18, 36?

Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

Notice reference to Christ's kingdom as another "place", "not of this world" - i.e. heaven is a place other than this world.

I could go on, but you get the point.

No, I don’t really get the point you are making, other than to proclaim yourself to be a Christian fundamentalist.

Can there be anything more dreary and uninteresting than a “literal” interpretation of a great spiritual text like the Gospels? The profound teachings of Jesus, so rich in meaning, so alive with insight, so steeped in philosophic wisdom, are turned into a children’s fairytale. God begins to resemble Santa Claus. Reality becomes cartoon-like. All for the sake of cocooning the fundamentalist and reducing his feelings of insecurity.

What’s amusing about the whole thing is that Jesus explicitly warned us that his public words are meant to be taken metaphorically, that they are pointers to profound spiritual realities, that they are parables. But obviously the fundamentalists don’t want to take Jesus literally on that one!

On the contrary, the "human contrivance" part is the critical element. It is the key difference between the two activities.

Oh, stuff and nonsense. Enlightenment is, in any case, as much a human contrivance as is soccer - both have been defined and refined by people over the ages.

“God” too has been defined and refined by people over the ages. Does that mean he is nothing more than a human contrivance?

But spirituality is a different matter. The future of one's own soul is at stake. It is far too important a task to leave it to others.

Oh man, you crap on. You don't even believe in a soul, yet you're quite happy to trade on the implications of the term.

I do indeed believe in the soul. The soul is the higher part of ourselves, the part of us that seeks to become conscious of reality, to become perfect in the light of truth. Can anything be more noble than this?

But you’re right. I don’t believe in Santa Claus, ghostly entities and imaginary friends. For grown men to want to cling to such things - that’s depraved.

[Kelly Jones]

David wrote: Passing the buck onto "qualified third parties" is part of the problem, not the solution.

Laird wrote: Certainly, I agree that we need strong personal commitments to truthfulness and honesty, but if you think that's enough, then you're badly mistaken.

No, Laird, you're still depending on two logical errors: argumentum ad verecundiam, aka the argument from authority, and the argumentum ad populam.

By stating the Gnostic gospels are "non-canonical" and discarding entirely their content, you're totally passing the buck to "qualified third parties", Laird. It's the argumentum ad verecundiam, a logical fallacy. When you say "Authority A" is the trustworthy person, or Canonical Works Are Trustworthy, it's you who are actually the authority, because you decided they were. But how on earth would you know? You haven't a clue.

So you are basically resorting to safety in numbers: the more people believe it, the further away any individual is from having personal responsibility cast upon him for his opinion. He is not connected to his decision, because he's a faceless voter. He's just an anonymous statistic in a huge mob of believers.

This is why your scorn of David's self-validation is so hypocritical. You're pretending you've got some big authority telling you what is right and wrong, whether faceless crowds or bigwigs on thrones, but actually, it's your choice to find your self-validation through a third party. It seems to you this is more powerful, only because you're doing what so many others have done. That's why you think it's safe and right. Safety in numbers. The argumentum ad populam, a logical fallacy.


.

[guest_of_logic]

Hi all,

This is a summing up and concluding post, as I don't seem to have the energy or motivation for these extended discussions/debates right now, and because I suspect that in some ways they're not particularly productive.

To Diebert: personally, I don't see any problem with posting to multiple forums. I myself have posted to at least four separate philosophy forums over the past decade, and I don't see why anyone should take exception to, or be concerned with, this, nor that Alex has done likewise. I also am very, very sceptical of your notion that Alex is "in the habit of using multiple accounts at forums without announcing his switches up front", and I don't think it's good form of you to make such an assertion without justifying it with some sort of proof or at least evidence. Really, do you have any?

Regarding atheism being a component of the house philosophy, I think it's relevant that not long after I met him, Kevin gifted me with a CD compilation titled "Atheism", and that QRS founded an atheist society, as documented on Kevin's website. Despite your rhetorical wriggling, atheism is very much a prominent and *active* part of the house philosophy. You puzzle me, dude, because you seem to want to *deny* so many things, whether about GF or about reality in general, that are just obvious or very well-supported, and then sort of confuse the issue with odd rationalisations and diversions, in this case your little spiel about "no room for other [...] beliefs" - I mean, whatever, man, spin on, the point remains that the founders promote atheism actively, it's that simple.

Russell, it's possible to a meaningful extent to judge whether a man is a good public speaker without being a good public speaker oneself. It's possible to a meaningful extent to judge whether a man is a good engineer without being a good engineer oneself (just ask him to build something!). Granted, one might not be able to judge some of the finer points of craft, hence my qualifier "to a meaningful extent". It is, in my judgement, the same with enlightenment. And, in my judgement, David is nowhere near enlightened.

David, your self-serving misinterpretations of the Bible are deplorable. The Bible is the story of the relationship between a personal, creator God and His people, and Jesus clearly holds to this paradigm, and promises that he is the means by which his people will be saved, and granted entry into eternal life - *literal* eternal life, not your version of "I live eternally because when I die my causes continue". To portray Christ as some sort of enlightenment dude who we are all supposed to follow into our own little emulated personal enlightenments, with no thought for any relationship with a personal God, is a great disservice to the world.

I was tempted to go through and list all of the many, many, many reasons why this is the case, but really, anyone who manages to read the Bible and get "Jesus was an atheist who taught the path to Buddhist enlightenment" out of it is pretty much a hopeless case, and there's no reasoning with him/her.

And with that, unless anything particularly in need of a reply comes up, I will retreat back into the woodwork. Peace to all.

[Dennis Mahar]

Your calling card here and probably wherever you go Laird is:

'Shame on You!'

coming in and going out on the same note.

Is there a possibility for Inquiry for your 'ethical expert'.

I think there is.
Bring that to the table please.

[David Quinn]

David, your self-serving misinterpretations of the Bible are deplorable. The Bible is the story of the relationship between a personal, creator God and His people, and Jesus clearly holds to this paradigm, and promises that he is the means by which his people will be saved, and granted entry into eternal life - *literal* eternal life, not your version of "I live eternally because when I die my causes continue". To portray Christ as some sort of enlightenment dude who we are all supposed to follow into our own little emulated personal enlightenments, with no thought for any relationship with a personal God, is a great disservice to the world.

As always, you have it arse backwards. The Infinite - the ALL - is the only truly personal God there can be. For the Infinite is literally your own self. It is literally your bones and blood, your thoughts and memories, your very soul. It cannot get any more personal than that.

The God you conceive of is a distinct being that lives somewhere else. In effect, he is an alien, with alien values, which makes him extremely impersonal. How could anyone in their right mind possibly begin to worship that?

In truth, Christianity is all about removing every aspect of the personal God from their lives. This is what they call "salvation". A life utterly free of God.

[Kelly Jones]

I don't seem to have the energy or motivation for these extended discussions/debates right now, and because I suspect that in some ways they're not particularly productive.

You're so predictable. Haven't you noticed you always enter these manic-depression states whenever you engage on the Genius Forum? You're all go for days, highly driven and pumping away with reams and reams of arguments, burning energy in masses. Yet the wall of words and all your effort, has no effect. Indeed, your weaponry is revealed very quickly and simply to be flawed. So you get depressed, announce piteously that "this is your last effort" (Goodbye, World, you have seen the last of me, you cruel bastards!), slump into a self-protective cocoon, and run away to hide for many weeks until you feel your energy is restored. Then the cycle begins again. Your energy returns, the mania for defending your delusions returns, and you're back at the Genius Forum (why there, do you think?) on your high horse telling the members they're a cult of morons following a deluded nit-wit. Repeat ad infinitum.

I think you keep returning to the Genius Forum, because Kevin has treated you with more patience, sensitivity, personal tact, yet remained intellectually uncompromising and consistent, than anyone you've known. David also. You also like some of the posters, because they represent an alternate lifestyle and philosophy in life, while being fairly personable, witty, mentally sharp, and not too grossly argumentative, compared to virtually everyone on the planet. But you can't reconcile their actual views with what you cherish so deeply in your own mind. You have a safety net in your own peculiar views, yet you know these ideas carry a dreadfully dark, bleak, and life-sucking quality. So you want something of what the Genius Forum offers, with its lightness and promise of an easier and dignified existence --- but above all, you just want an emotional comfort and safety in group acceptance. They won't give it to you, so you throw tantrums, call them beleagered idiots and self-deceived charlatans. They just point out you're being emotional and irrational, and explain very clearly how. You can't handle the truth, so, filled with resentment, you go off in a huff and spend time dreaming of your guardian angels.

What a tedious way to spend your life.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Kelly's good.

It often takes years for one to confront and overcome the truth of their emotional (egotistical) reactions. Putting it to them blatantly is one of the only ways to attempt to 'get through' all that hide-and-seek shielding.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

To Diebert: personally, I don't see any problem with posting to multiple forums. I myself have posted to at least four separate philosophy forums over the past decade, and I don't see why anyone should take exception to, or be concerned with, this, nor that Alex has done likewise. I also am very, very skeptical of your notion that Alex is "in the habit of using multiple accounts at forums without announcing his switches up front", and I don't think it's good form of you to make such an assertion without justifying it with some sort of proof or at least evidence. Really, do you have any?

Nobody made an issue of multiple forums. I've shown you the multiple accounts of Alex but you still defend it with saying it "was obvious" and "quickly revealed" which remains debatable. But if it was obvious or not, it was the fact of opening a new account and presenting a different persona immediately after saying a serious "goodbye" with the first one. That's deception, Laird, face it. Game playing.

Regarding atheism being a component of the house philosophy, I think it's relevant that not long after I met him, Kevin gifted me with a CD compilation titled "Atheism", and that QRS founded an atheist society, as documented on Kevin's website.

So now this forum suddenly includes any gifts Kevin gave you and any activity QRS ever was engaged in and also includes everything there on Kevin's website. Where do you draw the line then with what to include into the "house philosophy"? Next thing is that Christianity is a component too with all the Gospel quotes and talk about God. And I'm the one wriggling. Hmmm.

Kelly wrote a very clear headed post which I think should really hit home. No better way to address your issues, really.

[Cahoot]

I was tempted to go through and list all of the many, many, many reasons why this is the case, but really, anyone who manages to read the Bible and get "Jesus was an atheist who taught the path to Buddhist enlightenment" out of it is pretty much a hopeless case, and there's no reasoning with him/her.

Notice that Jesus refers to heaven as a literal place from which he has "come down" (how do you "come down" from enlightenment?).

Answer: Working within the limitations created by the conflation of heaven and enlightenment, since the question suggests change, interacting with form can be the change that references coming down from heaven.

In nirvikalpa samadhi attention draws awareness within. The sensory gates close, the bliss of peace absorbs attention unencumbered by the attachments of conceptual judgment. This is from where awareness comes down (to reference the question). The bliss is heaven and it is all. From a non-mythological, non-belief, empirical eastern perspective, coming down from heaven can be viewed as coming down from singular bliss of nirvikalpa samadhi into the continuous savikalpa samadhi of sahaja samadhi, where sensory gates open, where attention absorbed in singular bliss includes multiplicity of form. Maya joins heaven.

[Dennis Mahar]

Kelly's good. (seeker)

Kelly wrote a very clear headed post which I think should really hit home. No better way to address your issues, really. (Diebert)

Not really.
It's OK for ordinary/everyday human being understanding which turns out to be the 'booby prize'.

It amounts to:
Laird is deficient.
or,
Laird=deficient.

A noun got verbed.

In transformative investigations like Heidegger's where thinking about thinking and language (what does it do).
and Zen where 'name and form' is analytically penetrated and called into question for Inquiry.

A metalogic is accessed.

A direct experience of Self as Self is generated.

Self (Kelly) is the Context or 'space' in which 'Laird is deficient' shows up as content.
It's a racket.
Of course Laird rackets Kelly.
So a 'tit for tat' inauthenticity generates into a downward spiral for the experience of 'restless, irritable and discontent'.
A penetrating analysis discloses the circumstances to be 'empty'/ dependant.
Dependant arising.

A possibility for transformation or enlightenment is always/already available when parties 'ditch the racket'.

The metalogic accessed in the direct experience of Self as Self where the concepts and symbols of nouning the verb are 'grokked' as harm,
an opening for 'harmonious relations' shows up which is the true meaning of 'emptiness'.

Categorical thinking is called into question in a proper Inquiry as to the meaning of being for human being which is what matters for human being.

The metalogic which is a radical shift that shows nirvana and samsara are not different worlds, rather this world seen from the radical shift.

Self/World are recontextualised.

An access to 'an enlightened place to come from' or Contextual thinking gets a run at it.
The direct experience of Self as Self (a nothingness/a possibility).
the true context the content shows up in that is generative of..

Geddit?
There's nothingness to get.

You know, breakdowns are breakthru's.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Or alternatively we can just deliver something straight: Dennis, sometimes you're posting unreadable piles of horse dung. Sometimes breakdowns are just breakdowns, you know. Sometimes the psychology is clear to see for all with the eyes to see. But you, you are currently way too lost in your own sewer of half-thoughts and muddled feeling to determine anything useful. You've broken down alright but not through. Man up.

[Dennis Mahar]

Yeah, it's a non-conceptual understanding Diebert,
which is the beauty of philosophy and where it goes to.

Of course your stock-in-trade is concepts,
Diebert without 40,000 billion trillion concepts/symbols trailing behind is like a 'fish out of water'.

It's how you think you win.
We 'get' it love.
Now,
take an aspirin and lie down for a bit.
Laird's fine.

[Kelly Jones]

Dennis, you're contradicting yourself. If you think Laird is fine because he is ultimately an expression of perfect Reality, then why attack Diebert? Why interact with anyone?

Not only that, but you're doing Laird (and others) a disservice, by reinforcing their inability to understand Reality. Laird is completely unaware and incapable of understanding Reality clearly, because he's sunk in a bog of illogic. So it's dishonest, to lie to him and tell him he is fine.

[Dennis Mahar]

Laird has written several posts that show he 'gets' it at least some of the time.
Get off his case Mum.


I'm an erstwhile fan of Diebert.
Don't sweat the small stuff.
It works out fine.

You said Kelly,
Kevin relates to Laird with kindness and patience,
David does and certainly Dan does,

I can't see how scathing verbals generate the ultimate goal of being of service.
All that happens is Laird joins the affray and returns sometime later and authentically apologises for his 'jerk' behaviour and declares his aversion to that and vows to improve his comportment.
ad infinitum.

We share this obscuring consciousness that hides the emptiness of inherent existence.
Kelly, a strongish suit of yours is kindness,
Go with that.