GENIUS FORUMS

Has anyone other than me heard of this guy?


http://www.anewlife.org/html/vernon_howard.html

tidbits:

http://www.anewlife.org/html/tidbits.html


Wakeup:

http://www.anewlife.org/html/wake_up.html


Open doors to happiness:


http://www.anewlife.org/html/open_doors.html


40 inspiring guides to a new life

http://www.anewlife.org/html/inspiring_guides.html

3 Keys to understanding

http://www.anewlife.org/html/3_keys.html


quote archive:

http://www.anewlife.org/html/quote_archive_1.html


I'd like to hear what the geniuses think

Good things.

Steven,

Good things.

Is this a comment, or are you trying to outdo old Vernon’s folksy mindless prattle?

-
Sue

Cory wrote:

Has anyone other than me heard of this guy?

Well, according to the first link you posted “more than 7 million readers worldwide enjoy his exceptionally clear and inspiring presentations of the great truths of the ages”. You can find his books, booklets, cassette tapes and videotapes in “libraries, bookstores, health food stores and church bookshops all over the country”. His material is widely used by “doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, clergymen, counselors, educators and people from all walks of life”.

All these people “from all walks of life” have found him to be “clear and inspiring” – how do you find him Cory?

--
And for all those world weary travelers out there, just a few of Vernon’s home remedies to sooth the sorrows of your soul:
-
“There is a way out of the human problem and anyone can find it.”
-
“Everything I need to know for self-rescue can be known. Anything I can’t know, it is not necessary for me to know. Self-rescue is all that matters and all knowledge for attaining it is open to my receptivity.”
-
Make a decision to wake up.
Straighten yourself up.
Look around you — see what’s there.
See those people or that person.
Walk alertly and awakedly.
DON’T DREAM.
DON’T DOZE.
DON’T WANDER AROUND.
DON’T RUSH.
This will make you rise above your fears.
It is your duty as a spiritual student to
stop taking orders from low places.
-
Find yourself, for courage and confidence are as easy as breathing to the person who really knows who he is.
-
We are rewarded according to personal effort, like a man who is given as much land as he can walk over during a day.
-
“Inner liberation can be described as a condition in which you no longer take either credit or blame for anything.”
-
Remove the dark cloud of negative thought, and the guiding star of under- standing brightly appears.
-
Foolishness is simply the nervous preference for wrong ideas, like a sailor anxiously hugging a broken compass.
-
“Think about the miracle of saving yourself.”
--

I just can't take anything he says seriously - for everything I've read so far is clearly baseless. It all looks like every other bit of populous drivel that abounds these days.

But I’m perhaps jumping the gun. Was it your purpose, Cory, to expose this trickster, and begin a discussion on the evils of this type of syrupy nonsense?

-
Sue

I'm curious, Sue. Which of those aphorisms contradicts David's teachings? Which of them would he disagree with?

Sue,

It only appears mindless.

Sue wrote:

Was it your purpose, Cory, to expose this trickster, and begin a discussion on the evils of this type of syrupy nonsense?

Let's just say I wasnt expecting Vernon to be met by the G-forum camp with cheer and praise. I was interested in studying the criticism that I deemed was bound to come up.

Vernon Howard I found was a bit of an inspiration to me a few years ago. For him to say that: "the world does not exist, and all of the worlds rewards are worthless" seems hardly syrupy.

Millipodium would call him an evil nihilist, no doubt.

In fact, judging from his work, it seems as if vernon had a bit of a demon guiding him throughout his life's work.

I thought carl asked you a good question sue, and I'm awaiting your response to him.

Sue wrote:

Well, according to the first link you posted “more than 7 million readers worldwide enjoy his exceptionally clear and inspiring presentations of the great truths of the ages”. You can find his books, booklets, cassette tapes and videotapes in “libraries, bookstores, health food stores and church bookshops all over the country”. His material is widely used by “doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, clergymen, counselors, educators and people from all walks of life”.

All these people “from all walks of life” have found him to be “clear and inspiring” – how do you find him Cory?

I find that what he says will help and has helped humanity to behave more maturely and rationally. I think his work is a stepping stone leading people a bit closer to the more stark truths that not everyone has the healthy ego and support group to live with.

VH has a higher ratio of good to bad aphorisms than many gurus. But there's still five trashy, "syrupy" sayings for every truth -- and, some of the good sayings might have been intended differently than I read it (I gave him the benefit of the doubt when I saw a trashy saying that might have been wise).

Some of the things he says are incredibly unenlightened. He talks about increasing one's pain to see through it, but not eliminating both pain and pleasure altogether by dismantling the ego. To build on a metaphor David used a while ago, he's a man standing in the middle of the street yelling at traffic. Since crossing the road is the goal of spirituality, he's more spiritual than the average bloke. But, from the perspective of someone who has crossed the road, he looks like someone who believes that becoming proficient at dodging traffic is the goal of the spiritual man.

So, I would say he has a better-than-average handle on truth, but he's still deluded.

Trevor wrote:

So, I would say he has a better-than-average handle on truth, but he's still deluded.

How do you know that Howard didn’t use wishy-washy quotes to seduce beginners? Some of his quotes are profound, but some are gimmicky.

Perhaps the gimmicky ones were used as the bait to lure in newbies, and the as they toughened up he exposed them to deeper and darker truths.

It is difficult to be absolutely certain what level of consciousness Vernon possessed considering how much of his work is quite profound. There is the tendency in the form to come to concrete judgments without ample evidence. I think we enjoy doing this because it feels good to judge someone as inferior, but perhaps there are mysteries that cannot be known.

For instance men such as Jiddu Krishnamurti and UG krishnamurti have also been criticized as frauds based on personal imperfections, but after all the critcism I've read, I'm still unable to come to an absolute judgment of what they were exactly, it remains mysterious to me.

moral judgments of individuals that are close to the truth is tricky business. This is because all our judgments pass through our own limited knowledge of 'what is' and our own subjective filters.

Judging an individual as clear-minded or deluded when he is incredibly close to the truth appears to be speculation.

Trevor wrote:

Some of the things he says are incredibly unenlightened. He talks about increasing one's pain to see through it, but not eliminating both pain and pleasure altogether by dismantling the ego.

Here is what vernon actually said:

“False spiritual work keeps you comfortable. Real spiritual work makes you uneasy.”

Do you actually think the ego can be ended instantly?

Or does it take time?

If it take time, then it makes sense for a teacher to point out how the spiritual life is one of suffering voluntarily, rather than doing what is comfortable.

As I think even David himself has stressed

However, I do agree that vernon howard is for begginers.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:

So, I would say he has a better-than-average handle on truth, but he's still deluded.

Maybe when he was young he had an insight or two into the nature of reality, but instead of using these insights to develop an understanding of reality, he held on to them, squeezing every single drop out of them so as to construct a life for himself.

-
Sue

p.s. I see that he wrote a book called – “Women: 50 Ways to See Thru Men”. I can’t find that he wrote anything for men about women. Maybe he included women in his “50 Ways to See Thru People”? Has anyone seen any of his writing about women?

I don't think he's for beginners. I think he is good.

Interviewer: Vernon, what is this thing all about that you teach?
Vernon: You might say the basic principle is to become the commander of our own lives, each individual to be in charge of himself, instead of being dictated to and tyrannized by exterior events, including people and circumstances. In other words, to be able to meet all of life — every minute — from yourself, from your true nature (True Self, if you want to use that phrase), so that there is no contradiction and no battle and no disappointment, no hurt when “who you are” meets the exterior event. And that, of course, is a long story in itself, but that’s the basic idea.

That is liberation and enlightenment. Has he attained such a state? I don't think so...but if he can talk about it clearly then good!

In order to truly be the way he suggests, one needs a clear and sharp enough mind to penetrate through any delusion. When you can tackle the problems of the self, there's nothing more to tackle, because they are the deepest rooted delusions. They're the hardest ones to confront...the toughest to unravel and decode.

Understanding that women have a harder time at becoming wise, or the principle of emptiness, doesn't compare. There is still a mound of stupidity which is understanding those things. What Howard addresses directly is your mound of stupidity.

It's kind of retarded how people here think they can say his ideas aren't good enough...for whatever reason. They actually give no reasons. In what way is he addressing beginners? If the people he addresses are beginners then surely most here hasn't even begun yet. Because what he says truly does cut to the core of the issue - our own stupidity.

Carl G wrote:

I'm curious, Sue. Which of those aphorisms contradicts David's teachings? Which of them would he disagree with?

Truth is plain and simple: cause and effect is the creating force of all things, things therefore have no inherent existence. This is all you need to know to begin building a relationship with Truth. You do not need to understand ‘who’ you are, or how to deal with other people. Your main aim is to understand ‘what’ you are – from that understanding you also understand what other people are. In the early stages you may hold Truth as something separate from yourself to help you focus your thoughts towards it, but that doesn’t last long when you gain a deeper understanding of cause and effect. Then, you and Truth are one and the same thing.

From the sites Cory posted, Vernon doesn’t seem to have any understanding of the philosophical consequences of cause and effect. Instead, this slippery character just feeds peoples egos by using a mix of concepts that appease his already gullible readers. He’s able to pull from his bag of tricks ideas that kind of sound deep, but upon closer examination, end up being bits of nonsense. For example:

“A mature mind sees long-distance cause and effect. An immature mind sees only instant ego-gratification regardless of the consequences”

This looks like he is saying something about cause and effect – but is he? What does he mean by “long-distance” cause and effect? His use of that term makes one wonder what he meant by cause and effect? The second section also sounds like he might be making a comment about the ‘ego’ – but what? Is the first section saying something about the non-existence of the ego? It is all too muddled to make head or tail of. But that is because I’m looking at it philosophically. Looking at it away from philosophy, I can see why so many people “from so many different walks of life” love his work. What these people read is concepts that they know very little about, wrapped in phrasing that has a sing-song quality, lulling the reader into agreeing with it even when they don’t really know what it means. This is what makes Vernon so popular – he is a poet - not a philosopher.

-
Sue

Sue,

Maybe when he was young he had an insight or two into the nature of reality, but instead of using these insights to develop an understanding of reality, he held on to them, squeezing every single drop out of them so as to construct a life for himself.

I definitely need to call you out. You always spout out the same rhetoric - yet where is your own insight into the nature of reality? I have not seen ANY understanding from you...ever! You don't ever post truth, Sue. All I ever see is mimickry of David.

You could start by examining a quote of his and telling how it's irrelevent to us....

Show us what leads you to believe he hasn't developed an understanding of reality....

Edit: Here, I see you've tried to communicate a truth...yet is it truth or still mimickry?

Truth is plain and simple: cause and effect is the creating force of all things, things therefore have no inherent existence. This is all you need to know to begin building a relationship with Truth.

It may be the case that knowing the above is all you need to BEGIN building a relationship with Truth. But it certainly won't take someone all the way. Because once they understand the above, they still have all of their other delusions to deal with. They are the same as they ever were.

You do not need to understand ‘who’ you are, or how to deal with other people. Your main aim is to understand ‘what’ you are – from that understanding you also understand what other people are. In the early stages you may hold Truth as something separate from yourself to help you focus your thoughts towards it, but that doesn’t last long when you gain a deeper understanding of cause and effect. Then, you and Truth are one and the same thing.

You haven't reached that level yet, Sue, where you and the Truth are one and the same thing. You are still in the early stages. How do I know this? Because you deny the fact that we have to confront who we are and how to deal with people. Anyone living in society has to do those two things on a daily basis, until their mind is permanently absorbed in Truth alone.

You have to deal with your unconscious tendencies and beliefs sometime. Those inextricably deal with who you are, and who you are involving other people.

Yes...cause and effect and things not having inherent existence are still part of it....but there are delusions to be dealt with. To ignore them and just *believe* doesn't get anyone anywhere.

From the sites Cory posted, Vernon doesn’t seem to have any understanding of the philosophical consequences of cause and effect.

A person who knows the truth doesn't need to philosophically understand cause and effect. They need to know that all things are empty. Being intelligent isn't a prerequisite.

“A mature mind sees long-distance cause and effect. An immature mind sees only instant ego-gratification regardless of the consequences”

This looks like he is saying something about cause and effect – but is he?

No, it doesn't look like he's saying something about cause and effect. Learn how to read in between the lines. I'll give you a scenario: you are driving down the road and someone cuts you off. The immature minded person will speed up to the person who just cut them off, flip them the bird, and cut them back off. The mature minded person knows that if he were to do the immature minded thing, things could escalate and he may end up dying because of road rage. That's just one example.

He isn't talking philosophically. Get your mind out of the gutter. He's speaking from common sense. It's not about semantics, it's about meaning.

What does he mean by “long-distance” cause and effect?

Making an educated guess on all of the consequences or results of an action you take.

Cory wrote:

Sue: Was it your purpose, Cory, to expose this trickster, and begin a discussion on the evils of this type of syrupy nonsense?

Let's just say I wasnt expecting Vernon to be met by the G-forum camp with cheer and praise. I was interested in studying the criticism that I deemed was bound to come up.

What is it about Vernon’s work that made you think that he’d not go down well here?

Vernon Howard I found was a bit of an inspiration to me a few years ago. For him to say that: "the world does not exist, and all of the worlds rewards are worthless" seems hardly syrupy.

Yes, I can see how Vernon’s words could inspire a person to look more deeply into the concepts he uses. It is similar to how some people come to philosophy through Christianity and Buddhism. Of course, you quickly outgrow all these once you develop a clearer understanding of existence. For example, the above quote of Vernon’s. One glance tells me that there is something deeply wrong with this idea of his. What does it mean – “the world does not exist”. Philosophically we know that the world does exist, though not inherently. Looking then at the rest of his sentence - is he saying something about the ‘self’s’ non-existence?

Like I said in my above post, Vernon isn’t a philosopher, he’s a poet – and then, not a very good one.

Millipodium would call him an evil nihilist, no doubt.

If Vernon was what Milli calls an “evil nihilist”, he’d perhaps be more interesting.

In fact, judging from his work, it seems as if vernon had a bit of a demon guiding him throughout his life's work.

Well, he obviously wanted to be popular. That’s a pretty horrifying demon to have prodding you along.

-
Sue

Scott wrote:

Sue: Maybe when he was young he had an insight or two into the nature of reality, but instead of using these insights to develop an understanding of reality, he held on to them, squeezing every single drop out of them so as to construct a life for himself.

I definitely need to call you out. You always spout out the same rhetoric - yet where is your own insight into the nature of reality? I have not seen ANY understanding from you...ever! You don't ever post truth, Sue. All I ever see is mimickry of David.

Yes, that would be odd – me talking about the same Truth as David.

You could start by examining a quote of his and telling how it's irrelevent to us....

I did that in my post to Carl.

Show us what leads you to believe he hasn't developed an understanding of reality....

I also did that in my post to Carl.

-
Sue

Sue,

Yes, that would be odd – me talking about the same Truth as David.

Haha....yeeeeah that's not the case at all. I said you mimick him.

Anyway, I edited my post after I saw your post to Carl.

Sue and the QRS refuse to accept that a heirarchy of truth exists, and that this heirarchy will always be reflected in humanity. Structural heirarchies exist in all things, so why would truth be any different. If it is not their particular brand of truth, it is classed as delusion.

Again it the DELUDED one sided nature of the QRS beliefs about truth that brings about this negative emotional value towards lesser truths. "Only the best will do", for them - but achieving the "best truth" for all, eventually would be as self-defeating as living entirely on Benson and Hedges :)

I thought the majority of what the dude has said as quotes was fine - but it depends on how these quotes are actually explained in his books.

Jamesh wrote:

Sue and the QRS refuse to accept that a heirarchy of truth exists, and that this heirarchy will always be reflected in humanity. Structural heirarchies exist in all things, so why would truth be any different.

I suppose a “hierarchy of truth” would look something like this: Real Truths, Half Truths-Half Lies Truth, and Downright Lies Truth. Or maybe it is more in this vein: 1+1=2, 1+1=3, 1+1=whatever I feel it should equal.

-

A chemist dispensing drugs who knows a little about chemistry is as useful and as dangerous as someone who knows nothing at all about chemistry.

The same goes for Truth. If you do not possess a good understanding of the Truth (i.e. by definition there is only one Truth) all you end up doing is spreading lies.

-

If it is not their particular brand of truth, it is classed as delusion.

Making every “brand of truth” true, even if it is placed on a scale, is the same as dismissing the concept of truth altogether.

Again it the DELUDED one sided nature of the QRS beliefs about truth that brings about this negative emotional value towards lesser truths. "Only the best will do", for them - but achieving the "best truth" for all, eventually would be as self-defeating as living entirely on Benson and Hedges :)

Anyhow, I’m all for “lesser truths” – as long as they are true. But when they are downright lies I can’t be worried about hurting their feelings - I call them how I see them.

I thought the majority of what the dude has said as quotes was fine - but it depends on how these quotes are actually explained in his books.

I’m not surprised that you found most of Vernon’s sayings “fine” – how could you not when you hold that truth is a bottomless pit. But what happens to his sayings that you considered not “fine”? They too must be part of your “hierarchy of truths” – housed in that bottomless pit with everything else.

But what’s this - the sayings “depend” on Vernon’s explanations? Are you now saying that there is a single truth which all things are measured against? Does this mean that you, Jamesh, hold that there is a “particular brand of truth” which you use to judge all other ideas by? Even classing some of those ideas as “deluded”?

-
Sue

Scott wrote:

Sue: Truth is plain and simple: cause and effect is the creating force of all things, things therefore have no inherent existence. This is all you need to know to begin building a relationship with Truth.

Here, I see you've tried to communicate a truth...yet is it truth or still mimickry?

All things come out of other things. Any knowledge I have about what is true and false didn't begin in me, nor will it end in me.

It may be the case that knowing the above is all you need to BEGIN building a relationship with Truth. But it certainly won't take someone all the way. Because once they understand the above, they still have all of their other delusions to deal with. They are the same as they ever were.

What you’re saying here is that a person can understand existence, yet remain as ignorant as they were before they knew it. Do you really believe this to be true?

Sue: You do not need to understand ‘who’ you are, or how to deal with other people. Your main aim is to understand ‘what’ you are – from that understanding you also understand what other people are. In the early stages you may hold Truth as something separate from yourself to help you focus your thoughts towards it, but that doesn’t last long when you gain a deeper understanding of cause and effect. Then, you and Truth are one and the same thing.

You haven't reached that level yet, Sue, where you and the Truth are one and the same thing. You are still in the early stages. How do I know this? Because you deny the fact that we have to confront who we are and how to deal with people. Anyone living in society has to do those two things on a daily basis, until their mind is permanently absorbed in Truth alone.

You seem to be saying that a person who knows the truth about existence can't know their own personality, nor can they understand the nature of other people's existence. This is news to me. How did you come to this conclusion?

You have to deal with your unconscious tendencies and beliefs sometime. Those inextricably deal with who you are, and who you are involving other people.

Until these certain “unconscious tendencies and beliefs” come into your consciousness you can’t do anything about them. When, and if they arise, you can then judge them by what is true, and thereby see them for what they are.

Yes...cause and effect and things not having inherent existence are still part of it....but there are delusions to be dealt with. To ignore them and just *believe* doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Are you saying that knowledge of the fundamental creating force of all things can have no effect on one's delusions?

Sue: From the sites Cory posted, Vernon doesn’t seem to have any understanding of the philosophical consequences of cause and effect.

A person who knows the truth doesn't need to philosophically understand cause and effect. They need to know that all things are empty.

What’s the difference between “philosophically understand cause and effect” and “know that all things are empty”?

Being intelligent isn't a prerequisite.

Yes, I agree. You don’t need a university degree, or to have a high IQ to understand nature. But that doesn’t mean you don’t need to develop intelligence of the fundamental truths of nature, such as cause and effect, things having no inherent nature, and all things being mental concepts.

“A mature mind sees long-distance cause and effect. An immature mind sees only instant ego-gratification regardless of the consequences”

Sue: This looks like he is saying something about cause and effect – but is he?

No, it doesn't look like he's saying something about cause and effect. Learn how to read in between the lines.

If you have to read between the lines, there mustn’t be much substance in the lines themselves.

I'll give you a scenario: you are driving down the road and someone cuts you off. The immature minded person will speed up to the person who just cut them off, flip them the bird, and cut them back off. The mature minded person knows that if he were to do the immature minded thing, things could escalate and he may end up dying because of road rage. That's just one example.

He isn't talking philosophically. Get your mind out of the gutter. He's speaking from common sense. It's not about semantics, it's about meaning.

Yes, I do see that Vernon isn’t the least bit interested in understanding anything about life – which explains why he is so very popular. And yes, I now see that his “common sense” is extremely common – which also explains why he is so popular.

Sue: What does he mean by “long-distance” cause and effect?

Making an educated guess on all of the consequences or results of an action you take.

Vernon’s ‘mature mind’ actually refers to fortune-tellers. Thanks for that.

-
Sue

Sue,

I won't respond after this reply to you because you're wasting my time.

All things come out of other things. Any knowledge I have about what is true and false didn't begin in me, nor will it end in me.

You're right...it began and will end in David.

What you’re saying here is that a person can understand existence, yet remain as ignorant as they were before they knew it. Do you really believe this to be true?

It is true. I understand existence, yet remain deluded. Your version of enlightenment simply involves adding another claim to fame on your ego. It brings no liberation. I know because I've crossed over to your shore, and I've found it to just be like any other shore. You're still a fool no matter if you understand this "truth" or not.

You seem to be saying that a person who knows the truth about existence can't know their own personality, nor can they understand the nature of other people's existence. This is news to me. How did you come to this conclusion?

I certainly didn't say that a person who knows the truth about existence can't know their own personality. What I am saying is that it's essential for that person to know their own personality, otherwise their understanding of truth means nothing.

Until these certain “unconscious tendencies and beliefs” come into your consciousness you can’t do anything about them. When, and if they arise, you can then judge them by what is true, and thereby see them for what they are.

That's a good way of going about it.

Are you saying that knowledge of the fundamental creating force of all things can have no effect on one's delusions?

Yes, it can have no effect on certain delusions. Like the unconscious tendency to become nervous when seeing a beautiful woman...that's a delusion right there. A person who knows the fundamental creating force of all things can still have that.

What’s the difference between “philosophically understand cause and effect” and “know that all things are empty”?

Philosophical expositions on cause and effect came about from the enlightened perspective of emptiness. It's not a prerequisite to be able to expound on cause and effect in order to see that all things are empty. This is why I said "being intelligent isn't a prerequisite." To which you said:

Yes, I agree. You don’t need a university degree, or to have a high IQ to understand nature. But that doesn’t mean you don’t need to develop intelligence of the fundamental truths of nature, such as cause and effect, things having no inherent nature, and all things being mental concepts.

It does mean that you don't need to develop such concepts. They should appear naturally as a result of enlightenment. Those aren't prerequisites to the moment of awakening.

If you have to read between the lines, there mustn’t be much substance in the lines themselves.

False conclusion. That's like saying Aesop's fables contain no wisdom, just because they aren't immediately understandable. Sometimes people convey truth differently than the philosopher. A philosopher who doesn't understand this, in my opinion, shouldn't be called a philosopher at all but merely a wordsmith.

Yes, I do see that Vernon isn’t the least bit interested in understanding anything about life – which explains why he is so very popular. And yes, I now see that his “common sense” is extremely common – which also explains why he is so popular.

If you think common sense is actually common you are wrong. Common sense is wisdom in action. Very few people have it.

I don't know if Vernon is all that popular. I had never heard about him until yesterday. You say you see that he's not interested in understanding anything about life...I'd say the same about you, Sue. All you do is mimick David's style and words. You're like a machine.

Vernon’s ‘mature mind’ actually refers to fortune-tellers. Thanks for that.

I'm not a fortune teller if I choose not to run into a bank with a loaded shotgun, because I can think of the consequences. I'm just a person who makes an educated guess at what will happen as a result of my action.

Like I said before, this conversation is over now. Even if you by chance made an intelligent reply, I won't reply back to it because I know what you're made of, Sue. I only hope the rest of the readers can see it as well.

What's the deal with the widespread usage of argumentum ad hominem, on this forum?

sschaula wrote:

Are you saying that knowledge of the fundamental creating force of all things can have no effect on one's delusions?

Yes, it can have no effect on certain delusions. Like the unconscious tendency to become nervous when seeing a beautiful woman...that's a delusion right there. A person who knows the fundamental creating force of all things can still have that.

The 'Genius forum', eh? The "unconscious tendency to become nervous etc., etc.," is not a delusion.

kowtaaia wrote:What's the deal with the widespread usage of argumentum ad hominem, on this forum?

People argue here, and what is ad hominem seems to be a matter of opinion.

Please specify what you consider ad hominem by citing specific examples.