GENIUS FORUMS

I decided to post this here to see what kind of reaction it gets.

----------------------

The thing with QRS, in my view, is that while they are technically correct in most of the deductions they make about existence, they are incorrect about how broadly these realizations apply.

What do I mean by that? Well, shit. I suppose what I mean is that in QRS, we have a group of people for whom the self-assigned goal of existence is to discover "ultimate truths," and thereby achieve a revolution of personality in the form of "enlightenment." But in reality, the "lofty truths" they discover have less to do with the experience of everday living than they tend to insist, because they have false (or at least highly unusual) ideas about what "the big things" really are.

For QRS, "the big things" revolve around understanding A=A as the basis of consciousness and conventional existence, realizing the nature of dependent origination, dispelling the illusion of inherent existence, and so on. They insist that in so doing, one attains "rational enlightenment" and escapes from suffering as the Buddha promised long ago.

But the QRS approach ignores the fact that becoming a philosopher-hermit is far from the only possible way to behave in the wake of the realization they urge us to attain. In fact, there an unlimited number of potential ways to go after attaining QRS-defined "enlightenment." It is only if one accepts QRS' premises about what one "should" do with this realization that their path offers any kind of well-defined outcome (woman-bashing hermitude). And while the basic metaphysical realization they define as "enlightenment" may be rationally derived, their premises about what one should do with it are not. They are simply a hodgepodge of value judgements tacked on at the whim of the authors and presented as Gospel.

QRS enlightenment is easy. If you accept the following statements, you have it:

1. All things are dependent upon other things for conventional existence. (A=A). A tree is a tree because it is defined by everything that is not a tree. Beyond this relational, mind-dependent distinction, it has no a priori existence.

2. All "things" are so constructed. Because all things exist exist conventionally, none exist inherently or ultimately.

3. The ego is the concept of inherent existence as applied to the self, or the individual person. It is analogous to "the soul."

4. Because nothing, including the self, exists inherently, the ego is a false concept. Individual existence as a concept is only conventional and has no ultimate reality. Ultimate reality, which is the true nature of all things, is an infinite totality which cannot be conceptualized and appears as "emptiness" in terms of thought and language. Badda bing, badda boom.

As any of the QRS will tell you, this is the same thing said by all of the important Buddhists, Taoists, and mystics throughout history. In fact, they promote this fact on their webpages, posting pictures of themselves alongside their "spiritual contemporaries" - favorably depicted, of course.

But here comes the rub. If you understand all of this but disagree with QRS about what sort of value judgements and life choices it implies or calls for, they will insist that you don't actually get it. IMO, this is the chief reason that many people people at GF are perpetually wondering whether they really "have it" or not. As I mentioned, "Rational Enlightenment" is easy stuff. With a little bookstore grounding in the basics of Eastern philosophy and some basic skills in informal logic, anybody can knock it out pretty quickly. But QRS don't stop there.

They then superimpose their own values on the whole thing and declare that "if you truly have the realization of enlightenment, you will behave and believe in such-and-such a manner. If you aren't behaving and believing that way, you don't have it." Fascinating, Mr. Spock. If pressed, they will appeal to their own authority and declare that only they can pronounce people enlightened or unenlightened, because they are enlightened themselves. I'll take self-referential circular logic for $1000, Alex. Oh goody, that's today's Daily Double!

In this life, we all do various things to "find our niche" and "establish ourselves" in ways that bolster our self-image and meet various psychological needs, as theorized by Maslow and others. For QRS, setting themselves up as authorities on "enlightenment" and heroically evangelizing "The Way" to a benighted and ungrateful world is just the ticket. If you understand that the ego is a false idea, you'd better hurry up and join the oh-so-non-egotistically-named Genius Forum and start towing the QRS party line. If you aren't doing that, you must never really have "gotten it" to begin with.

But here in reality, there are any number of ways to go once one has "atttained" the big "realization" at the center of all things QRS. And really, in my view, it isn't necessarily such a big realization, anyway. Okay, so things are conventional, nothing exists "in and of itself," and my sense of inherent selfhood is a big fat whopper. That and $2.00 will buy me a cup of coffee. "What is the Buddha," asked a student. "A dried shit stick," replied Ummon. That sort of response is where the true tradition of Zen and QRS doctrine part ways.

Why so dismissive? Primarily because QRS and most of the other evangelistic "enlightenment" types make a fundamental error in their thinking - one which is tantamount to reintroducing "inherent existence" through the back door, to their own benefit. They implicitly assign the individual a "more real" status by presuming that the individual's realization of the illusionary nature of all things (including one's own inherent existence) means a hill of beans. But it doesn't, because the individual making this realization is just as illusionary as everything he just dispelled. It's like living in a totally red room with red-tinted glasses on. Go ahead and have a big old Leeeroy Jenkins of an epiphany and take off the red-tinted glasses. What changed?

Rent still needs to be paid, dishes still need to be washed, personal and psychological conflicts still need to be resolved, fish still fries in the kitchen, and beans still burn on the grill. What you get from QRS-style "Rational Enlightenment" is not just the truth, but also an illusion as bad or worse than the one you just got rid of. Namely, you get the illusion that as a person who understands basic logic and Eastern philosophy, your life will now be somehow fundamentally different. But the difference is created entirely by this faith rather than by any effect of the rational realization itself.

In this sense, it's just like the 20-year drunk who finds Jesus and quits. Whether or not Jesus is real has nothing to do with it. It's the guy's faith in "higher power" to resolve his problems for him that frees up his psychology to move in a healthier direction and does the trick. You can "get enlightened" and go sell used cars at Bob's Discount Auto if that's your thing. If you happen to end up becoming a hermit and railing about the evils of women online all day, it's a pretty good bet that QRS doctrines get the credit for those particular life choices, not any metaphysical realization.

So, if you want a faith-based, evangelistic religion with a rationality-colored paint job, QRS is the way to go. But here in the secular world, relying the philsophical truth of things to "set us free" is still a good way to end up under a bridge, bagging groceries, or preaching the "Good Word" on a forum for fellow Geniuses.

----------------------

There is further material, as well as responses to this critique, here.

What is this "QRS" you speak of?

Quinn, Rowden, and Solway. QRS is an abbreviation commonly used on other forums to refer to the philosophy promoted here at Genius. It's a bit problematic and probably even somewhat unfair, but it's convenient.

If "QRS" themselves want to suggest a better term for the view promoted here, and it's a sensible one, I'd be willing to use it.

I'll sum it up in one word: mu.

The thing with QRS, in my view, is that while they are technically correct in most of the deductions they make about existence, they are incorrect about how broadly these realizations apply.

If a deduction is about existence, then it applies to all of existence.

As to the rest of your post, people have been telling philosophers to get a life since Thales. I'm surprised that in ten years of philosophy you still worry this much about something as trivial as where a philosopher gets his money... or are surprised when any philosopher has different values than you.

You don't need to agree with a philosopher's ethical system, unless you agree with his normative assumptions. They teach everyone that in the earliest philosophy courses and in every introductory textbook, so it should be obvious that you don't have to agree with how "QRS" live their lives to discuss the other aspects of their philosophy.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I'm surprised that in ten years of philosophy you still worry this much about something as trivial as where a philosopher gets his money...

I do? Actually, I'm not concerned with that at all, as long as the source isn't criminal or somesuch. I'm just pointing out that regardless of any realization, everyone needs a certain amount of money to survive. It's a fact of conventional life - something that no guru-speak changes.

or are surprised when any philosopher has different values than you.

I'm not surprised about that at all.

You don't need to agree with a philosopher's ethical system, unless you agree with his normative assumptions. They teach everyone that in the earliest philosophy courses and in every introductory textbook, so it should be obvious that you don't have to agree with how "QRS" live their lives to discuss the other aspects of their philosophy.

Yep. But aside from the metaphysics and the anti-feminism, there are no other aspects. And QRS themselves say that their philosophy is fully reflected in their personal lives, or at least should be.

Uni, so what's your criticism? It seemed like you were attacking their ethics -- but now you are saying that it is clear that they specialize in other matters.

If "QRS" are metaphysicians, there's no just reason to criticize them for their inadequate treatment of parts of philosophy that they don't view as important.

aside from the metaphysics and the anti-feminism, there are no other aspects. And QRS themselves say that their philosophy is fully reflected in their personal lives, or at least should be.

If it is true that they only deal with metaphysics and anti-feminist views, how are their personal lives not a reflection of that?

What lifestyle do you expect an "anti-feminist metaphysician" to follow?

Nice piece, and nice to see you here, Nat. You are a sharp thinker and a clear writer, and I'm glad you are taking the time to discuss an important issue as this.

What is the true foundation of QRS thought? How does it translate to lifestyle? Does it allow variation? Maybe some variation, but within limits; it does not, for example, support the idea of any person seeking enlightenment having a relationship with a woman.

I have been reading here for three years, and I come from a metaphysical background, and I am still having trouble distilling the particular teaching being discussed here. I also cannot tell at what stage the QRS principals are on their paths. I also cannot tell what they mean for one to do with the enlightenment or what they call Genius once one attains it, or, like you say, what difference it is supposed to make.

I chalk this up to the following possibilities:

1. Internet messageboards are a lousy place to convey the deep knowledge, lacking as they are any sustained contact and lacking the body english and voice inflections.

2. The quality of "students" here is generally poor, and so the discussions are low quality.

3. I am a dunderhead. Basically I'm too thick to get A=A and what the implications are.

4. The nut of the teachings are lacking, that is, are not complete. They are one-sided, in favor of the mental process, to the detriment of emotional (heart) and physical (body). That is to say, they don't involve the whole person.

I continue to read, avidly actually,and participate, generally remaining open, hungry to understand more, until I can decide about the trueness of the ideas, and their usefulness to my life.

I am therefore grateful for a pointed post by an intelligent observer as yourself, and the intelligent counterpoints, hopefully, of others.

Unidian, your comments are ludicrous thusly;

You visit a Golf forum, and try to convince every poster there that they don't know how to play golf, because you don't understand the rules.

I think Kevin's website explains everything very well, but you have to read and understand all of it before it will make sense. David's book fills in some of the metaphysical stuff, but he probably could have written at least ten times as much material on that stuff, so it's not complete. He expects you to complete it on your own, as that's really the only way. Same goes for all writings.

You just have to study and ponder the stuff a lot. It all has to sink in. You're not going to read Ultimate Truth in a book. That's not the point of reading. You have to physically prepare your mind for Ultimate Truth. Read, write, speak and think of Truth all the time. Do what's rational, don't do what's irrational. Invest everything you have in Truth: mind, body, spirit, emotions, lifestyle, everything. Become Ultimate Truth. That's all they are trying to teach.

What confuses people is that they teach about specific truths, so they give them more importance than they really deserve. The strategy there is to remove a bit blockage in someone's mind that can unleash a little avalanche of more truths. They have all kinds of strategies and stuff. They study teaching all the time. But it's all about Ultimate Truth. That's what you really want to go for in philosophy.

Unidian has been around QRS for a very long time - it is only his present user name tht is only a year and a half old. He has read all of it and is beyond the stage of seeing any of it in a new light by reading the old stuff more. He just holds a different opinion about certain core issues like whether or not it is a good idea to be in a relationship with a female.

I hope Nat stays this time. He's knowledgable, has good thinking skills, and has a different opinion than that of the herd here. Differing opinions amongst good thinkers are good for exploring the Truth.
.

Unidian > QRS

This is an eternal, unchanging, absolute truth. Every time you imagine Unidian and QRS, the inequality Unidian > QRS necessarily follows. This is true in all possible worlds, oh and girls have cooties.

Unidian: "What is the Buddha," asked a student. "A dried shit stick," replied Ummon. That sort of response is where the true tradition of Zen and QRS doctrine part ways.

Indeed.

Like most rants, Unidian's piece above is overly-emotional and not very coherent. When you actually examine it, very little of it makes any sense.

For example:

For QRS, "the big things" revolve around understanding A=A as the basis of consciousness and conventional existence, realizing the nature of dependent origination, dispelling the illusion of inherent existence, and so on. They insist that in so doing, one attains "rational enlightenment" and escapes from suffering as the Buddha promised long ago.

But the QRS approach ignores the fact that becoming a philosopher-hermit is far from the only possible way to behave in the wake of the realization they urge us to attain. In fact, there an unlimited number of potential ways to go after attaining QRS-defined "enlightenment." It is only if one accepts QRS' premises about what one "should" do with this realization that their path offers any kind of well-defined outcome (woman-bashing hermitude). And while the basic metaphysical realization they define as "enlightenment" may be rationally derived, their premises about what one should do with it are not. They are simply a hodgepodge of value judgements tacked on at the whim of the authors and presented as Gospel.

This is untrue. The value judgments made on this forum, by me at least, are the logical consequence of valuing the truth of emptiness. There is nothing hodge-podge about them.

QRS enlightenment is easy. If you accept the following statements, you have it:

1. All things are dependent upon other things for conventional existence. (A=A). A tree is a tree because it is defined by everything that is not a tree. Beyond this relational, mind-dependent distinction, it has no a priori existence.

2. All "things" are so constructed. Because all things exist exist conventionally, none exist inherently or ultimately.

3. The ego is the concept of inherent existence as applied to the self, or the individual person. It is analogous to "the soul."

4. Because nothing, including the self, exists inherently, the ego is a false concept. Individual existence as a concept is only conventional and has no ultimate reality. Ultimate reality, which is the true nature of all things, is an infinite totality which cannot be conceptualized and appears as "emptiness" in terms of thought and language. Badda bing, badda boom.

Enlightenment is not simply a matter of recognizing and accepting these basic truths. Rather, it is an experiential reality which can arise after one has implemented these truths to transform one's entire existence.

Enlightenment is the fruit of practicing these truths. If one simply keeps them as dry intellectual formulas in the safe distance of the imagination, the nothing will ever come of it.

They then superimpose their own values on the whole thing and declare that "if you truly have the realization of enlightenment, you will behave and believe in such-and-such a manner. If you aren't behaving and believing that way, you don't have it." Fascinating, Mr. Spock. If pressed, they will appeal to their own authority and declare that only they can pronounce people enlightened or unenlightened, because they are enlightened themselves. I'll take self-referential circular logic for $1000, Alex. Oh goody, that's today's Daily Double!

It's no different to what you are trying to do here. You are judging my own behaviour negatively on the basis of your own understanding of truth.

Everyone does this. It is a natural functioning of the mind. The only difference with the sage is that his understanding of truth is authentic and his judgments are unflinchingly consistent with this understanding. They aren't emotional in nature, or reliant on the authority of another, such as Lao Tzu.

But here in reality, there are any number of ways to go once one has "atttained" the big "realization" at the center of all things QRS. And really, in my view, it isn't necessarily such a big realization, anyway. Okay, so things are conventional, nothing exists "in and of itself," and my sense of inherent selfhood is a big fat whopper. That and $2.00 will buy me a cup of coffee. "What is the Buddha," asked a student. "A dried shit stick," replied Ummon. That sort of response is where the true tradition of Zen and QRS doctrine part ways.

If such words are uttered in a mindless, clumsy attempt to be Zennish, then yes, we do indeed part ways. It is all too easy to knock off those sorts of clever, nonsensical responses. Anyone can develop the knack without having any understanding.

In some circumstances, when a student has a certain attachment to a particular world-view, or is the victim of rigid thinking, it might be appropriate to throw him off balance with something out of left field. You can use a Zennish technique to shock him out of his easy complacency. But such circumstances are relatively rare.

To go around the place mindlessly bantering these nonsensical responses in the belief that it is an expression of the highest wisdom is deluded to the extreme. The Zen Masters of old would be rolling around in the grave at such foolish behaviour.

At bottom, it's a case of conventional people with ordinary worldly attachments trying to dismantle the mechanism and power of reason in order that they might continue enjoying their worldly attachments in peace. That is the true purpose of mindless Zennish banter. It is an attempt to throw a spanner in the process of truthful thinking and bring it to halt.

Why so dismissive? Primarily because QRS and most of the other evangelistic "enlightenment" types make a fundamental error in their thinking - one which is tantamount to reintroducing "inherent existence" through the back door, to their own benefit. They implicitly assign the individual a "more real" status by presuming that the individual's realization of the illusionary nature of all things (including one's own inherent existence) means a hill of beans.

Actually, the complete opposite is the case. It is you who is constantly reintroducing "inherent existence" through the back door, via your attachment to women, pleasure, love, etc. These things can only be enjoyed if one has a belief that they are real and significant in some way, which is inconsistent with the knowledge and experience of emptiness.

This is our real point of difference. I demand that people be consistent with the truth at all times, whereas for you truth is still a tradeable commodity. Because you are still strongly attached to all these others worldly pleasures, you are only willing to place value on truth to the degree that it doesn't interfere with them.

Your love of truth is still piecemeal, while your love of pleasure remains absolute.

But it doesn't, because the individual making this realization is just as illusionary as everything he just dispelled. It's like living in a totally red room with red-tinted glasses on. Go ahead and have a big old Leeeroy Jenkins of an epiphany and take off the red-tinted glasses. What changed?

Rent still needs to be paid, dishes still need to be washed, personal and psychological conflicts still need to be resolved, fish still fries in the kitchen, and beans still burn on the grill. What you get from QRS-style "Rational Enlightenment" is not just the truth, but also an illusion as bad or worse than the one you just got rid of. Namely, you get the illusion that as a person who understands basic logic and Eastern philosophy, your life will now be somehow fundamentally different. But the difference is created entirely by this faith rather than by any effect of the rational realization itself.

I responded to this in another thread, but it is worth repeating:

The kind of enlightenment I am talking about can only be reached by a transformation of consciousness. It does involve a radical change of mind - not a sudden change, but a gradual, almost imperceptible change over time. By the end of it, one has a very different subjective relationship to the rest of the universe than before.

That you haven't experienced this transformation yourself doesn't surprise me. It is consistent with my contention that your insight into Reality is narrow and not all that deep. You are still trying to reach for it while retaining normal, conventional consciousness. Thus, your reach is restricted.

This is where the role of attachments come into play. By remaining attached to the core mindset which values love, women, happiness, pleasure, etc, you are preventing your mind from undergoing the transformation which is needed to truly breakthrough into the Infinite.

This is why the great spiritual teachers of the past have always stressed the need to give up all attachments and abandon the world.

"No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God", said Jesus with great insight.

-

What if love, women, happiness, pleasure, is part of one's understanding of emptiness?

Isn't emptiness really the self?

Whether it is wise to engage with certain women, is a matter of personal wisdom, isn't it? Didn't Jesus teach that God is love? Doesn't pleasure arise from nowhere?

[edit: coherence]

David wrote:

Like most rants, Unidian's piece above is overly-emotional and not very coherent. When you actually examine it, very little of it makes any sense.

Couldn't agree more.

I just love it when women with penises come onto this forum and claim to be defending men with cunts!

.

Steven Coyle wrote:What if love, women, happiness, pleasure, is part of one's understanding of emptiness?

Isn't emptiness really the self?

Whether it is wise to engage with certain women, is a matter of personal wisdom, isn't it? Didn't Jesus teach that God is love? Doesn't pleasure arise from nowhere?

After an understanding of the Infinite, one essentially is free to decide which path is most suitable for their own individuality?

No?

What the?

A1. No.
A2. No.
A3. Did he?
A4. Yeah, just like the universe...
A5. Why?
A6. No!

There. We're all duly enlightened, now.

.

David Quinn wrote:
The kind of enlightenment I am talking about can only be reached by a transformation of consciousness. It does involve a radical change of mind - not a sudden change, but a gradual, almost imperceptible change over time. By the end of it, one has a very different subjective relationship to the rest of the universe than before.

Mr. Quinn. Do you believe that your brain is biologically different than most humans? Has there been a biological change in your brain?

Consider this PBS presentation

Have you read much about mirror neurons and the role they play in empathy?

I don't see you as really having much empathy Quinn, nor do I ever really sense malice in your writings. And I don't think this is neccesarily a bad thing.

So how is it Quinn?

Perhaps your mirror neurons are still working like anyone elses, except the sports game you are watching, and the team you are rooting for, is on a more cosmic plane.

David Quinn wrote:
Enlightenment is the fruit of practicing these truths. If one simply keeps them as dry intellectual formulas in the safe distance of the imagination, the nothing will ever come of it.

Enlightenment is not the fruit of anything, practice, mental or physical. It is not conditional.

The kind of enlightenment I am talking about can only be reached by a transformation of consciousness. It does involve a radical change of mind - not a sudden change, but a gradual, almost imperceptible change over time. By the end of it, one has a very different subjective relationship to the rest of the universe than before.

The kind of enlightenment you talk about seems like a little transient experience that is wrapped up in a strange belief system...

Having a mental transformation of any sort doesn't produce enlightenment anymore than having a muscular transformation produces it, or face surgery. Its not conditional.

First of all there is no 'self', to transform, just as in there is no 'self' that is reborn. Transforming the mind is as irrelevant as transforming the body.

Enlightenment isn't born, created, realized, or produced..or grasped, or believed in. It doesn't require your understanding.

=[

Ofcourse this isn't your fault, your beliefs are all conditional, and so is your behaviour, just like my words are here, and like your response will be, or lack of response.

:]

Your love of truth is still piecemeal, while your love of pleasure remains absolute.

This is certainly the case with me. Why, because as we impermanent, then we should strive to seek pleasure, using rational means, and recognising that suffering will also be an outcome.

If we could be permanent, then sure, we'd have to be responsible for the future, and thus we'd have to higher state of personal control. But we are responsible for nothing apart from what we subjectively decide to be responsible for, wqhich is the quality of our own future. Caring about the future of the human race is thus just an ego trip. You're more or less using the same old religious afterlife guilt trip on people.

Should we be missing out on some sort of special feeling that enlightenment brings, and I have zero doubt that there is such a thing, then the ratio of hells to heavens must not be high enough for us to sufficiently desire it's calm waters or to tire of being on the high seas.

Admittedly, as we age, or evolve truthfulness, joys and pleasures fade away anyway, so the calm waters as a home become more attractive.

hades wrote:Enlightenment is not the fruit of anything, practice, mental or physical. It is not conditional.

...

Enlightenment isn't born, created, realized, or produced..or grasped, or believed in. It doesn't require your understanding.

Could you explain your concept of unconditional enlightenment that does not require understanding? So far, the concept looks quite backwards to me.

hades,

Enlightenment is not the fruit of anything, practice, mental or physical. It is not conditional.

What did people see in Gotama Buddha? Why was he considered enlightened -- and others not -- and how did he get that way?

David Quinn wrote:It is you who is constantly reintroducing "inherent existence" through the back door, via your attachment to women, pleasure, love, etc. These things can only be enjoyed if one has a belief that they are real and significant in some way, which is inconsistent with the knowledge and experience of emptiness

In what way are women, pleasure, and love not real?

And significance is a question of the values a person holds. If I think cheese is the most significant thing in my life, then it is, whatever anyone else might say. If you think enlightenment is the most significant thing, then it is, for you, but not necessarily for anyone else.

Hi David, thanks for the response. I'm going to address your comments only, for now. I don't have time to respond to the others who offer "read more QRS" or "you're a woman" rather than substantive argument.

David Quinn wrote:Like most rants, Unidian's piece above is overly-emotional and not very coherent. When you actually examine it, very little of it makes any sense.

For example:

Nat: For QRS, "the big things" revolve around understanding A=A as the basis of consciousness and conventional existence, realizing the nature of dependent origination, dispelling the illusion of inherent existence, and so on. They insist that in so doing, one attains "rational enlightenment" and escapes from suffering as the Buddha promised long ago.

But the QRS approach ignores the fact that becoming a philosopher-hermit is far from the only possible way to behave in the wake of the realization they urge us to attain. In fact, there an unlimited number of potential ways to go after attaining QRS-defined "enlightenment." It is only if one accepts QRS' premises about what one "should" do with this realization that their path offers any kind of well-defined outcome (woman-bashing hermitude). And while the basic metaphysical realization they define as "enlightenment" may be rationally derived, their premises about what one should do with it are not. They are simply a hodgepodge of value judgements tacked on at the whim of the authors and presented as Gospel.

DQ: This is untrue. The value judgments made on this forum, by me at least, are the logical consequence of valuing the truth of emptiness. There is nothing hodge-podge about them.

Perhaps - but you ignore the fact that other logical consequences may follow as well. Based on your own value judgments, you choose a particular set of behaviors and attitudes consistent with an intellectual understanding of reality and present them as if they were the only consistent set. This is religious dogma, plain and simple.

Nat: QRS enlightenment is easy. If you accept the following statements, you have it:

1. All things are dependent upon other things for conventional existence. (A=A). A tree is a tree because it is defined by everything that is not a tree. Beyond this relational, mind-dependent distinction, it has no a priori existence.

2. All "things" are so constructed. Because all things exist exist conventionally, none exist inherently or ultimately.

3. The ego is the concept of inherent existence as applied to the self, or the individual person. It is analogous to "the soul."

4. Because nothing, including the self, exists inherently, the ego is a false concept. Individual existence as a concept is only conventional and has no ultimate reality. Ultimate reality, which is the true nature of all things, is an infinite totality which cannot be conceptualized and appears as "emptiness" in terms of thought and language. Badda bing, badda boom.

DQ: Enlightenment is not simply a matter of recognizing and accepting these basic truths. Rather, it is an experiential reality which can arise after one has implemented these truths to transform one's entire existence.

Then why do you call it "Rational Enlightenment," David? "Experiential realities" and "transformational experiences" have nothing to do with rational deduction. Rather, they have to do with an intuitive, extra-rational approach, just as Zen and Taoism insist. And yet, here you are preaching "enlightenment through logic" in what I perceive to be a big bait-and-switch game.

Enlightenment is the fruit of practicing these truths. If one simply keeps them as dry intellectual formulas in the safe distance of the imagination, the nothing will ever come of it.

Indeed, but you are not the sole arbiter of how one can consistently practice one's understanding. The trouble with your approach is that you insist on promoting your own values as the sole valid form of practice. That is why you are a religious fundamentalist.

Nat: They then superimpose their own values on the whole thing and declare that "if you truly have the realization of enlightenment, you will behave and believe in such-and-such a manner. If you aren't behaving and believing that way, you don't have it." Fascinating, Mr. Spock. If pressed, they will appeal to their own authority and declare that only they can pronounce people enlightened or unenlightened, because they are enlightened themselves. I'll take self-referential circular logic for $1000, Alex. Oh goody, that's today's Daily Double!

DQ: It's no different to what you are trying to do here. You are judging my own behaviour negatively on the basis of your own understanding of truth.

Incorrect. I'm not judging your behavior negatively. I think you have every right to practice as you see fit; to have your own value system and to apply it in your own life. What you do not have a right to do, IMO, is present that value system as the only one consistent with an understanding of the ideas presented in traditions like Zen and Taoism - particular when Zen and Taoism themselves disagree with you. Both Zen and Taoism are vigorously anti-intellectual in their approach to insight, and Taoism in particular extensively praises the feminine aspect of human consciousness. There is nothing in the Zen or Taoist traditions to suggest either "Rational Enlightenment" or anti-feminism. And yet, you preach both of these as if they were not only consistent with Zen and Taoism, but required by them.

That is a false teaching.

Everyone does this. It is a natural functioning of the mind. The only difference with the sage is that his understanding of truth is authentic and his judgments are unflinchingly consistent with this understanding. They aren't emotional in nature, or reliant on the authority of another, such as Lao Tzu.

Ah. Is proclaiming yourself superior without actually including a valid argument in the entire paragraph a tactic that generally works for you? If so, I'd question the critical thinking skills of your audience.

Nat: But here in reality, there are any number of ways to go once one has "attained" the big "realization" at the center of all things QRS. And really, in my view, it isn't necessarily such a big realization, anyway. Okay, so things are conventional, nothing exists "in and of itself," and my sense of inherent selfhood is a big fat whopper. That and $2.00 will buy me a cup of coffee. "What is the Buddha," asked a student. "A dried shit stick," replied Ummon. That sort of response is where the true tradition of Zen and QRS doctrine part ways.

DQ: If such words are uttered in a mindless, clumsy attempt to be Zennish, then yes, we do indeed part ways. It is all too easy to knock off those sorts of clever, nonsensical responses. Anyone can develop the knack without having any understanding.

That's a big "if," although I'm sure it's no problem for you. Assuming that others lack understanding when they disagree with you is probably the single most noteworthy aspect of QRS argument. Still, are you quite sure that's all I'm doing? Just saying things like "Katz" and "toilet brush" in a "mindless" effort to be "Zennish?"

I guess you have to hope so.

In some circumstances, when a student has a certain attachment to a particular world-view, or is the victim of rigid thinking, it might be appropriate to throw him off balance with something out of left field. You can use a Zennish technique to shock him out of his easy complacency. But such circumstances are relatively rare.

Agreed. It hasn't worked on you yet, for example. :)

To go around the place mindlessly bantering these nonsensical responses in the belief that it is an expression of the highest wisdom is deluded to the extreme. The Zen Masters of old would be rolling around in the grave at such foolish behaviour.

I have no "belief" that it is "an expression of the highest wisdom" or in the concept of "the highest wisdom" itself. That's the whole point. And as far as the Zen Masters of old rolling around in their graves, I'm pretty sure a trip to Genius Forum would give them more exercise than a triathlon.

At bottom, it's a case of conventional people with ordinary worldly attachments trying to dismantle the mechanism and power of reason in order that they might continue enjoying their worldly attachments in peace. That is the true purpose of mindless Zennish banter. It is an attempt to throw a spanner in the process of truthful thinking and bring it to halt.

O RLY? Since halting all thinking about the nature of Reality in order to make room for an intuitive, non-conceptual, experiential transformation is also the entire point of Zen, would you like to finally remove the Zen and Taoist references from your QRS materials? I don't mind if you keep the traditional Buddhist references, Jnani yoga, Advaita, or whatever, since all of these approaches do place some value on philosophical enterprise. But Zen and Taoism don't. Their whole purpose is to help people throw out and "unlearn" everything they have learned from teachers like QRS.

The idea isn't to hold onto "worldly attachments" or women or any of that. It is to drop our attachment to viewing rationality as a path to "Ultimate Truth." Authentic Zen and Taoism are the antithesis of the approach preached at Genius Forum.

Nat: Why so dismissive? Primarily because QRS and most of the other evangelistic "enlightenment" types make a fundamental error in their thinking - one which is tantamount to reintroducing "inherent existence" through the back door, to their own benefit. They implicitly assign the individual a "more real" status by presuming that the individual's realization of the illusionary nature of all things (including one's own inherent existence) means a hill of beans.

DQ: Actually, the complete opposite is the case. It is you who is constantly reintroducing "inherent existence" through the back door, via your attachment to women, pleasure, love, etc. These things can only be enjoyed if one has a belief that they are real and significant in some way, which is inconsistent with the knowledge and experience of emptiness.

I disagree. How does it follow that one must have "a belief that they [things] are real and significant in some way" to enjoy them? A small child has no such belief, and enjoys things quite naturally. A dog has no such belief, and yet it is thrilled to play Frisbee in the driveway. A person who "gets" Zen and Taoism has no such belief, but they have a smile and a ready laugh, as both traditions stress repeatedly (particularly in the Chuang Tzu and some of the Zen anecdotes).

You are preaching your values as religious dogma again, David.

This is our real point of difference. I demand that people be consistent with the truth at all times, whereas for you truth is still a tradeable commodity. Because you are still strongly attached to all these others worldly pleasures, you are only willing to place value on truth to the degree that it doesn't interfere with them.

No. For me, "Truth" is nothing but a word. I have no belief or faith in it. Like Socrates, I know nothing. "The truth" is two syllables, eight letters and a space tapped on a keyboard, or two small puffs of air expelled from the mouth of what Philosophaster might call a "babbling mammal." I am not interested in "The Truth." I'm interested in the Tao.

Your love of truth is still piecemeal, while your love of pleasure remains absolute.

This is another bald assertion which you not only have no way of knowing, but which will be seen as quite wide of the mark by anyone here who actually "gets" Zen and Taoism, rather than using them as credibility-boosting launching pads to preach self-serving religious dogma. When you met the Buddha on the road, you not only killed him, you stole his bike and his driver's license, which you used to commit philosophical identity theft.

Nat: But it doesn't, because the individual making this realization is just as illusionary as everything he just dispelled. It's like living in a totally red room with red-tinted glasses on. Go ahead and have a big old Leeeroy Jenkins of an epiphany and take off the red-tinted glasses. What changed?

Rent still needs to be paid, dishes still need to be washed, personal and psychological conflicts still need to be resolved, fish still fries in the kitchen, and beans still burn on the grill. What you get from QRS-style "Rational Enlightenment" is not just the truth, but also an illusion as bad or worse than the one you just got rid of. Namely, you get the illusion that as a person who understands basic logic and Eastern philosophy, your life will now be somehow fundamentally different. But the difference is created entirely by this faith rather than by any effect of the rational realization itself.

DQ: I responded to this in another thread, but it is worth repeating:

The kind of enlightenment I am talking about can only be reached by a transformation of consciousness. It does involve a radical change of mind - not a sudden change, but a gradual, almost imperceptible change over time. By the end of it, one has a very different subjective relationship to the rest of the universe than before.

Agreed. But the kind of "enlightenment" you are talking about doesn't have much to do with the kind talked about in Zen and Taoism. The gradual change which takes place in these authentic traditions is an ongoing abandonment of all beliefs, views, positions, and thoughts about "Ultimate Reality," while the transformation which occurs in the QRS approach is exactly the opposite.

That you haven't experienced this transformation yourself doesn't surprise me. It is consistent with my contention that your insight into Reality is narrow and not all that deep. You are still trying to reach for it while retaining normal, conventional consciousness. Thus, your reach is restricted.

And I'm a dumb-butt poopy-head, too.

Got anything substantive, rather than self-serving aspersions which you cannot reasonably make in any case?

This is where the role of attachments come into play. By remaining attached to the core mindset which values love, women, happiness, pleasure, etc, you are preventing your mind from undergoing the transformation which is needed to truly breakthrough into the Infinite.

I'm not seeking to "breakthrough into the Infinite," nor to "attain enlightenment," nor to "find the true path," etc. I recently unlearned all of that, hopefully (and in all likelihood) once and for all. No goal, no path, no attainment.

This is why the great spiritual teachers of the past have always stressed the need to give up all attachments and abandon the world.

"No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God", said Jesus with great insight. -

And no one who thinks there is a "back" or a "forward" is serving in it.

Unidian wrote:Then why do you call it "Rational Enlightenment," David? "Experiential realities" and "transformational experiences" have nothing to do with rational deduction.

What is irrational about taking experience into consideration?
.

In authentic Zen, experience is not "taken into consideration." Consideration (conceptualization) is dropped entirely and only unconditioned experience remains. That is what is meant by "mountains are once again mountains" and "chop wood, carry water."