To David Quinn: two worries

ataxas · Post by **ataxas** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:03 pm

I posted these objections in another thread, and it was suggested I draw attention to them by giving them their own topic.

ataxas wrote:On reading David Quinn's website quite thoroughly, and especially, carefully perusing his "formal" debate with Robert Larkin, I have a question that was never properly answered, and I felt that the title of this thread leant itself naturally to the topic of the question.

Let us say that the majority of the human race is in state A, and a few individuals are in state B. (I am absolutely sure that nearly any-body on this forum knows precisely the implications of my "toy" scenario.) Let us call those in state A "Aians", and those in state B, "Bians".

Those in state A have a "mind" (however you like to define it, Cartesian or not) coloured by the assumptions associated with state A, whatever those may be. Those in state B are likewise coloured by the assumptions associated with B.

Now, these "assumptions" may be restrictive, or not; I would like to say that a lack of an assumption p that is associated with one state is also an assumption, i.e. notp.

State A has a list of assumptions associated with that state. Not all Aians have all assumptions associated with state A; being in state A is only defined as having at least one assumption associated with state A.

Being in state B is defined as the rejection of all positive assumptions associated with state A; that is to say, not only must a Bian know all the positive assumptions made by every Aian, he must reject all of them; his mind must be coloured by a plethora of notp negative assumptions. That is to say, "It is not the case that matter exists," which is a bare denial of a prime Aian assumption, namely "Matter exists."

Thus, that there are Bians at all seems highly unlikely, as a Bian must be, in effect, a soothsayer, predicting all future Aian assumptions, so that he may deny them, and a perfect historian, remembering all Aian assumptions that are past. He must also be a mindreader, able to be aware of all privately held Aian assumptions that Aians do not share with him. This is my first qualm with enlightenment, as QRS defines it.

My second worry is a question of comparison. Let us assume that the transition from an Aian into a Bian is instantaneous. We must assume such a thing if we do not allow for transitory states such as C or D. It is possible to claim that transitory states between A and B are actually just levels of A and B; this is all well and good, except that one has to decide when a person ceases to be an Aian and begins to be a Bian. The transition must happen, or it will never be made.

How does the transition happen? From Aian to Bian cannot be a step-by-step process; one cannot take Aian propositions and deny them, one by one. It is necessary that the to-be-Bian sees and denies, all at once, every Aian proposition that has been made and ever will be made. There is no time for reflection, here. This process cannot be conscious; conscious thought takes at least some time, and we have no time.

If the newly made Bian is not conscious of this change, how is he to be made conscious? Assumptions are the boundaries of thought; it is precisely for this reason that Aians seek to become "unbounded" Bians. The new Bian was not conscious of the boundaries of his thought when an Aian. It is impossible for him to imagine a world from his old Aian point of view (remember the old adage "you can't think yourself stupider").

If it is impossible for a Bian to see from an Aian point of view, how can the Bian declare himself changed at all? The boundaries of his thought were outside his thought; they are outside them still. The Bian is bound; he is bound by denial of all Aian assumptions. It seems characteristic of becoming a Bian to not know that one has become a Bian. True enlightenment would require being able to take any point of view, the wrong and the right; however, p and notp cannot both be true simultaneously (if one believes in objective truth). Enlightenment requires relative truth, but QRS enlightenment requires that the enlightened be objectively so. This is the second problem I have with QRS enlightenment.

ataxas · Post by **ataxas** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:06 pm

ataxas wrote:True enlightenment would require being able to take any point of view, the wrong and the right; however, p and notp cannot both be true simultaneously (if one believes in objective truth). Enlightenment requires relative truth, but QRS enlightenment requires that the enlightened be objectively so. This is the second problem I have with QRS enlightenment.

David Quinn wrote:The ultimate state of enlightenment is only found when one does away with all dualisms.

ataxas wrote:I found a quote of David's that serves to illustrate my qualm. This is precisely what worries me about QRS enlightenment.

1. David is enlightened.
2. David says that "The ultimate state of enlightenment is only found when one does away with all dualisms."
3. David, because he is enlightened, is correct.
4. Unenlightenment is not enlightenment.
5. The co-existence of unenlightenment and enlightenment creates a dualism.
6. When one is enlightened, one sees that there is no "enlightenment" vs. "unenlightenment".
7. Therefore, it is correct to think that there is no "unenlightenment" vs. "enlightenment".
8. Therefore, nothing is "enlightened" or "unenlightened".
9. Therefore David is not enlightened.

This argument is based on the following rules of inference:
1. David is enlightened.
2. To be enlightened is to be unfailingly correct.

Jamesh · Post by **Jamesh** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:49 pm

To me non-dualism always entails some form of totality, while dualism is the break-up of this totality. A thing or effect is always a semi-arbitrary totalisation of some set of causes. Enlightenment is just another such effect. Any totalisation, but one, is semi-arbitrary (the total of all there is, is not arbitrary). An observer of anything will be caused to determine that a thing is whatever it is in that observers mind. A=A. it all depends on the tools the observer can utilise. Memories are just a tool, for the effect, the totalised thingness, that is consciousness.

Enlightenment is a particular way of thinking that is differentiated from non-enlightenment due to the significantly different degree of selflessness attached to the individuals manner of thinking. Selflessness, brought about by emotionally acknowledging absolute truths, offers the ability for an style of thought that is more directly definitional of the All, rather than the one.

Absolute truths, in an A=A context, a face value context, are conceptual generalisations of the type that logically can never be wrong. An absolute truth is also a total, which means it can be divided, but if one does so, that becomes a different A=A effect, and the absolute value of the truth may disappear. For example, "Everything is interconnected" is an absolute truth at face value, but if we delve into this truth, it only becomes true to a degree. We notice that things are only partially interconnected with everything else. If things were 100% connected in all possible ways, differentiation could not exist. To recreate an absolute truth, we have to find complementary truths, such as "things are both wholly caused by, wholly bounded by, and wholly interconnected with other things" or "because of the unquestionable interconnectedness of all things, individual things do not exist in reality, so it is therefore the statement "everything is interconnected", needs to be considered as it is, as an indivisible statement of truth.

Absolute truths allow the development of a purer form of logical thinking, that one can apply when involved in matters dealing with the relationship between things, which are the experiences that arise. When one is considering whether some effect is right or wrong, then to an enlightened person, the defining of right and wrong is not significantly influenced by the emotions that create a feeling of self and an ego.

To me, whether someone is enlightened or not, is irrelevant. Make your own judgment on what they say, or what anyone else says. Don't place trust in the folks like David, but examine closely what they say. I personally find them a bit shallow, as they have no interest in discussing the absolute truths they promote as divided absolute truths, and I've argued with them for years about this. They concentrate on the big picture only, whereas I like to see what makes up the big picture. I'm more interested in being a philosopher that delves into the logistics of fundamental reality, than enlightenment.

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:24 pm

ataxas wrote:David says that "The ultimate state of enlightenment is only found when one does away with all dualisms."

Dualisms are only faulty when they are viewed as inherently existent. This is the only kind of dualism that is rejected.

For example, there are waves that are part of the ocean. If one viewed the waves as existing independently of the ocean, that would be a delusion which should be rejected.

ataxas · Post by **ataxas** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:00 pm

"Enlightenment is a particular way of thinking that is differentiated from non-enlightenment"
It is enough that the differentiation can be made to prove that David is not enlightened.

"Dualisms are only faulty when they are viewed as inherently existent."
Which, when you say that you are something that someone else is not, you are doing. Hence, David is not enlightened.

ataxas · Post by **ataxas** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:03 pm

Jamesh wrote:To me, whether someone is enlightened or not, is irrelevant. Make your own judgment on what they say, or what anyone else says. Don't place trust in the folks like David, but examine closely what they say. I personally find them a bit shallow, as they have no interest in discussing the absolute truths they promote as divided absolute truths, and I've argued with them for years about this. They concentrate on the big picture only, whereas I like to see what makes up the big picture. I'm more interested in being a philosopher that delves into the logistics of fundamental reality, than enlightenment.

I will repeat to you what I said to someone else. I am attempting to show that David Quinn cannot be enlightened, logically: the exact opposite of believing that he is enlightened.

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:10 pm

ataxas wrote:
Dualisms are only faulty when they are viewed as inherently existent.
Which, when you say that you are something that someone else is not, you are doing.

Do you really know the way I view things?

If I talk about a wave, does it follow that I regard it to be an independent existence, separate from the ocean, and inherently existent? No, it does not follow.

Likewise, it is possible to talk about other things without regarding them to be inherently existent. For another example, we might think that a person is a fool, at the same time as knowing that it is no fault of their own that they are a fool. And for another example, we might recognize fully that we ourselves have done wrong, and have committed sin, and be determined to improve our behaviour, but at no time feeling the slightest bit guilty for what we have done.

ataxas · Post by **ataxas** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:28 pm

If David claims that there are persons who are enlightened, and there are persons who are not enlightened, then David is expressing a duality.

If duality exists, David was wrong in claiming that it does not exist.

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:51 pm

If David claims that there are persons who are enlightened, and there are persons who are not enlightened, then David is expressing a duality.

Certainly.

If duality exists, David was wrong in claiming that it does not exist.

If David was claiming that duality doesn't exist, he was only speaking of it in the sense I was above. That is, the normal dualistic world that people experience is a delusion. Such a dualistic world does not really exist and is a mistaken creation of a deluded mind.

But the dualistic world experienced by enlightened people is not a delusion, and does exist.

Kevin, I think that you have mistakenly edited my post, instead of posting your own.

Sorry about that. I hit the wrong button.

ataxas · Post by **ataxas** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:52 am

Kevin,

I see. You are claiming that "all dualisms" does not, in fact, refer to all dualisms, but only dualisms experienced by the unenlightened.

My question is as follows:
1. I am unenlightened.
2. I perceive the dualism inherent in "enlightened" versus "unenlightened".
3. Thus, I experience this dualism.
4. You claims that the dualisms experienced by the unenlightened must be discarded to become enlightened.
5. If this is true, the dualism I perceive, "unenlightened" versus "enlightened", must be done away with, along with all the others.
6. If David is enlightened, he has done away with all of the dualisms I perceive, including the distinction between "enlightened" and "unenlightened".
7. Therefore, if David is enlightened, David cannot perceive that distinction.
8. Therefore, if David claims to be enlightened, he is mistaken.

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:27 am

If David is enlightened, he has done away with all of the dualisms I perceive, including the distinction between "enlightened" and "unenlightened".

The enlightened might use the same words to describe things as the unenlightened, but they mean something entirely different by them.

For example, the term "enlightened" means something completely different for the enlightened person than it does for the unenlightened. Likewise for any other distinction.

Therefore the enlightened and the unenlightened do not share in the same dualism.

For the unenlightened, a "wave", for example, is something that has, to some extent, independent existence. They might become attached to its existence, and then become upset when the wave dies. But the enlightened never view a wave to be other than what it really is, and thus they never become attached.

ataxas · Post by **ataxas** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:22 am

That is irrelevant to my argument. It does not matter what David's definitions of "enlightened" or "unenlightened" are, only that he makes some some distinction between the two.

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:29 am

ataxas wrote:That is irrelevant to my argument. It does not matter what David's definitions of "enlightened" or "unenlightened" are, only that he makes some some distinction between the two.

Enlightenment is not about refraining from making distinctions. It is only about refraining from making false distinctions.

ataxas · Post by **ataxas** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:47 am

Kevin,

You wrote, "The enlightened might use the same words to describe things as the unenlightened, but they mean something entirely different by them."

Let us apply what you wrote to the words "enlightened" and "unenlightened". If, as you say, the unenlightened and the enlightened use the same words to describe dualisms, but mean something entirely different by them, I, as an unenlightened person, think that I am reading your sentence as "The enlightened might use the same words to describe things as the unenlightened, but they mean something entirely different by them," but what you are actually saying is something like, "The (nonsense) might use the same words to describe things as the (nonsense), but they mean something entirely different by them."

But then, who am I to know you think I am unenlightened in the first place? I cannot possibly place myself in the category of "unenlightened", because our definitions of "unenlightened" don't match up. For all I know, your definition of "unenlightened" might be the same as my definition of "enlightened", or "pickle", or "to run", or "the", and ne'er the twain shall meet.

For, every time you attempt to define a word, the words you use to define it will have themselves different definitions to the ones I know.

Then, there is no point to either you or David writing books, or posting in the forum. This very post is useless, as we are speaking different languages, and cannot communicate with each other effectively.

Your sentence poses a paradox. When I read it, it claims that I cannot possibly read it.

ataxas · Post by **ataxas** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:10 am

Kevin Solway, in a different thread wrote:I only speak for myself. I don't know for sure whether Dave and Dan even exist.

If this is the case, then I would appreciate David's presence in a thread addressed to him, as you are unqualified to explain his words.

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:19 am

ataxas wrote:every time you attempt to define a word, the words you use to define it will have themselves different definitions to the ones I know.

The meaning of my words has a very close relationship to the words of others, but is shifted sidewards, as it were - or transformed into another dimension.

Therefore my words should not be entirely meaningless to an unenlightened listener, but the listener will not get the real flavour of them. It would be like trying to smell flowers through a thick sealed plastic bag.

If this is the case, then I would appreciate David's presence in a thread addressed to him, as you are unqualified to explain his words.

I don't know where he is. Perhaps he doesn't really exist after all. Or he might be having computer problems.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:29 am

Maybe David thinks the objection raised in this thread has been too incoherently argued for it to warrant a response. I know I'm having a hard time getting my head around it.

ataxas · Post by **ataxas** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:07 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:The enlightened might use the same words to describe things as the unenlightened, but they mean something entirely different by them.

Kevin Solway wrote:The meaning of my words has a very close relationship to the words of others, but is shifted sidewards, as it were - or transformed into another dimension.

These statements seem to directly contradict each other. A word w, that is entirely different to a word M, can bear no close relationship to it, in ordinary English. An example: The sentence, "A flower is entirely different to a carpet, and a flower bears a close relationship to a carpet," seems contradictory. It follows that either you have contradicted yourself, I am mistaken that your sentences are contradictory, or that your sentences are not in ordinary English (which we have already established).

If the differences were dialectical, like the differences between American and British English, we could use some common expressions to translate those that are uncommon; however, that seems to lead to "cheap" enlightenment (requiring only a few minutes' instruction). If the differences are not dialectical, then there is no close relationship between my words and your words, and you are mistaken.

My second worry with your explanation is as follows: I am not enlightened, thus I cannot know the exact meanings of your words; as you say, the meanings have shifted. However, I maintain that when you attempt to explain how the meanings of your words have shifted from my own, your explanations will necessarily fail, as, no matter how slight the shift, any explanation you give will be shifted.

Imagine the Holy Grail of dictionaries, a dictionary that translates "enlightened" to "unenlightened", in the format of:

enlightened word W, definition of W in unenlightened speech d

(Who could write such a dictionary? For, there is no-one who can be simultaneously enlightened and unenlightened at the same time.)

You have claimed that enlightenment is the removal of some sort of epistemological "filter", as it were. If I were to remove this filter, I would be able to decipher the meaning of enlightened speech, for I would be enlightened.

1. Let us assume at first that this filter is monochromatic, that is to say, one could apply the formula:

x=y/F

Where "y" is a word in unenlightened speech, "F" the value of the filter, and "x" the enlightened word. If I knew the value of "F", I could translate unenlightened speech into enlightened speech, whilst remaining unenlightened. This is of course not possible. Therefore, I do not know "F". Therefore, calculating "x" from "y" is impossible.

2. Let us now assume that the shift, "F", is not constant, but behaves according to some pattern. This has the same problem as 1, but in this case, enlightenment requires knowing both the value of the shift and the formula that dictates its change. All I would know is that "F" could never have a null value (similar to a British mathematician when attempting to understand Enigma-encrypted messages).

3. Let us now assume that the shift "F" is chaotic. Now, not only do I have the same problem as 1, but it is impossible for me to ever become enlightened, or, for that matter, for anyone to become enlightened.

Our dictionary, it seems, is impossible. The translation between my language and yours, therefore, cannot be something that you, the enlightened person, can explain to me. My worry that I cannot understand anything you say is still valid, as even slight shifts in meaning pose insurmountable obstacles, and this

Kevin Solway wrote:my words should not be entirely meaningless to an unenlightened listener

is incorrect.

Therefore, not only can I not understand you if you are enlightened, but because you spoke incorrectly about enlightenment, you are not enlightened.

ataxas · Post by **ataxas** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:21 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:Maybe David thinks the objection raised in this thread has been too incoherently argued for it to warrant a response. I know I'm having a hard time getting my head around it.

This is an interesting objection.

There are three options:
1. My argument is incoherent, and you are enlightened.
2. My argument is coherent, you do not understand it, and you are not enlightened.
3. My argument is coherent, and you are enlightened, but you do not understand my argument.

Kevin seems to understand my argument, and simply does not agree with it.

If my argument is incoherent, then how can Kevin understand it?
If it is coherent, how can you have difficulty understanding it?
If both you and Kevin are enlightened, how is it possible that one may understand an argument, and another not?

No matter what the scenario, it seems that either you or Kevin is mistaken about the coherency of my argument, suggesting that one or the other of you has imperfect understanding. It follows, then, that either:

1. You are not enlightened.
2. Kevin is not enlightened.
3. Enlightenment does not require perfect understanding.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:30 pm

Your notion of what "enlightenment" is contains falsehoods which lead you into logical errors. I may or may not bother to point them out to you. I'll get back to you on that.

ataxas · Post by **ataxas** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:35 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:I may or may not bother to point them out to you.

Why? Have I incurred your disapproval?

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:42 pm

Disapproval? No, not at all. I'll go through the thread carefully and build a picture of the mistakes you're making.

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:48 pm

ataxas wrote:On reading David Quinn's website quite thoroughly, and especially, carefully perusing his "formal" debate with Robert Larkin, I have a question that was never properly answered, and I felt that the title of this thread leant itself naturally to the topic of the question.

Let us say that the majority of the human race is in state A, and a few individuals are in state B. (I am absolutely sure that nearly any-body on this forum knows precisely the implications of my "toy" scenario.) Let us call those in state A "Aians", and those in state B, "Bians".

Those in state A have a "mind" (however you like to define it, Cartesian or not) coloured by the assumptions associated with state A, whatever those may be. Those in state B are likewise coloured by the assumptions associated with B.

Now, these "assumptions" may be restrictive, or not; I would like to say that a lack of an assumption p that is associated with one state is also an assumption, i.e. notp.

State A has a list of assumptions associated with that state. Not all Aians have all assumptions associated with state A; being in state A is only defined as having at least one assumption associated with state A.

Being in state B is defined as the rejection of all positive assumptions associated with state A; that is to say, not only must a Bian know all the positive assumptions made by every Aian, he must reject all of them; his mind must be coloured by a plethora of notp negative assumptions. That is to say, "It is not the case that matter exists," which is a bare denial of a prime Aian assumption, namely "Matter exists."

Thus, that there are Bians at all seems highly unlikely, as a Bian must be, in effect, a soothsayer, predicting all future Aian assumptions, so that he may deny them, and a perfect historian, remembering all Aian assumptions that are past. He must also be a mindreader, able to be aware of all privately held Aian assumptions that Aians do not share with him. This is my first qualm with enlightenment, as QRS defines it.

If the Bians are enlightened, then it means that they are fully aware of the core misunderstanding of reality which traps Aians in delusion. By recognizing and overcoming this core delusion - i.e. the belief in inherent existence - they not only make the transition from Aians to Bians, but they also understand the manner in which all Aians are fundamentally deluded.

My second worry is a question of comparison. Let us assume that the transition from an Aian into a Bian is instantaneous. We must assume such a thing if we do not allow for transitory states such as C or D. It is possible to claim that transitory states between A and B are actually just levels of A and B; this is all well and good, except that one has to decide when a person ceases to be an Aian and begins to be a Bian. The transition must happen, or it will never be made.

How does the transition happen? From Aian to Bian cannot be a step-by-step process; one cannot take Aian propositions and deny them, one by one. It is necessary that the to-be-Bian sees and denies, all at once, every Aian proposition that has been made and ever will be made. There is no time for reflection, here. This process cannot be conscious; conscious thought takes at least some time, and we have no time.

If the newly made Bian is not conscious of this change, how is he to be made conscious? Assumptions are the boundaries of thought; it is precisely for this reason that Aians seek to become "unbounded" Bians. The new Bian was not conscious of the boundaries of his thought when an Aian. It is impossible for him to imagine a world from his old Aian point of view (remember the old adage "you can't think yourself stupider").

If it is impossible for a Bian to see from an Aian point of view, how can the Bian declare himself changed at all? The boundaries of his thought were outside his thought; they are outside them still. The Bian is bound; he is bound by denial of all Aian assumptions. It seems characteristic of becoming a Bian to not know that one has become a Bian. True enlightenment would require being able to take any point of view, the wrong and the right; however, p and notp cannot both be true simultaneously (if one believes in objective truth). Enlightenment requires relative truth, but QRS enlightenment requires that the enlightened be objectively so. This is the second problem I have with QRS enlightenment.

The transition is one of realizing that the delusions of the Aians are purely imaginary.

There is a nice story in Buddhism which illustrates this point, which goes something like this:

A young lion cub gets separated from its pride and becomes lost in the countryside. He is found by a herd of goats, who decide to raise him. Naturally, he grows up thinking he is just another goat and unquestioningly adopts all the mannerisms associated with goat behaviour. Then, one day, as an adult, he meets another lion for the first time and instantly shrinks away in fear, just as any other goat would do. Seeing this, the lion grabs his younger counterpart and drags him to a nearby lake and forces him to look at his own reflection. Instant revelation occurs. The young lion realizes that his life-long belief that he was a goat was purely imaginary and that he had really been a lion all along.

In a similar way, a Bian is simply someone who realizes that being an Aian is purely a construct of the imagination. Aians are really Bians who mistakenly imagine they are Aians. Having said that, the transition (the abandoning of these imaginings) is made far more difficult by the fact that most Aians have, over many years, built up a network of strong emotional attachments that are grounded in these false imaginings. So while it looks easy on paper, the transition actually takes a great deal of persistence, gnashing of teeth and courage.

DQ: The ultimate state of enlightenment is only found when one does away with all dualisms.

Ataxas: I found a quote of David's that serves to illustrate my qualm. This is precisely what worries me about QRS enlightenment.

1. David is enlightened.
2. David says that "The ultimate state of enlightenment is only found when one does away with all dualisms."
3. David, because he is enlightened, is correct.
4. Unenlightenment is not enlightenment.
5. The co-existence of unenlightenment and enlightenment creates a dualism.
6. When one is enlightened, one sees that there is no "enlightenment" vs. "unenlightenment".
7. Therefore, it is correct to think that there is no "unenlightenment" vs. "enlightenment".
8. Therefore, nothing is "enlightened" or "unenlightened".
9. Therefore David is not enlightened.

This argument is based on the following rules of inference:
1. David is enlightened.
2. To be enlightened is to be unfailingly correct.

Kevin has already addressed this with his usual efficiency. The way you are interpreting my statement above might well lead to a contradiction, but your interpretation is over-literal and differs significantly from my intended meaning.

If one tries to do away with all dualisms in the literal sense you are meaning, it can only result in further dualities being created. The distinction between duality and non-duality is itself a duality. So if a person tries to reach non-duality by going beyond the realm of duality in a literal sense, he will only end up creating the conditions for further imprisonment in duality.

Going beyond duality in the sense I mean involves realizing that all dualities lack inherent existence, in the same way that mirages lack inherent existence. It means no longer being spellbound by any kind of duality at all. It is by ceasing to be spellbound by duality that one is able to tune into non-duality. In this way, the sage tunes into non-duality even while continuing to experience dualistic forms in his every waking moment.

-

ataxas · Post by **ataxas** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:45 pm

David,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I am not familiar with the psychological realities of lions, but I imagine that, were a cub to be adopted by a herd of particularly courageous goats, they would swiftly find their philanthropy uncharitably repaid.

In any event, if your parable is intended to shed light on the nature of enlightenment, then surely the goats are enlightened, for they behave and act truly to their nature as goats. They are teaching the lion to be a goat. Or, it could be that enlightenment requires to know the nature of all things, including your own, and to act on that knowledge accordingly. However, if the result is all the same to the goats (they're acting like goats, after all), then they are unconsciously feeling the benefits of enlightenment, which does not seem correct to the definition of enlightenment you wish me to grasp.

If this is a mistaken interpretation, then perhaps the parable suggests that there are different sorts of enlightenment: true goats may lead other goats to enlightenment, true lions may lead other lions to enlightenment, and so forth; we must only take care that we keep the correct company. This, I am sure, is also not the interpretation you intended me to take.

I am fairly certain that the interpretation you intended was exactly as you said, namely,

David Quinn wrote:(The unenlightened) are really (the enlightened) who mistakenly imagine they are (unenlightened).

This puzzles me greatly. Have I only to convince myself that I am enlightened to be enlightened?

David Quinn · Post by **David Quinn** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:29 pm

No, there is a bit more to it than simply engaging in a new false imagining. Enlightenment is the result of abandoning all false imaginings. It means realizing our true nature, which has always been with us, and this only comes about by dismantling all of our false imaginings of ourselves. In other words, the enlightened person becomes aware of a reality that has always been there, but which has previously been obscured by his own false thinking.

-

GENIUS FORUMS

To David Quinn: two worries

To David Quinn: two worries

Re: To David Quinn: two worries

Re: To David Quinn: two worries

Re: To David Quinn: two worries

Re: To David Quinn: two worries

Re: To David Quinn: two worries

Re: To David Quinn: two worries

Re: To David Quinn: two worries

Re: To David Quinn: two worries

Re: To David Quinn: two worries

Re: To David Quinn: two worries

Re: To David Quinn: two worries

Re: To David Quinn: two worries

Re: To David Quinn: two worries

Re: To David Quinn: two worries

Re: To David Quinn: two worries

Re: To David Quinn: two worries

Re: To David Quinn: two worries

Re: To David Quinn: two worries

Re: To David Quinn: two worries

Re: To David Quinn: two worries

Re: To David Quinn: two worries

Re: To David Quinn: two worries

Re: To David Quinn: two worries

Re: To David Quinn: two worries