Here is something good:
<a href="http://www.otoons.com/eso/Enlightenment ... est.htm</a>
I got a 3 out of 9.
I dare you...
...
When an enlightened person is still, that's enlightenment, but the moment they move, it becomes, as I said, self-mastery, because the moment you move, you have to act in the world of particularsyou have to walk, talk, work, do all these things. Now people who observe your ability to function in this world are going to see you in this heightened state of reality; they're going to see the way you carry yourself and they're going to attribute extraordinary things to you. The point is, though, that in enlightenment you wouldn't necessarily attribute these things to yourself, and that's the main difference. But also, the enlightenment experience doesn't apply to anything in particular, whereas self-mastery can be divided into certain fields. So you could have mastery in many different fields, and yet, even with that mastery, not be enlightened in the true sense.
-Vernon Kitabu Turner
-Vernon Kitabu Turner
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: I dare you...
Voce Io wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: How can your words be pointing correctly if everything you say is false? Even now you're still mangling the law of identity with your self-contradictory statements.
VI: I claim that I'm not mangling that law, and I'm not actually being self-contradictory; that's it's merely a misperception on your part. <hr> Okay, let's focus on this issue since it is an integral part in your world view - namely, that no opinion can express truth.
Imagine you are in a foriegn city and you want to vist the museum. You ask a local for directions and he says, "If you go straight down this road for three block and then turn left, you will see the museum." You follow his directions to the letter and, lo and behold, you see the museum. The local was speaking the truth.
Similarly, you might ask an enlightened sage how to become aware of the Absolute. He gives you directions and if you follow them and become aware of the Absolute, you can conclude that the sage spoke the truth.
Yet, according to your all-pervasive maxim, neither of these things can happen.
Quote:Quote:<hr> There are no unresolved issues that cause my actions. I've resolved all of my issues, and choose to act as a human in the world...taking on human problems. There's no need for me to be involved in a relationship, but I am. There's no need for me to go to school, but I choose to. <hr> I'd be very careful, if I were you. It's easy for an 18-year-old to say things like this, because at that age one does feel invincible and free. However, if you are not careful, the "choice" to be involved in attachments will gradually be replaced by a need for them. And when this stage is reached, you will come to view the prospect of life without these attachments as a living hell. So while you might think you are a master of your attachments now, it won't be long before you will be a slave to them.
This happens to everyone who neglects to practice the philosophic art of non-attachment. Look around you and observe the middle-aged and elderly. Look at their unhappiness, their dead eyes, their lack of curiosity about the world, the way they sag down under life as though it were a burden, their violent mannerisms and speech - all of this comes from being a slave to your attachments. Take heed!
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: How can your words be pointing correctly if everything you say is false? Even now you're still mangling the law of identity with your self-contradictory statements.
VI: I claim that I'm not mangling that law, and I'm not actually being self-contradictory; that's it's merely a misperception on your part. <hr> Okay, let's focus on this issue since it is an integral part in your world view - namely, that no opinion can express truth.
Imagine you are in a foriegn city and you want to vist the museum. You ask a local for directions and he says, "If you go straight down this road for three block and then turn left, you will see the museum." You follow his directions to the letter and, lo and behold, you see the museum. The local was speaking the truth.
Similarly, you might ask an enlightened sage how to become aware of the Absolute. He gives you directions and if you follow them and become aware of the Absolute, you can conclude that the sage spoke the truth.
Yet, according to your all-pervasive maxim, neither of these things can happen.
Quote:Quote:<hr> There are no unresolved issues that cause my actions. I've resolved all of my issues, and choose to act as a human in the world...taking on human problems. There's no need for me to be involved in a relationship, but I am. There's no need for me to go to school, but I choose to. <hr> I'd be very careful, if I were you. It's easy for an 18-year-old to say things like this, because at that age one does feel invincible and free. However, if you are not careful, the "choice" to be involved in attachments will gradually be replaced by a need for them. And when this stage is reached, you will come to view the prospect of life without these attachments as a living hell. So while you might think you are a master of your attachments now, it won't be long before you will be a slave to them.
This happens to everyone who neglects to practice the philosophic art of non-attachment. Look around you and observe the middle-aged and elderly. Look at their unhappiness, their dead eyes, their lack of curiosity about the world, the way they sag down under life as though it were a burden, their violent mannerisms and speech - all of this comes from being a slave to your attachments. Take heed!
...
Okay, let's focus on this issue since it is an integral part in your world view - namely, that no opinion can express truth.
Imagine you are in a foriegn city and you want to vist the museum. You ask a local for directions and he says, "If you go straight down this road for three block and then turn left, you will see the museum." You follow his directions to the letter and, lo and behold, you see the museum. The local was speaking the truth.
Similarly, you might ask an enlightened sage how to become aware of the Absolute. He gives you directions and if you follow them and become aware of the Absolute, you can conclude that the sage spoke the truth.
Yet, according to your all-pervasive maxim, neither of these things can happen.
Very good point. Remember that it depends on who you are asking, though. When asking directions to the building, one person might say, "Oh that's easy, go down in the subway, and take it to Central Station, when you walk up to the street you will see the building." Another might say, "Ah yes, go in the alleyway between those two buildings right there, and follow it straight to the building, there's no way you can miss it." Another will say, "Just walk into that building right there and go right, you'll eventually enter it, because they're connected to eachother". All I am meaning when I say that opinion isn't true, is that there are many other possibilities. Also, that it doesn't compare to the Absolute. Nonduality is truth, and any form of duality is delusion...I'm also speaking on that level.
When I say the things I do, and they seem paradoxial, it's because they lead to the Absolute, which is not part of this world. So I'm sure some of it may not make sense at first. It may seem to defy the law of identity, but it only seems that way.
When you claim that your path to realization is 'true', and don't admit that it's just one path in a big collection of paths, then you close off the seeker to anything else. You've said that women are inferior, and that you have to face that fact to reach enlightenment (I may be wrong, that's the general idea I've recieved, though). You're able to do it your way, it's just not how I would like to teach anything. The goal is for the questioner to gain understanding, and I'd go about that in any possible way, so I keep an open mind towards other ways. I see what your path is about, and it isn't 'wrong' in the dualistic sense of the word, but it isn't certain and correct. Also, I think it breeds a lot of negativity when you talk about women the way you do. A lot of what you say is exaggerated to make the points you do, and it becomes untrue. This leads the questioner into further delusion.
Also, I wouldn't say my opinion that 'no opinion can express truth' is all-pervasive, as it kind of defeats itself. The only all-pervasive truth that I know of is that there is existence; everything else can be subject to fallacy.
I'd be very careful, if I were you. It's easy for an 18-year-old to say things like this, because at that age one does feel invincible and free. However, if you are not careful, the "choice" to be involved in attachments will gradually be replaced by a need for them. And when this stage is reached, you will come to view the prospect of life without these attachments as a living hell. So while you might think you are a master of your attachments now, it won't be long before you will be a slave to them.
Life would be hell if I constantly avoided aspects of it. That would definitely show my deep attachment to 'unattachment'.
This happens to everyone who neglects to practice the philosophic art of non-attachment. Look around you and observe the middle-aged and elderly. Look at their unhappiness, their dead eyes, their lack of curiosity about the world, the way they sag down under life as though it were a burden, their violent mannerisms and speech - all of this comes from being a slave to your attachments. Take heed!
I really do appreciate you caring for my well being - thank you. I really don't mind if my eyes become all dead, and I stop having that youthful essence. If I cared, I'd most definitely be attached to wanting to appear good, which would absolutely defeat the purpose of being unattached.
Instead of non-attachment, I'd teach acceptance.
Imagine you are in a foriegn city and you want to vist the museum. You ask a local for directions and he says, "If you go straight down this road for three block and then turn left, you will see the museum." You follow his directions to the letter and, lo and behold, you see the museum. The local was speaking the truth.
Similarly, you might ask an enlightened sage how to become aware of the Absolute. He gives you directions and if you follow them and become aware of the Absolute, you can conclude that the sage spoke the truth.
Yet, according to your all-pervasive maxim, neither of these things can happen.
Very good point. Remember that it depends on who you are asking, though. When asking directions to the building, one person might say, "Oh that's easy, go down in the subway, and take it to Central Station, when you walk up to the street you will see the building." Another might say, "Ah yes, go in the alleyway between those two buildings right there, and follow it straight to the building, there's no way you can miss it." Another will say, "Just walk into that building right there and go right, you'll eventually enter it, because they're connected to eachother". All I am meaning when I say that opinion isn't true, is that there are many other possibilities. Also, that it doesn't compare to the Absolute. Nonduality is truth, and any form of duality is delusion...I'm also speaking on that level.
When I say the things I do, and they seem paradoxial, it's because they lead to the Absolute, which is not part of this world. So I'm sure some of it may not make sense at first. It may seem to defy the law of identity, but it only seems that way.
When you claim that your path to realization is 'true', and don't admit that it's just one path in a big collection of paths, then you close off the seeker to anything else. You've said that women are inferior, and that you have to face that fact to reach enlightenment (I may be wrong, that's the general idea I've recieved, though). You're able to do it your way, it's just not how I would like to teach anything. The goal is for the questioner to gain understanding, and I'd go about that in any possible way, so I keep an open mind towards other ways. I see what your path is about, and it isn't 'wrong' in the dualistic sense of the word, but it isn't certain and correct. Also, I think it breeds a lot of negativity when you talk about women the way you do. A lot of what you say is exaggerated to make the points you do, and it becomes untrue. This leads the questioner into further delusion.
Also, I wouldn't say my opinion that 'no opinion can express truth' is all-pervasive, as it kind of defeats itself. The only all-pervasive truth that I know of is that there is existence; everything else can be subject to fallacy.
I'd be very careful, if I were you. It's easy for an 18-year-old to say things like this, because at that age one does feel invincible and free. However, if you are not careful, the "choice" to be involved in attachments will gradually be replaced by a need for them. And when this stage is reached, you will come to view the prospect of life without these attachments as a living hell. So while you might think you are a master of your attachments now, it won't be long before you will be a slave to them.
Life would be hell if I constantly avoided aspects of it. That would definitely show my deep attachment to 'unattachment'.
This happens to everyone who neglects to practice the philosophic art of non-attachment. Look around you and observe the middle-aged and elderly. Look at their unhappiness, their dead eyes, their lack of curiosity about the world, the way they sag down under life as though it were a burden, their violent mannerisms and speech - all of this comes from being a slave to your attachments. Take heed!
I really do appreciate you caring for my well being - thank you. I really don't mind if my eyes become all dead, and I stop having that youthful essence. If I cared, I'd most definitely be attached to wanting to appear good, which would absolutely defeat the purpose of being unattached.
Instead of non-attachment, I'd teach acceptance.
Re: I dare you...
DavidQuinn000 wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>I'd be very careful, if I were you. It's easy for an 18-year-old to say things like this, because at that age one does feel invincible and free. However, if you are not careful, the "choice" to be involved in attachments will gradually be replaced by a need for them. And when this stage is reached, you will come to view the prospect of life without these attachments as a living hell. So while you might think you are a master of your attachments now, it won't be long before you will be a slave to them.
<hr>
And if your attachment is a woman, and she knows it (and you better believe they know these things) imagine to what extent she can manipulate you.
"Never let yourself get attached to anything that you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner" (Robert De Niro, "HEAT" 1995)
Martin
Quote:Quote:<hr>I'd be very careful, if I were you. It's easy for an 18-year-old to say things like this, because at that age one does feel invincible and free. However, if you are not careful, the "choice" to be involved in attachments will gradually be replaced by a need for them. And when this stage is reached, you will come to view the prospect of life without these attachments as a living hell. So while you might think you are a master of your attachments now, it won't be long before you will be a slave to them.
<hr>
And if your attachment is a woman, and she knows it (and you better believe they know these things) imagine to what extent she can manipulate you.
"Never let yourself get attached to anything that you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner" (Robert De Niro, "HEAT" 1995)
Martin
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: ...
Voce Io wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: Okay, let's focus on this issue since it is an integral part in your world view - namely, that no opinion can express truth.
Imagine you are in a foriegn city and you want to vist the museum. You ask a local for directions and he says, "If you go straight down this road for three block and then turn left, you will see the museum." You follow his directions to the letter and, lo and behold, you see the museum. The local was speaking the truth.
Similarly, you might ask an enlightened sage how to become aware of the Absolute. He gives you directions and if you follow them and become aware of the Absolute, you can conclude that the sage spoke the truth.
Yet, according to your all-pervasive maxim, neither of these things can happen.
VI: Very good point. Remember that it depends on who you are asking, though. When asking directions to the building, one person might say, "Oh that's easy, go down in the subway, and take it to Central Station, when you walk up to the street you will see the building." Another might say, "Ah yes, go in the alleyway between those two buildings right there, and follow it straight to the building, there's no way you can miss it." Another will say, "Just walk into that building right there and go right, you'll eventually enter it, because they're connected to eachother". All I am meaning when I say that opinion isn't true, is that there are many other possibilities. <hr> Well, this is an entirely new tune. You have gone from "no opinions are true" to "many opinions are true".
Quote:Quote:<hr> When I say the things I do, and they seem paradoxial, it's because they lead to the Absolute, which is not part of this world. So I'm sure some of it may not make sense at first. It may seem to defy the law of identity, but it only seems that way. <hr> No, your statements really do break the law of identity. They really are self-contradictory. And it comes from trying to defend a point of view that you haven't really thought through yet.
What if the person in the foreign city asks the local for the shortest or quickest way to the museum. Since there can only be one shortest or quickest route by definition, the local either speaks the truth with his directions or he does not. Yet, according to your all-pervasive maxim, this cannot happen.
Quote:Quote:<hr> When you claim that your path to realization is 'true', and don't admit that it's just one path in a big collection of paths, then you close off the seeker to anything else. You've said that women are inferior, and that you have to face that fact to reach enlightenment (I may be wrong, that's the general idea I've recieved, though). You're able to do it your way, it's just not how I would like to teach anything. The goal is for the questioner to gain understanding, and I'd go about that in any possible way, so I keep an open mind towards other ways. I see what your path is about, and it isn't 'wrong' in the dualistic sense of the word, but it isn't certain and correct.<hr> Soren Kierkegaard used to constantly speak against this kind of mentality - what he called the disease of many-sidedness. It is a disease which causes people to shy away from delineating the harsh truths of life, from developing a consciousness of either-or. Instead, they immerse themselves in a mish-mash of little half-truths and lies, picked up from all kinds of sources, many of which conflict and contradict each other. The whole point to remain as unconscious as possible any significant at all, which enables them to submerge anonymously into the rest of the human race.
I will keep saying this to the day I die, but there is only one path to Truth and that is the path of abandoning delusions. And the path of abandoning delusions is one that is primarily powered by reason. There is no other way.
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: Okay, let's focus on this issue since it is an integral part in your world view - namely, that no opinion can express truth.
Imagine you are in a foriegn city and you want to vist the museum. You ask a local for directions and he says, "If you go straight down this road for three block and then turn left, you will see the museum." You follow his directions to the letter and, lo and behold, you see the museum. The local was speaking the truth.
Similarly, you might ask an enlightened sage how to become aware of the Absolute. He gives you directions and if you follow them and become aware of the Absolute, you can conclude that the sage spoke the truth.
Yet, according to your all-pervasive maxim, neither of these things can happen.
VI: Very good point. Remember that it depends on who you are asking, though. When asking directions to the building, one person might say, "Oh that's easy, go down in the subway, and take it to Central Station, when you walk up to the street you will see the building." Another might say, "Ah yes, go in the alleyway between those two buildings right there, and follow it straight to the building, there's no way you can miss it." Another will say, "Just walk into that building right there and go right, you'll eventually enter it, because they're connected to eachother". All I am meaning when I say that opinion isn't true, is that there are many other possibilities. <hr> Well, this is an entirely new tune. You have gone from "no opinions are true" to "many opinions are true".
Quote:Quote:<hr> When I say the things I do, and they seem paradoxial, it's because they lead to the Absolute, which is not part of this world. So I'm sure some of it may not make sense at first. It may seem to defy the law of identity, but it only seems that way. <hr> No, your statements really do break the law of identity. They really are self-contradictory. And it comes from trying to defend a point of view that you haven't really thought through yet.
What if the person in the foreign city asks the local for the shortest or quickest way to the museum. Since there can only be one shortest or quickest route by definition, the local either speaks the truth with his directions or he does not. Yet, according to your all-pervasive maxim, this cannot happen.
Quote:Quote:<hr> When you claim that your path to realization is 'true', and don't admit that it's just one path in a big collection of paths, then you close off the seeker to anything else. You've said that women are inferior, and that you have to face that fact to reach enlightenment (I may be wrong, that's the general idea I've recieved, though). You're able to do it your way, it's just not how I would like to teach anything. The goal is for the questioner to gain understanding, and I'd go about that in any possible way, so I keep an open mind towards other ways. I see what your path is about, and it isn't 'wrong' in the dualistic sense of the word, but it isn't certain and correct.<hr> Soren Kierkegaard used to constantly speak against this kind of mentality - what he called the disease of many-sidedness. It is a disease which causes people to shy away from delineating the harsh truths of life, from developing a consciousness of either-or. Instead, they immerse themselves in a mish-mash of little half-truths and lies, picked up from all kinds of sources, many of which conflict and contradict each other. The whole point to remain as unconscious as possible any significant at all, which enables them to submerge anonymously into the rest of the human race.
I will keep saying this to the day I die, but there is only one path to Truth and that is the path of abandoning delusions. And the path of abandoning delusions is one that is primarily powered by reason. There is no other way.
Re: ...
Well, this is an entirely new tune. You have gone from "no opinions are true" to "many opinions are true".
I don't think a person could ever actually believe that no opinions are true. Obviously, for example, if you want to accomplish anything, there is an obvious and true way to go about doing it. My view has been 'no opinions are true', as well as 'opinions are true'. I'm talking about different levels of truth; worldly truth, and spiritual truth.
No, your statements really do break the law of identity. They really are self-contradictory. And it comes from trying to defend a point of view that you haven't really thought through yet.
They don't. They aren't. No, it hasn't.
What if the person in the foreign city asks the local for the shortest or quickest way to the museum. Since there can only be one shortest or quickest route by definition, the local either speaks the truth with his directions or he does not. Yet, according to your all-pervasive maxim, this cannot happen.
It obviously can happen. Still, that local will describe the quickest route by different landmarks (using different words), and different measurements (steps, versus feet or meters). You can get two totally different answers that are the same directions! Both are truth, but you shouldn't label something as definitive in the transient realm. Definitive directions to 'the absolute' will lead the seeker to more transience. Am I wrong in saying any of this, or does it defy the law of identity?
Soren Kierkegaard used to constantly speak against this kind of mentality - what he called the disease of many-sidedness. It is a disease which causes people to shy away from delineating the harsh truths of life, from developing a consciousness of either-or. Instead, they immerse themselves in a mish-mash of little half-truths and lies, picked up from all kinds of sources, many of which conflict and contradict each other. The whole point to remain as unconscious as possible any significant at all, which enables them to submerge anonymously into the rest of the human race.
I don't have many sides. The way I converse with a person is to reflect what they're speaking about back to them, that way I can talk to anyone about enlightenment, not just misogynists. I have one view about the way to enlightenment, and it's that there are many paths to it. I think the paths are pretty pointless for me to focus on, and delineate, so I remain conscious of truth. You are right, in the next portion, where you say that the path is 'abandoning delusion'. Yet, that's why I "came out" in the first place...women are not inferior, and they are completely capable of realization. An enlightened person has both male and female tendencies functioning at once.
I will keep saying this to the day I die, but there is only one path to Truth and that is the path of abandoning delusions. And the path of abandoning delusions is one that is primarily powered by reason. There is no other way.
I completely agree. Which is why, when you call a certain paths 'true', I will say something such as "no opinions are true". It means that compared to Truth, they are delusions, and we should abandon them, in order to attain an understanding of Truth.
I don't think a person could ever actually believe that no opinions are true. Obviously, for example, if you want to accomplish anything, there is an obvious and true way to go about doing it. My view has been 'no opinions are true', as well as 'opinions are true'. I'm talking about different levels of truth; worldly truth, and spiritual truth.
No, your statements really do break the law of identity. They really are self-contradictory. And it comes from trying to defend a point of view that you haven't really thought through yet.
They don't. They aren't. No, it hasn't.
What if the person in the foreign city asks the local for the shortest or quickest way to the museum. Since there can only be one shortest or quickest route by definition, the local either speaks the truth with his directions or he does not. Yet, according to your all-pervasive maxim, this cannot happen.
It obviously can happen. Still, that local will describe the quickest route by different landmarks (using different words), and different measurements (steps, versus feet or meters). You can get two totally different answers that are the same directions! Both are truth, but you shouldn't label something as definitive in the transient realm. Definitive directions to 'the absolute' will lead the seeker to more transience. Am I wrong in saying any of this, or does it defy the law of identity?
Soren Kierkegaard used to constantly speak against this kind of mentality - what he called the disease of many-sidedness. It is a disease which causes people to shy away from delineating the harsh truths of life, from developing a consciousness of either-or. Instead, they immerse themselves in a mish-mash of little half-truths and lies, picked up from all kinds of sources, many of which conflict and contradict each other. The whole point to remain as unconscious as possible any significant at all, which enables them to submerge anonymously into the rest of the human race.
I don't have many sides. The way I converse with a person is to reflect what they're speaking about back to them, that way I can talk to anyone about enlightenment, not just misogynists. I have one view about the way to enlightenment, and it's that there are many paths to it. I think the paths are pretty pointless for me to focus on, and delineate, so I remain conscious of truth. You are right, in the next portion, where you say that the path is 'abandoning delusion'. Yet, that's why I "came out" in the first place...women are not inferior, and they are completely capable of realization. An enlightened person has both male and female tendencies functioning at once.
I will keep saying this to the day I die, but there is only one path to Truth and that is the path of abandoning delusions. And the path of abandoning delusions is one that is primarily powered by reason. There is no other way.
I completely agree. Which is why, when you call a certain paths 'true', I will say something such as "no opinions are true". It means that compared to Truth, they are delusions, and we should abandon them, in order to attain an understanding of Truth.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: ...
Voce Io wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: I will keep saying this to the day I die, but there is only one path to Truth and that is the path of abandoning delusions. And the path of abandoning delusions is one that is primarily powered by reason. There is no other way.
VI: I completely agree. Which is why, when you call a certain paths 'true', I will say something such as "no opinions are true". It means that compared to Truth, they are delusions, and we should abandon them, in order to attain an understanding of Truth. <hr> Let's transpose this to the example of the museum:
I completely agree. Which is why, when you call a certain set of directions to the museum 'true', I will say something such as "no directions are true". It means that compared to the museum itself, the directions are delusions, and we should abandon them in order to reach the museum.
Make much sense to you?
Quote:Quote:<hr> Yet, that's why I "came out" in the first place...women are not inferior, and they are completely capable of realization. <hr> Ah, the naivity of youth. It can be so touching at times.
Quote:Quote:<hr> An enlightened person has both male and female tendencies functioning at once. <hr> No, quite the contrary, in fact. The enlightened person transcends both his masculinity and femininity, and becomes empty and pure. He has used his masculinity (the active, idealistic side of himself) in the wisest possible way.
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: I will keep saying this to the day I die, but there is only one path to Truth and that is the path of abandoning delusions. And the path of abandoning delusions is one that is primarily powered by reason. There is no other way.
VI: I completely agree. Which is why, when you call a certain paths 'true', I will say something such as "no opinions are true". It means that compared to Truth, they are delusions, and we should abandon them, in order to attain an understanding of Truth. <hr> Let's transpose this to the example of the museum:
I completely agree. Which is why, when you call a certain set of directions to the museum 'true', I will say something such as "no directions are true". It means that compared to the museum itself, the directions are delusions, and we should abandon them in order to reach the museum.
Make much sense to you?
Quote:Quote:<hr> Yet, that's why I "came out" in the first place...women are not inferior, and they are completely capable of realization. <hr> Ah, the naivity of youth. It can be so touching at times.
Quote:Quote:<hr> An enlightened person has both male and female tendencies functioning at once. <hr> No, quite the contrary, in fact. The enlightened person transcends both his masculinity and femininity, and becomes empty and pure. He has used his masculinity (the active, idealistic side of himself) in the wisest possible way.
Re: ...
Let's transpose this to the example of the museum:
I completely agree. Which is why, when you call a certain set of directions to the museum 'true', I will say something such as "no directions are true". It means that compared to the museum itself, the directions are delusions, and we should abandon them in order to reach the museum.
Make much sense to you?
Funny. You know Truth isn't a location or certain thing.
No, quite the contrary, in fact. The enlightened person transcends both his masculinity and femininity, and becomes empty and pure. He has used his masculinity (the active, idealistic side of himself) in the wisest possible way.
That's very true. Yet I'm saying that he has also used his femininity in the wisest possible way. Masculinity has a tendency to be stubborn, and enlightened people are not stubborn.
I completely agree. Which is why, when you call a certain set of directions to the museum 'true', I will say something such as "no directions are true". It means that compared to the museum itself, the directions are delusions, and we should abandon them in order to reach the museum.
Make much sense to you?
Funny. You know Truth isn't a location or certain thing.
No, quite the contrary, in fact. The enlightened person transcends both his masculinity and femininity, and becomes empty and pure. He has used his masculinity (the active, idealistic side of himself) in the wisest possible way.
That's very true. Yet I'm saying that he has also used his femininity in the wisest possible way. Masculinity has a tendency to be stubborn, and enlightened people are not stubborn.
Re: A new sage is with us!
Leo wrote:
"A new sage is with us! I believe you, my friend. But you can't very well expect the unenlightened to understand, now can you?"
You are becoming quite undiscriminatory Leo. Your definition of enlightenment seems to run along the lines of: 'The state of anyone that claims enlightenment'.
I had profound experiences prior to coming across the Genius Realms, and was wondering whether i had become, in some sense, enlightened. Thankfully, Dan nipped that in the bud and put me on a course that took me all the way. If he hadn't it's likely that i'd still be quite deluded and suffering immensely.
The Truth can't be compromised for any reason, and there are no half-way steps. Any profound experience will soon wear off anyway - whether the person is rebutted for their claims or not. They will soon return to normal levels of suffering, if in fact they reduced in the first place.
Rhett
"A new sage is with us! I believe you, my friend. But you can't very well expect the unenlightened to understand, now can you?"
You are becoming quite undiscriminatory Leo. Your definition of enlightenment seems to run along the lines of: 'The state of anyone that claims enlightenment'.
I had profound experiences prior to coming across the Genius Realms, and was wondering whether i had become, in some sense, enlightened. Thankfully, Dan nipped that in the bud and put me on a course that took me all the way. If he hadn't it's likely that i'd still be quite deluded and suffering immensely.
The Truth can't be compromised for any reason, and there are no half-way steps. Any profound experience will soon wear off anyway - whether the person is rebutted for their claims or not. They will soon return to normal levels of suffering, if in fact they reduced in the first place.
Rhett
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: ...
Voce Io wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr> You know Truth isn't a location or certain thing. <hr> You're confusing Truth (which is non-dualistic and location-less) with consciousness of Truth (which is indeed dualistic and located in wise brains). You implictly acknowledged this yourself when you said above that, "we should abandon them, in order to attain an understanding of Truth." It would be impossible to attain an "understanding of Truth" if it were non-dualististic. It is dualistic, however, because it exists in contrast to "ignorance of Truth". You also acknowledged this when you posted in that link to the Hindu scripture, a text that which outlines ways and means for attaining conciousness of Truth.
If you sincerely want to stop mangling the law of identity, you need to look into these matters far more carefully.
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: No, quite the contrary, in fact. The enlightened person transcends both his masculinity and femininity, and becomes empty and pure. He has used his masculinity (the active, idealistic side of himself) in the wisest possible way.
VI: That's very true. Yet I'm saying that he has also used his femininity in the wisest possible way. <hr> We can't use femininity in the wisest possible way because, in the end, we can't use femininity for any purpose at all. Indeed, in a very real sense, femininity doesn't really exist at all, except as a negative entity. It exists to the degree that masculinity is absent in one's thought-processes, just as darkness only exists to the degree that light is absent.
Femininity is a lack of order, coherency and purpose. It cannot be "used" in any way. One can only dive into it in order to escape the realities and threats posed by masculine consciousness, which is what most men do. Edited by: DavidQuinn000 at: 1/7/04 2:05 pm
Quote:Quote:<hr> You know Truth isn't a location or certain thing. <hr> You're confusing Truth (which is non-dualistic and location-less) with consciousness of Truth (which is indeed dualistic and located in wise brains). You implictly acknowledged this yourself when you said above that, "we should abandon them, in order to attain an understanding of Truth." It would be impossible to attain an "understanding of Truth" if it were non-dualististic. It is dualistic, however, because it exists in contrast to "ignorance of Truth". You also acknowledged this when you posted in that link to the Hindu scripture, a text that which outlines ways and means for attaining conciousness of Truth.
If you sincerely want to stop mangling the law of identity, you need to look into these matters far more carefully.
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: No, quite the contrary, in fact. The enlightened person transcends both his masculinity and femininity, and becomes empty and pure. He has used his masculinity (the active, idealistic side of himself) in the wisest possible way.
VI: That's very true. Yet I'm saying that he has also used his femininity in the wisest possible way. <hr> We can't use femininity in the wisest possible way because, in the end, we can't use femininity for any purpose at all. Indeed, in a very real sense, femininity doesn't really exist at all, except as a negative entity. It exists to the degree that masculinity is absent in one's thought-processes, just as darkness only exists to the degree that light is absent.
Femininity is a lack of order, coherency and purpose. It cannot be "used" in any way. One can only dive into it in order to escape the realities and threats posed by masculine consciousness, which is what most men do. Edited by: DavidQuinn000 at: 1/7/04 2:05 pm
Re: ...
You're confusing Truth (which is non-dualistic and location-less) with consciousness of Truth (which is indeed dualistic and located in wise brains).
There is only one Truth; if that Truth is nondual and without location, then why are you talking about some 'consciousness of Truth' which is dual and located in brains? Are you trying to teach me duality?
If Truth is non-dual, and you value it, why are you wasting your time teaching in the first place? Maybe you value the teaching of Truth, instead of Truth?
You implictly acknowledged this yourself when you said above that, "we should abandon them, in order to attain an understanding of Truth." It would be impossible to attain an "understanding of Truth" if it were non-dualististic. It is dualistic, however, because it exists in contrast to "ignorance of Truth". You also acknowledged this when you posted in that link to the Hindu scripture, a text that which outlines ways and means for attaining conciousness of Truth.
Yes, an understanding of Truth is dual. If you think you've gained understanding, it's just ignorance. An enlightened person has to think dualistically to call themselves enlightened.
We can't use femininity in the wisest possible way because, in the end, we can't femininity for any purpose at all. Indeed, in a very real sense, femininity doesn't really exist at all, except as a negative entity. It exists to the degree that masculinity is absent in one's thought-processes, just as darkness only exists to the degree that light is absent.
Femininity is a lack of order, coherency and purpose. It cannot be "used" in any way. One can only dive into it in order to escape the realities and threats posed by masculine consciousness, which is what most men do.
Masculinity is about being strong and stubborn. Femininity is about being weak, and accepting. A seeker on the path must take the form of both: he must be strong and stubborn in his reasoning, so that delusion doesn't enter his mind. He must be weak and accepting, in order to let Truth take the place of ignorance; so that pure reasoning can replace impure reasoning.
There is only one Truth; if that Truth is nondual and without location, then why are you talking about some 'consciousness of Truth' which is dual and located in brains? Are you trying to teach me duality?
If Truth is non-dual, and you value it, why are you wasting your time teaching in the first place? Maybe you value the teaching of Truth, instead of Truth?
You implictly acknowledged this yourself when you said above that, "we should abandon them, in order to attain an understanding of Truth." It would be impossible to attain an "understanding of Truth" if it were non-dualististic. It is dualistic, however, because it exists in contrast to "ignorance of Truth". You also acknowledged this when you posted in that link to the Hindu scripture, a text that which outlines ways and means for attaining conciousness of Truth.
Yes, an understanding of Truth is dual. If you think you've gained understanding, it's just ignorance. An enlightened person has to think dualistically to call themselves enlightened.
We can't use femininity in the wisest possible way because, in the end, we can't femininity for any purpose at all. Indeed, in a very real sense, femininity doesn't really exist at all, except as a negative entity. It exists to the degree that masculinity is absent in one's thought-processes, just as darkness only exists to the degree that light is absent.
Femininity is a lack of order, coherency and purpose. It cannot be "used" in any way. One can only dive into it in order to escape the realities and threats posed by masculine consciousness, which is what most men do.
Masculinity is about being strong and stubborn. Femininity is about being weak, and accepting. A seeker on the path must take the form of both: he must be strong and stubborn in his reasoning, so that delusion doesn't enter his mind. He must be weak and accepting, in order to let Truth take the place of ignorance; so that pure reasoning can replace impure reasoning.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: ...
Voce Io wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: You're confusing Truth (which is non-dualistic and location-less) with consciousness of Truth (which is indeed dualistic and located in wise brains).
VI: There is only one Truth; if that Truth is nondual and without location, then why are you talking about some 'consciousness of Truth' which is dual and located in brains? <hr> Because you're not distinguishing between the two with any intelligence. In fact, you're constantly mashing the two together, which makes your comments about these matters very confusing - as I clearly demonstrated when I transposed one of your paragraphs into the museum example.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Are you trying to teach me duality? <hr> I'm trying to get you off your high horse, so that you can actually begin to think these matters in a serious manner. Your current flippant half-baked manner doesn't cut it.
Quote:Quote:<hr> If Truth is non-dual, and you value it, why are you wasting your time teaching in the first place? Maybe you value the teaching of Truth, instead of Truth? <hr> I value consciousness of Truth, which is enlightenment. Everything I do revolves around this.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Yes, an understanding of Truth is dual. If you think you've gained understanding, it's just ignorance. <hr> Not in all cases. It would only be ignorance if the understanding was false.
Quote:Quote:<hr> An enlightened person has to think dualistically to call themselves enlightened. <hr> There is no other way to think than dualistically. The mind cannot do otherwise. Thus, to accuse a person of thinking dualistically is meaningless. It is like accusing him of breathing.
Again, because you haven't thought deeply enough about this matter, your statements about non-duality and duality are naive and ignorant. An enlightened person has to think dualistically in order to recognize anything at all - e.g. that a tree is a tree, or that a cloud is a cloud, or that an enlightened person is an enlightened person. But this alone doesn't make his thinking false.
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: We can't use femininity in the wisest possible way because, in the end, we can't femininity for any purpose at all. Indeed, in a very real sense, femininity doesn't really exist at all, except as a negative entity. It exists to the degree that masculinity is absent in one's thought-processes, just as darkness only exists to the degree that light is absent.
Femininity is a lack of order, coherency and purpose. It cannot be "used" in any way. One can only dive into it in order to escape the realities and threats posed by masculine consciousness, which is what most men do.
VI: Masculinity is about being strong and stubborn. Femininity is about being weak, and accepting. A seeker on the path must take the form of both: he must be strong and stubborn in his reasoning, so that delusion doesn't enter his mind. He must be weak and accepting, in order to let Truth take the place of ignorance; so that pure reasoning can replace impure reasoning. <hr> Here you're engaging in semantic quibblery in order to preserve the illusion that femininity is important. It is really stretching it to say that the overcoming of ignorance with truth is a feminine submissive act. It would be like saying that brave warrior fighting to the death is really expressing feminine submission to his bravery and desire to fight.
While it is true that the act of overcoming ignorance does require one to submit to the truth, this act of submission bears no resemblance to the feminine submissive mentality as exhibited by women and feminine men in their daily lives. The former is a conscious act of bravery and a direct will to power, while the latter is simply an emotional desire to give up one's individuality and will in order to feel safe.
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: You're confusing Truth (which is non-dualistic and location-less) with consciousness of Truth (which is indeed dualistic and located in wise brains).
VI: There is only one Truth; if that Truth is nondual and without location, then why are you talking about some 'consciousness of Truth' which is dual and located in brains? <hr> Because you're not distinguishing between the two with any intelligence. In fact, you're constantly mashing the two together, which makes your comments about these matters very confusing - as I clearly demonstrated when I transposed one of your paragraphs into the museum example.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Are you trying to teach me duality? <hr> I'm trying to get you off your high horse, so that you can actually begin to think these matters in a serious manner. Your current flippant half-baked manner doesn't cut it.
Quote:Quote:<hr> If Truth is non-dual, and you value it, why are you wasting your time teaching in the first place? Maybe you value the teaching of Truth, instead of Truth? <hr> I value consciousness of Truth, which is enlightenment. Everything I do revolves around this.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Yes, an understanding of Truth is dual. If you think you've gained understanding, it's just ignorance. <hr> Not in all cases. It would only be ignorance if the understanding was false.
Quote:Quote:<hr> An enlightened person has to think dualistically to call themselves enlightened. <hr> There is no other way to think than dualistically. The mind cannot do otherwise. Thus, to accuse a person of thinking dualistically is meaningless. It is like accusing him of breathing.
Again, because you haven't thought deeply enough about this matter, your statements about non-duality and duality are naive and ignorant. An enlightened person has to think dualistically in order to recognize anything at all - e.g. that a tree is a tree, or that a cloud is a cloud, or that an enlightened person is an enlightened person. But this alone doesn't make his thinking false.
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: We can't use femininity in the wisest possible way because, in the end, we can't femininity for any purpose at all. Indeed, in a very real sense, femininity doesn't really exist at all, except as a negative entity. It exists to the degree that masculinity is absent in one's thought-processes, just as darkness only exists to the degree that light is absent.
Femininity is a lack of order, coherency and purpose. It cannot be "used" in any way. One can only dive into it in order to escape the realities and threats posed by masculine consciousness, which is what most men do.
VI: Masculinity is about being strong and stubborn. Femininity is about being weak, and accepting. A seeker on the path must take the form of both: he must be strong and stubborn in his reasoning, so that delusion doesn't enter his mind. He must be weak and accepting, in order to let Truth take the place of ignorance; so that pure reasoning can replace impure reasoning. <hr> Here you're engaging in semantic quibblery in order to preserve the illusion that femininity is important. It is really stretching it to say that the overcoming of ignorance with truth is a feminine submissive act. It would be like saying that brave warrior fighting to the death is really expressing feminine submission to his bravery and desire to fight.
While it is true that the act of overcoming ignorance does require one to submit to the truth, this act of submission bears no resemblance to the feminine submissive mentality as exhibited by women and feminine men in their daily lives. The former is a conscious act of bravery and a direct will to power, while the latter is simply an emotional desire to give up one's individuality and will in order to feel safe.
Re: ...
Because you're not distinguishing between the two with any intelligence. In fact, you're constantly mashing the two together, which makes your comments about these matters very confusing - as I clearly demonstrated when I transposed one of your paragraphs into the museum example.
Your transposition wasn't correct, because Truth isn't a thing. There is no reason to distinguish between Truth and consciousness of Truth, since consciousness of Truth is a delusion!
I'm trying to get you off your high horse, so that you can actually begin to think these matters in a serious manner. Your current flippant half-baked manner doesn't cut it.
I'm not on some high horse. I'm working at debunking your misogyny, if not for you, at least for others.
I value consciousness of Truth, which is enlightenment. Everything I do revolves around this.
Okay. I don't think that is enlightenment, though.
Not in all cases. It would only be ignorance if the understanding was false.
And it would be false if you thought you had gained understanding!
There is no other way to think than dualistically. The mind cannot do otherwise. Thus, to accuse a person of thinking dualistically is meaningless. It is like accusing him of breathing.
The mind can enter a state of absorption in God, in which experience is nondual. You are mostly right, though. Of course, in order for me to type this, my mind must be thinking dualistically.
Again, because you haven't thought deeply enough about this matter, your statements about non-duality and duality are naive and ignorant. An enlightened person has to think dualistically in order to recognize anything at all - e.g. that a tree is a tree, or that a cloud is a cloud, or that an enlightened person is an enlightened person. But this alone doesn't make his thinking false.
Right, but the process of recognizing things is false. The five senses are illusion, and the mind is completely imagination.
You can continue calling me 'naive' and 'ignorant' without backing it up, yet it doesn't make you look too wise.
Here you're engaging in semantic quibblery in order to preserve the illusion that femininity is important. It is really stretching it to say that the overcoming of ignorance with truth is a feminine submissive act. It would be like saying that brave warrior fighting to the death is really expressing feminine submission to his bravery and desire to fight.
That's a good example of how EVERYONE functions. A warrior submitting(f) to his bravery(m). He will appear to be brave, but his subconscious is in submission. Another good example of this is how thugs and gangsters are; they put up a really masculine front, yet the reasons for doing so are very feminine (ego-worship, need for friendship/love, etc). I'm not saying warriors are equivalent to gangsters, though.
Didn't Jesus say something about being weak in your strength, and strong in your weakness?
While it is true that the act of overcoming ignorance does require one to submit to the truth, this act of submission bears no resemblance to the feminine submissive mentality as exhibited by women and feminine men in their daily lives. The former is a conscious act of bravery and a direct will to power, while the latter is simply an emotional desire to give up one's individuality and will in order to feel safe.
Good point about submission to truth being an act of bravery. However, I think you are merely trying to preserve a point; or at least you aren't making your point clear enough. I can look at a person and say, "Damn they're weak", and I can think they don't have the potential for enlightenment, and that they're bad for anyone trying to attain enlightenment...but I'm just babbling about a bunch of shit that has nothing to do with Truth itself, and I'm making myself unenlightened. I'm making myself a weak person by caring so much about something so useless.
I don't want to do that. To over-generalize, and confuse the majority of people who actually care about finding Truth. Yeah, it is confusing, and that's not because I'm unenlightened. It's because you've burrowed yourself so deep inside some little cave that the majority of people can't understand what you're saying without having to climb through all of this shit just to understand. Once they understand, they'll just be bitter, and they won't be enlightened. They might feel powerful, because they will be placing themselves over a group of people. Everyone who does that feels power.
Attainment is about being powerless.
Your transposition wasn't correct, because Truth isn't a thing. There is no reason to distinguish between Truth and consciousness of Truth, since consciousness of Truth is a delusion!
I'm trying to get you off your high horse, so that you can actually begin to think these matters in a serious manner. Your current flippant half-baked manner doesn't cut it.
I'm not on some high horse. I'm working at debunking your misogyny, if not for you, at least for others.
I value consciousness of Truth, which is enlightenment. Everything I do revolves around this.
Okay. I don't think that is enlightenment, though.
Not in all cases. It would only be ignorance if the understanding was false.
And it would be false if you thought you had gained understanding!
There is no other way to think than dualistically. The mind cannot do otherwise. Thus, to accuse a person of thinking dualistically is meaningless. It is like accusing him of breathing.
The mind can enter a state of absorption in God, in which experience is nondual. You are mostly right, though. Of course, in order for me to type this, my mind must be thinking dualistically.
Again, because you haven't thought deeply enough about this matter, your statements about non-duality and duality are naive and ignorant. An enlightened person has to think dualistically in order to recognize anything at all - e.g. that a tree is a tree, or that a cloud is a cloud, or that an enlightened person is an enlightened person. But this alone doesn't make his thinking false.
Right, but the process of recognizing things is false. The five senses are illusion, and the mind is completely imagination.
You can continue calling me 'naive' and 'ignorant' without backing it up, yet it doesn't make you look too wise.
Here you're engaging in semantic quibblery in order to preserve the illusion that femininity is important. It is really stretching it to say that the overcoming of ignorance with truth is a feminine submissive act. It would be like saying that brave warrior fighting to the death is really expressing feminine submission to his bravery and desire to fight.
That's a good example of how EVERYONE functions. A warrior submitting(f) to his bravery(m). He will appear to be brave, but his subconscious is in submission. Another good example of this is how thugs and gangsters are; they put up a really masculine front, yet the reasons for doing so are very feminine (ego-worship, need for friendship/love, etc). I'm not saying warriors are equivalent to gangsters, though.
Didn't Jesus say something about being weak in your strength, and strong in your weakness?
While it is true that the act of overcoming ignorance does require one to submit to the truth, this act of submission bears no resemblance to the feminine submissive mentality as exhibited by women and feminine men in their daily lives. The former is a conscious act of bravery and a direct will to power, while the latter is simply an emotional desire to give up one's individuality and will in order to feel safe.
Good point about submission to truth being an act of bravery. However, I think you are merely trying to preserve a point; or at least you aren't making your point clear enough. I can look at a person and say, "Damn they're weak", and I can think they don't have the potential for enlightenment, and that they're bad for anyone trying to attain enlightenment...but I'm just babbling about a bunch of shit that has nothing to do with Truth itself, and I'm making myself unenlightened. I'm making myself a weak person by caring so much about something so useless.
I don't want to do that. To over-generalize, and confuse the majority of people who actually care about finding Truth. Yeah, it is confusing, and that's not because I'm unenlightened. It's because you've burrowed yourself so deep inside some little cave that the majority of people can't understand what you're saying without having to climb through all of this shit just to understand. Once they understand, they'll just be bitter, and they won't be enlightened. They might feel powerful, because they will be placing themselves over a group of people. Everyone who does that feels power.
Attainment is about being powerless.
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: ...
Voce Io wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr> Your transposition wasn't correct, because Truth isn't a thing. There is no reason to distinguish between Truth and consciousness of Truth, since consciousness of Truth is a delusion! <hr> If consciousness of Truth is a delusion, then why are you talking about Truth as though you know what it is?
Quote:Quote:<hr> I'm not on some high horse. I'm working at debunking your misogyny, if not for you, at least for others. <hr> You're barking up the wrong tree here. I am not a misogynist. Indeed, I am one of the few people on this earth who isn't a misogynist.
I wonder if you possess the intellect and dialectial skills to understand this point? Not many people do.
Quote:Quote:<hr> VI: If you think you've gained understanding, it's just ignorance.
DQ: Not in all cases. It would only be ignorance if the understanding was false.
VI: And it would be false if you thought you had gained understanding! <hr> I'm afraid you're being completely ignorant here.
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: There is no other way to think than dualistically. The mind cannot do otherwise. Thus, to accuse a person of thinking dualistically is meaningless. It is like accusing him of breathing.
VI: The mind can enter a state of absorption in God, in which experience is nondual. <hr> What is the difference between "absorption in God" and "consciousness of Truth"?
How can there be any such thing as a non-dual experience?
How can one "enter" non-duality?
Quote:Quote:<hr> You are mostly right, though. Of course, in order for me to type this, my mind must be thinking dualistically.<hr> I'm "mostly" right? Please provide an example of a non-dualistic thought.
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: Again, because you haven't thought deeply enough about this matter, your statements about non-duality and duality are naive and ignorant. An enlightened person has to think dualistically in order to recognize anything at all - e.g. that a tree is a tree, or that a cloud is a cloud, or that an enlightened person is an enlightened person. But this alone doesn't make his thinking false.
VI: Right, but the process of recognizing things is false. The five senses are illusion, and the mind is completely imagination. <hr> No, these things are completely real. The senses definitely exist, as does the mind, as does the world that is perceived by them.
What is an illusion is the perception that they exist as independent, objective entities. In other words, that they inherently exist. This is the core delusion which the enlightened sage abandons. After his enlightenment, he still experiences the mind and senses and the wider world, just like everyone else does. The difference with him, however, is that he is no longer fooled by their appearance.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Your transposition wasn't correct, because Truth isn't a thing. There is no reason to distinguish between Truth and consciousness of Truth, since consciousness of Truth is a delusion! <hr> If consciousness of Truth is a delusion, then why are you talking about Truth as though you know what it is?
Quote:Quote:<hr> I'm not on some high horse. I'm working at debunking your misogyny, if not for you, at least for others. <hr> You're barking up the wrong tree here. I am not a misogynist. Indeed, I am one of the few people on this earth who isn't a misogynist.
I wonder if you possess the intellect and dialectial skills to understand this point? Not many people do.
Quote:Quote:<hr> VI: If you think you've gained understanding, it's just ignorance.
DQ: Not in all cases. It would only be ignorance if the understanding was false.
VI: And it would be false if you thought you had gained understanding! <hr> I'm afraid you're being completely ignorant here.
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: There is no other way to think than dualistically. The mind cannot do otherwise. Thus, to accuse a person of thinking dualistically is meaningless. It is like accusing him of breathing.
VI: The mind can enter a state of absorption in God, in which experience is nondual. <hr> What is the difference between "absorption in God" and "consciousness of Truth"?
How can there be any such thing as a non-dual experience?
How can one "enter" non-duality?
Quote:Quote:<hr> You are mostly right, though. Of course, in order for me to type this, my mind must be thinking dualistically.<hr> I'm "mostly" right? Please provide an example of a non-dualistic thought.
Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: Again, because you haven't thought deeply enough about this matter, your statements about non-duality and duality are naive and ignorant. An enlightened person has to think dualistically in order to recognize anything at all - e.g. that a tree is a tree, or that a cloud is a cloud, or that an enlightened person is an enlightened person. But this alone doesn't make his thinking false.
VI: Right, but the process of recognizing things is false. The five senses are illusion, and the mind is completely imagination. <hr> No, these things are completely real. The senses definitely exist, as does the mind, as does the world that is perceived by them.
What is an illusion is the perception that they exist as independent, objective entities. In other words, that they inherently exist. This is the core delusion which the enlightened sage abandons. After his enlightenment, he still experiences the mind and senses and the wider world, just like everyone else does. The difference with him, however, is that he is no longer fooled by their appearance.
-
Dave Toast
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm
Re: ...
Quote:Quote:<hr>DQ: It is really stretching it to say that the overcoming of ignorance with truth is a feminine submissive act. It would be like saying that brave warrior fighting to the death is really expressing feminine submission to his bravery and desire to fight.
While it is true that the act of overcoming ignorance does require one to submit to the truth, this act of submission bears no resemblance to the feminine submissive mentality as exhibited by women and feminine men in their daily lives. The former is a conscious act of bravery and a direct will to power, while the latter is simply an emotional desire to give up one's individuality and will in order to feel safe.<hr>
Do you not think then, David, that it is really stretching it to say that being submissive is feminine?
Your words show this clearly here, and need we be reminded of how often the first word used to describe this 'feminine' you tout, is submissive. And until now, I don't recall any mention of this 'masculine submissiveness', which I suspect was just a rhetorical device that shot it's father in the foot. So does this not again call this whole masculine/feminine designation for what you are trying to express into question?
It does seem most pertinent on many occasions, yet on just as many occasions it comes blundering in with it's size twelves, smashes all the China on the shelves and falls on it's arse with impeccable comedic timing. It then stands up, not aknowledging the need to brush itself off, and makes like a cat that has just been thrown across the room, i.e. "I was going this way anyway".
While it is true that the act of overcoming ignorance does require one to submit to the truth, this act of submission bears no resemblance to the feminine submissive mentality as exhibited by women and feminine men in their daily lives. The former is a conscious act of bravery and a direct will to power, while the latter is simply an emotional desire to give up one's individuality and will in order to feel safe.<hr>
Do you not think then, David, that it is really stretching it to say that being submissive is feminine?
Your words show this clearly here, and need we be reminded of how often the first word used to describe this 'feminine' you tout, is submissive. And until now, I don't recall any mention of this 'masculine submissiveness', which I suspect was just a rhetorical device that shot it's father in the foot. So does this not again call this whole masculine/feminine designation for what you are trying to express into question?
It does seem most pertinent on many occasions, yet on just as many occasions it comes blundering in with it's size twelves, smashes all the China on the shelves and falls on it's arse with impeccable comedic timing. It then stands up, not aknowledging the need to brush itself off, and makes like a cat that has just been thrown across the room, i.e. "I was going this way anyway".
-
David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: ...
Dave Toast wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr> Do you not think then, David, that it is really stretching it to say that being submissive is feminine? <hr> Traditionally, submission has always been regarded as a feminine quality and that is mainly because women have historically been far more submissive creatures than men - and still are.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Your words show this clearly here, and need we be reminded of how often the first word used to describe this 'feminine' you tout, is submissive. And until now, I don't recall any mention of this 'masculine submissiveness', which I suspect was just a rhetorical device that shot it's father in the foot. <hr> We can dissect any action into masculine and feminine components if we want to. The will to conquer ignorance can be thought of as the will to sumbit to the ideal of truth. The womanly desire to submit to a powerful man can be thought of as the desire to conquer insecurity and a sense of personal responsibility.
I don't usually make this dissection because it tends to create confusion and hinders my over-all purpose of promoting wisdom. I prefer to reserve my masculine and feminine categories for long-term mental traits. That way I can highlight the mental qualities that are needed for spiritual success, which is very important.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Do you not think then, David, that it is really stretching it to say that being submissive is feminine? <hr> Traditionally, submission has always been regarded as a feminine quality and that is mainly because women have historically been far more submissive creatures than men - and still are.
Quote:Quote:<hr> Your words show this clearly here, and need we be reminded of how often the first word used to describe this 'feminine' you tout, is submissive. And until now, I don't recall any mention of this 'masculine submissiveness', which I suspect was just a rhetorical device that shot it's father in the foot. <hr> We can dissect any action into masculine and feminine components if we want to. The will to conquer ignorance can be thought of as the will to sumbit to the ideal of truth. The womanly desire to submit to a powerful man can be thought of as the desire to conquer insecurity and a sense of personal responsibility.
I don't usually make this dissection because it tends to create confusion and hinders my over-all purpose of promoting wisdom. I prefer to reserve my masculine and feminine categories for long-term mental traits. That way I can highlight the mental qualities that are needed for spiritual success, which is very important.
Re: ...
If consciousness of Truth is a delusion, then why are you talking about Truth as though you know what it is?
I'm talking about Truth, because I've had some consciousness of Truth. This consciousness of Truth showed me that having consciousness of Truth is false.
You're barking up the wrong tree here. I am not a misogynist. Indeed, I am one of the few people on this earth who isn't a misogynist.
I wonder if you possess the intellect and dialectial skills to understand this point? Not many people do.
I disagree with you. I think you're a misogynist that tries to cloak his misogyny with the idea that you're trying to save women (as well as men) from their woman-like qualities, which aren't spiritual to you.
Without sexuality, you wouldn't exist, and neither would your consciousness of Truth. I realize this is a typical feminine viewpoint, but it's an essential one! My mom was telling me something like this today...I was talking about how society and money is empty, and that people are what's important, and she told me how people need society and money to survive comfortably. You can't have truth without also having un-truth.
I'm afraid you're being completely ignorant here.
You're afraid and I'm ignorant; what a predicament we're in.
What is the difference between "absorption in God" and "consciousness of Truth"?
No difference.
How can there be any such thing as a non-dual experience?
Well, a non-dual experience is already happening. When the apparently dual person becomes aware of non-duality, that is a non-dual experience.
How can one "enter" non-duality?
It isn't something to be entered into.
I'm "mostly" right? Please provide an example of a non-dualistic thought.
When you take attention away from the senses, and away from any sort of formation of thought, and then attention is destroyed, there is a non-dualistic thought. It isn't really a thought, though. It's more just a product of having a brain - consciousness.
No, these things are completely real. The senses definitely exist, as does the mind, as does the world that is perceived by them.
Right.
What is an illusion is the perception that they exist as independent, objective entities. In other words, that they inherently exist. This is the core delusion which the enlightened sage abandons. After his enlightenment, he still experiences the mind and senses and the wider world, just like everyone else does. The difference with him, however, is that he is no longer fooled by their appearance.
Agreed.
I'm talking about Truth, because I've had some consciousness of Truth. This consciousness of Truth showed me that having consciousness of Truth is false.
You're barking up the wrong tree here. I am not a misogynist. Indeed, I am one of the few people on this earth who isn't a misogynist.
I wonder if you possess the intellect and dialectial skills to understand this point? Not many people do.
I disagree with you. I think you're a misogynist that tries to cloak his misogyny with the idea that you're trying to save women (as well as men) from their woman-like qualities, which aren't spiritual to you.
Without sexuality, you wouldn't exist, and neither would your consciousness of Truth. I realize this is a typical feminine viewpoint, but it's an essential one! My mom was telling me something like this today...I was talking about how society and money is empty, and that people are what's important, and she told me how people need society and money to survive comfortably. You can't have truth without also having un-truth.
I'm afraid you're being completely ignorant here.
You're afraid and I'm ignorant; what a predicament we're in.
What is the difference between "absorption in God" and "consciousness of Truth"?
No difference.
How can there be any such thing as a non-dual experience?
Well, a non-dual experience is already happening. When the apparently dual person becomes aware of non-duality, that is a non-dual experience.
How can one "enter" non-duality?
It isn't something to be entered into.
I'm "mostly" right? Please provide an example of a non-dualistic thought.
When you take attention away from the senses, and away from any sort of formation of thought, and then attention is destroyed, there is a non-dualistic thought. It isn't really a thought, though. It's more just a product of having a brain - consciousness.
No, these things are completely real. The senses definitely exist, as does the mind, as does the world that is perceived by them.
Right.
What is an illusion is the perception that they exist as independent, objective entities. In other words, that they inherently exist. This is the core delusion which the enlightened sage abandons. After his enlightenment, he still experiences the mind and senses and the wider world, just like everyone else does. The difference with him, however, is that he is no longer fooled by their appearance.
Agreed.