GENIUS FORUMS

#1 - It can't easily be verified to exist, if it can at all. If a supposedly enlightened man speaks, we do of course have the possibility of discrediting him should he utter an obvious falsity, such as "I'm enlightened, and I know everything". Or, since the enlightened man apparently has no emotions, if he reponds emotionally, or overly passionately, we would also discredit him. Easy enough.

#2 - Unfortunately, there are ways to get around these two tests easily enough. I don't want to prejudge as I'm new to this board and have not read here extensively, but from what I've seen from Dan Rowden, he is a master of answering questions without really saying anything to actually support him being enlightened, yet neither denying it. Maybe my understanding just isn't great enough yet, but nevertheless, it comes across as someone who knows the words that allow him to dip and dodge.

I see value in zennish teachings, but they say nothing of the person who says them.

#3 - Furthermore, one of the unfortunate aspects of this egoless condition is that it can apparently only be verified by others with an egoless condition. To me this is a huge red flag. Anyone can see why, I would hope. I will say that what I've read of David Quinn is extremely impressive due to his clarity. The larkin debate bit is absolutely awesome, I've never seen anyone hold their own like that. But extreme control (or extinction) of emotions, a highly developed philosophy, and talk of the infinite does not of course make someone enlightened.

#4 - While I see the value in people addressing their emotional attachments, regardless of whether or not enlightenment exists, questioning its existence is still an important issue. There is an article of faith involved since none of you can prove it. "Keep on destoying your emotional attachments, and some day there will be no more to destroy and you will be enlightened." Yet there is no proof this process works, or will actually end in enlightenment. And call me crazy, but if I'm going to run a marathon, I'd like to know theres a finish line.

You might be helped more if you ask what enlightenment is in the first place. Your current notion is wrong.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:You might be helped more if you ask what enlightenment is in the first place. Your current notion is wrong.

Are you enlightened? If so, please prove it.

If you're not enlightened, how do you know its wrong?

I am enlightened, yes. I have perfected my wisdom beyond the point where the concept of acquiring more wisdom is meaningful. For you, there is no proof of my claim but your own judgement. For myself, the proof is that I have a perfect understanding of enlightened thinkers. When they speak of enlightenment (for instance, in the Heart Sutra), there is no abstraction. I know precisely what they speak of, as it is concrete, down-to-earth, completely true, infinitely cynical, wholly compassionate but glorying in the hatred of all mankind, and perfectly wise.

It is only your own ignorance of enlightenment that makes it seem confusing or arbitrary. That is how I know you are not enlightened.

Skipair wrote:

#3 - Furthermore, one of the unfortunate aspects of this egoless condition is that it can apparently only be verified by others with an egoless condition. To me this is a huge red flag. Anyone can see why, I would hope. I will say that what I've read of David Quinn is extremely impressive due to his clarity. The larkin debate bit is absolutely awesome, I've never seen anyone hold their own like that. But extreme control (or extinction) of emotions, a highly developed philosophy, and talk of the infinite does not of course make someone enlightened.

If a person can speak the truth consistently, then it is at least an indication that they have had a clear mind for a period of time. However, one can never know what percentage of time someone has been clear-minded and what percentage they have fallen into emotional realms, but I suspect that every 'enlightened' individual has had regressions, and could possibly have future regressions. Look at the work of Soren Kierkegaard. He was capable of very powerful insights, but then he was also inwardly tortured, self-deceived and feeble for parts of his life. Even on his deathbed, he didn’t seem very stable, but that didn’t take away from the deep insights he had throughout his life, and his periods of clarity.

Through reasoning, and negating enslaving habits we are genetically pre-disposed to be pursue, we can at least move in a direction that is more masculine, but I suspect the animal physiology is still present in the body/mind, and it can still take root periodically.

I’m reminded by a song by JC – JC was one of the more humbled artists, simply because he was well aware of the extent of his own weaknesses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlL2O0Qria8

"Keep on destroying your emotional attachments, and some day there will be no more to destroy and you will be enlightened." Yet there is no proof this process works, or will actually end in enlightenment. And call me crazy, but if I'm going to run a marathon, I'd like to know there’s a finish line.

I suspect the finish line is relative. It depends on the genetic/neurological configuration of each individual.

Trevor, whats up.

I am enlightened, yes. I have perfected my wisdom beyond the point where the concept of acquiring more wisdom is meaningful.

Wow! With respect, you don't come across as enlightened to me, so I'm surprised you've made this claim. So young and already at the point of full wisdom...I'm sure you can see how this is unbelievable, and how it would take an article of supreme faith from the critical eye. After all, you didn't always know what "enlightenment is", I assume, yet you saught after it, believing, not knowing, that you would get there.

David, or other self professed sages, can you confirm Trevor is enlightened?

For you, there is no proof of my claim but your own judgement.

Of course, but you provide me with no real evidence to support your claim, so it comes back to faith.

For myself, the proof is that I have a perfect understanding of enlightened thinkers. When they speak of enlightenment (for instance, in the Heart Sutra), there is no abstraction. I know precisely what they speak of, as it is concrete, down-to-earth, completely true, infinitely cynical, wholly compassionate but glorying in the hatred of all mankind, and perfectly wise.

The reason you know you are enlightened is that you understand the words others have written about enlightenment. This seems a bit superficial to me. What you've basically done is create personal definitions of words and have molded them to match and create meaning from other's words. Anyone can do the same thing and make the same claim and be honest about what they mean. But that doesn't mean they are ethical, and in fact point to the probability that they aren't.

Eveyone's experience is different, and the words they use to characterize those experiences merely are representational and point to an unspoken thing. To say you know precisely what they speak of is not quite true, even if you are enlightened, which I doubt.

What is your definition of enlightenment?

Wow! With respect, you don't come across as enlightened to me, so I'm surprised you've made this claim.

Before we take one step further, can you please tell me how an enlightened person is supposed to "come across"?

Skip,

David, or other self professed sages, can you confirm Trevor is enlightened?

I think he still has some way to go .......

-

Dun-dun-duuuuuuun!


----------------------
Edited for hyphons

-----------------------------------
Edited for spelling of hyphens

David,

I think he still has some way to go .......

(Shh.... I'm making a point: if he barely believes in enlightenment, I have absolutely no idea how he could be able to determine what an enlightened person would be like. In effect, he does believe in enlightenment, and in asking you for your advice, he believes you are enlightened.)

Ah, I see. Sorry for butting in there.

-

David: it's quite alright. Your reply allowed me ample opportunity to make my point in parenthesis. Now, if skipair is willing to concede on that point, I think your wisdom and explanations of enlightenment would be superior to mine. As you know, I'm holding off seeking enlightenment until I develop some sort of stable relationship with my current wisdom. It was against my better judgement that I even took part in the evolution debate (but it wasn't very taxing). This discussion, on the other hand, is quite out of my league.

I will call myself enlightened as a tool to reveal someone's prejudices toward the word, and I can usually follow the writings of people that I consider wise, but actually explaining enlightenment is too much for me.

...

xerox,

The 'battle' is between you and yourself.

More accurately, between your attachments and naked reality.

A forum is more or less like watching and analysing sport rather than playing it.

Really? I imagine a forum, being a part of reality, has just as much to do with reality as any other part.

And judging the judgemental is self parody.

A little Christian "judge not lest ye be judged" going on there. There's a simple cure for that: I judge myself to be better than everyone else. Now, try to judge me!

Then again, these fora act like a bit of a mirror and can be helpful in exposing one's own blemishes.

Since I'm not a woman, I don't worry about blemishes. Besides, since I'm a superior human being, the only part of the people here that I see myself in are the good parts. Most of this therefore isn't mirror, but rather other people's filth.

'Enlightenment' is not found on the end of anothers tongue.

Unless she knows how to use her tongue, of course.

Proclaming that one has acheived that state is as a blind man saying he knows what blue is.

I fail to see how this analogy applies to enlightenment. An enlightened man is more like a man with vision trying to explain to blind men what blue is. False prophets are blind men trying to pretend they have vision.

Knowing is proof unto itself. If you know the 'truth' you do not need to say so. What others think about what you think is redundant.

This sounds like an evasion. A proof is logical, and the truth should never be hidden. Since other people's beliefs are a part of reality, and understanding reality is relevant to enlightenment, understanding what others think about you is necessary knowledge.

One who needs to say it, to prove it, maybe calling it teaching... is prolly trying to convince themselves.

Good thing you said "prolly", because I don't see how this assumption follows from anything. A person who has the truth should share.

Those who can, simply do.

Just because you can do something doesn't always mean you should. Knowing when not to act is an important part of a man's education.

Skip, its your journey on your terms.

...unless, of course, you want to have an experience similar to that of Gautama Buddha, who destroyed all delusions and lived his life begging for rice and trying to refuse gifts as he sat in a garden enjoying his comprehension of the Infinite. If you go "on your own terms", and ignore the teachings of great wise men before you, the likelihood of actually achieving enlightenment is slim.

...

Ugh, another postmodernist. I hope you outgrow it. Some people never do.

...

xerox,
Pardon? I'm not bored. I simply think you have adopted the most mundane and poorly conceived of all philosophic positions. I've seen it so many times that I no longer feel like it's worth my effort to argue against it, especially if you are shutting your ears to all contrary arguments. There's enough wise literature out there that your position is inexcusable laziness.

I write as I do every day.

xerox wrote:...Skip, its your journey on your terms.

:)

Kierkegaard wrote:The pathway of tribulation remains just as long and just as dark right to the end – the pathway that gradually becomes lighter must be a different one. Neither do we know when the change will come nor precisely whether we have reached it or how much nearer we have come (for such things cannot be determined in the dark). But we do believe that the change will come and then with the blessedness of eternity.

When a child in a dark room is waiting for the door to be opened and all the anticipated joy to be restored, at the last second before the door is opened it is still just as dark as at first. The child still does not know how much longer he has to wait. But one thing is sure, the second the door opens the glory will be revealed.

Well, I'll see, won't I.

skipair, I recommend taking xerox's position as the earnest, honest-to-goodness truth. If you are a man of integrity, you will see it turn to sand when you try to believe it with your whole being. Postmodernism is nothing more than a mirage created by contradictory thoughts.

(This is, of course, a call for you to try to defend his series of claims against the onslaught of Genius forum members, since he himself doesn't have the courage to do it.)

...

xerox,

your style is way too defensive for my tastes, which makes me suspicious of your motives.

What the fuck? My style is offensive!

Considering the amount of lies you present in this post of yours (see below as I reveal them to you), I have more reason to be suspicious of your motives than you do of mine -- but I am not, because I know that lying is more a sign of brainlessness than impending danger.

If you feel the need to defend your position, then do so.

Ha! You admit here that didn't even see me defending my position (which, since judgements have been laid on my vocabulary before I was given an opportunity to apply philosophic tools, I haven't even presented)!

Don't fucking lie about "defensiveness". It is your position which is weak, and has been so thoroughly attacked by me that you have stopped presented it. In place of a genuine position, which you no longer have since I laid low your last one, you wrote this deceitful and fallacious ad hominem argument against me. Being a sucker for discovering people's motives myself, my gut instinct is that you are trying to reclaim your shattered ego.

Now, if you have the faintest curiousity about what my beliefs actually are, consider that I already find the title of this thread an assault against the truths I am entrusted with. When the word enlightenment is treated with quotation marks, as though it can only be spoken of sarcastically, as a false belief that only someone else could ever possibly believe in, and then issue is promptly taken up with this arbitrary and twisted notion of enlightenment, I find myself in a den of fools. I am like a pantheist trying to explain to a knee-jerk atheist why he actually does believe in God, and all his issues with theists are founded on differences in vocabulary and all the xenophobic prejudice that comes with the territory of mutual misunderstanding.

As for postmoder...whatever-ism. Well, l looked it up and couldnt get past, nor relate to, the first few lines of the definition so gave up.

Such a shame, because it accurately describes your every thought, in particular your inability to understand simple truths.

I suggest reading it again, because you have fallen into the postmodernist trap. Take away the big words, and postmodern beliefs are identical to yours.

Fine, argue against it by not argueing against it. Shut my ears for me and present no contrary positions.

This demand will not work. You have shut your ears, but that does not prevent me from speaking at them whenever you speak falsehoods, if only for the benefit of others.

Yep, lazy, as you say. Lazy like not bothering to tread water in the shallow end.

Colourful, but inaccurate. You took your cherished beliefs to the deep end, and your poor baby drowned.

Thankyou for not excusing me.

You have upgraded from laziness to lying, which is excusable only as far as you are unaware of the truth. Since I have now spoken truths about your beliefs to you, it is again no longer unconscious lying, and thus no longer excusable. Create a new set of beliefs, because your last one, by being formed in laziness, is now irreplaceably gone.

...

skipair wrote:#1 - It can't easily be verified to exist, if it can at all.

I can't verify that a man loves his wife. Can I thereby say he doesn't? Anyway, it it good that you view enlightenment as a hypothesis. You should view it that way.

If a supposedly enlightened man speaks, we do of course have the possibility of discrediting him should he utter an obvious falsity, such as "I'm enlightened, and I know everything". Or, since the enlightened man apparently has no emotions, if he reponds emotionally, or overly passionately, we would also discredit him. Easy enough.

It's not that easy. You need wisdom for that.

#2 - Unfortunately, there are ways to get around these two tests easily enough. I don't want to prejudge as I'm new to this board and have not read here extensively, but from what I've seen from Dan Rowden, he is a master of answering questions without really saying anything to actually support him being enlightened, yet neither denying it.

I am enlightened and I deny it. Seems pretty clear to me.

Maybe my understanding just isn't great enough yet, but nevertheless, it comes across as someone who knows the words that allow him to dip and dodge.

Yes, I love to dip and dodge; my life has changed since I learned that strategy.

I see value in zennish teachings, but they say nothing of the person who says them.

They do if and when you get them. That you don't know that means you don't get them.

#3 - Furthermore, one of the unfortunate aspects of this egoless condition is that it can apparently only be verified by others with an egoless condition.

Yes, people who have had a broken heart can only be ......

To me this is a huge red flag. Anyone can see why, I would hope. I will say that what I've read of David Quinn is extremely impressive due to his clarity. The larkin debate bit is absolutely awesome, I've never seen anyone hold their own like that. But extreme control (or extinction) of emotions, a highly developed philosophy, and talk of the infinite does not of course make someone enlightened.

You seem to have lost your train of thought....

#4 - While I see the value in people addressing their emotional attachments, regardless of whether or not enlightenment exists, questioning its existence is still an important issue.

Yes, so what's your point?

There is an article of faith involved since none of you can prove it.

What? I can't prove A=A? It's true, I can't, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. You don't know what "proof" means.

"Keep on destoying your emotional attachments, and some day there will be no more to destroy and you will be enlightened." Yet there is no proof this process works, or will actually end in enlightenment. And call me crazy, but if I'm going to run a marathon, I'd like to know theres a finish line.

You know the finish line exists in a marathon? Really? Without belief?

xerox,

l thought that shattering egoes was a large part of it all, a necessary precondition to seeing things as they are.

Now contemplate why it is a necessary truth that a person must possess as little ego as possible to be able, without prejudice or bias, to perceive the truth of a matter.

l make no claims to knowing the truth. If l knew it, l wouldnt be here, trying to prove it to others and myself.

What is this nonsense? Without knowing the truth, you claim that everyone who knows the truth avoids philosophy forums!

l dont understand why you've got so many bees in your bonet.

If you don't understand why I have "so many bees in [my] bonet", perhaps it's because I'm neither frustrated nor irritated by a single bee in the first place. Adapt your perception of me: you will understand me as soon as your conclusions are true.

l cannot understand your need to interject with your 'offensive' corrections.

Take out the word 'offensive', and this sentence is ridiculous. "Why must you always correct people?"

Quite simply, it's better that someone is correct than incorrect. I don't give a damn whether they like me or not. I don't even care if they stay at GF -- since I know I can cause a person enough suffering that he will learn the lessons he flees from long after he leaves the forum. Ignorance is, as Aristotle observed, the root of all evil.

Actually, l take that back, your style reminds me of myself, just less passive/agressive.

Good! You can relate to my style. The insults, every whit of babbling, and all the degradations are stylistic. It is superior to being passive/aggressive (and could even be considered a cure for passivity... never let a man walk on you! particularly if he is passive/aggressive...), although it is many grades inferior to the succinctness of the moderators. But, since I know as a matter of fact that I have less wisdom to speak of than the moderators, I do not keep my conversations brief and to the point.

When I discover myself to be as wise as David, Dan, or Kevin -- well, then, perhaps a few less swear-words would be in order.