GENIUS FORUMS

Nat,

I do appreciate the academic perspective as I have not studied all the (er, much of the) academic side - but could you answer the question as it stands?

What, if anything, is irrational about thinking about what is experienced? It seems pretty basic to me that understanding Reality comes from understanding reality, and in order to understand reality (i.e., determine if what is thought to be perceived is really real or a misperception), one must think about what is really going on.

He thinks he can experience the totality by not forming any concepts about anything in his immediate experience, but that has nothing to do with enlightenment.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Nat,

I do appreciate the academic perspective as I have not studied all the (er, much of the) academic side - but could you answer the question as it stands?

Huh? What is academic about this? I'm a college dropout and I couldn't name more than five cities in India. I couldn't care less about academic understandings. I'm not talking here about an "academic" approach to Zen and Taoism, I'm talking about an authentic one.

I understand that David Quinn labels authentic approaches as "academic" ones (as he did in the infamous debate with Robert Larkin). But that's just what he does to dismiss the glaring differences between what everybody else means by Zen and what he means by it.

What, if anything, is irrational about thinking about what is experienced?

Nothing. It just doesn't lead to "enlightenment," according to Zen and Taoism.

It seems pretty basic to me that understanding Reality comes from understanding reality, and in order to understand reality (i.e., determine if what is thought to be perceived is really real or a misperception), one must think about what is really going on.

Sure, but that only allows one to understand phenomenal (conditioned) existence, not noumenal (ultimate) reality. The intellect has no path to noumenal reality. This is heavily stressed in Zen and Taoism.

Matt Gregory wrote:He thinks he can experience the totality by not forming any concepts about anything in his immediate experience, but that has nothing to do with enlightenment.

Agreed, it has nothing to do with "enlightenment." And happily so, because I'm no longer interested in enlightenment, Nirvana, moshka, sticky buns, toilet brush, or any other words.

Matt, he got you there. He's already expressed that he has no interest in Truth. Why should he be interested in an understanding of Reality?

There's really no way to convince someone to value truth once they have firmly decided not to. But there's also no reason to take anything they say seriously after that. It's a complete waste of time.


Eliza, so you don't get confused by his metaphysics, he wrote a half-truth here (which is much more dangerous than an outright lie):

Sure, but that only allows one to understand phenomenal (conditioned) existence, not noumenal (ultimate) reality. The intellect has no path to noumenal reality. This is heavily stressed in Zen and Taoism.

In Chapter Six of Wisdom of the Infinite, DQ wrote:
"In the final analysis, there are only two things we can know about the hidden void for sure - namely, (a) that it is not nothingness and (b) that it possesses the capacity to create the construction in which we live. To know anything more than this is impossible - for anyone or anything. Not even the hidden void itself can know anything more about it. For there is literally nothing more to know. As such, our understanding of what lies beyond consciousness is now complete."

This hidden void is the nouemenon: just as Uni said, there is no way for the intellect to understand it.

However, Uni was being misleading when he called the phenomenal the conditioned and the noumenal the ultimate (the synonym he used for "unconditioned"). The noumenon is not the only unconditional aspect of Reality. Truth, for instance, is unconditional, but it is neither noumenal nor phenomenal (since it is neither a cause of existence, nor an existent).

Unidian wrote:Huh? What is academic about this? I'm a college dropout and I couldn't name more than five cities in India. I couldn't care less about academic understandings. I'm not talking here about an "academic" approach to Zen and Taoism, I'm talking about an authentic one.

I understand that David Quinn labels authentic approaches as "academic" ones (as he did in the infamous debate with Robert Larkin). But that's just what he does to dismiss the glaring differences between what everybody else means by Zen and what he means by it.

What, if anything, is irrational about thinking about what is experienced?

Nothing. It just doesn't lead to "enlightenment," according to Zen and Taoism.

The awareness of the bulk of information about what everybody else says that Zen and Taoism says and the ability to recount it is what I meant by "academic." It doesn't matter to me if you got it from a college or wherever. BTW, I don't consider "academic" to be a dirty word. :) It's just a descriptor, and now I've described what I meant by the descriptor.

I have a distaste for the term "enlightenment" anyway because of all the baggage the word carries. What matters to me is understanding Reality and good accordance with It.

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."

This Zen stuff is as polarised as is David's rational enlightenment [and I am not convinced that the enlightenment "goodness" only results as a outcome of some sort of carthisis of some of the brain tools - we either turn the cognifive swtich off, or we turn the emotional switch off through the power of self-suggestion and experience].

No think and think. I reject both ways. Surely there is a balance more towards the middle, though in this complex world a leaning towards the rational end is necessary. [Religious people [who actually believe], and those who share the value of unearnt equality for all, lean towards the emotional end, which is why they cause destruction, they seek to fulfilll transient emotions to too high a degree. Deciding which desires to fulfill must always be done rationally and with consideration for long term outcomes].

The more one is balanced towards the middle, by controlling intellectualisation of specifics, and controlling the desires that lead to emotions, the greater their chance of survival (on average anyway, external factors like wars intrude). This is just the nature of things, this is how things appear, and in us emotions drive the act of creation and desctruction. Rationality limits the degree of destruction and tempers the desire for excessive creation.

Both are essential and equally valid, but not if polarised. For a start a deeply rational-only sage becomes too distanced from others because of a lack of emotion, which affects the content of twhat they say, and their abilty to pass rational ways of thinking to others is hampered. It becomes a fight between a polarised viewpoint, who is not prepared to accept anything other than their own position, it is the right one for them, and a position that is more balanced, and thus more resilient, defensive and reflective of any polarised viewpoints.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Eliza, so you don't get confused by his metaphysics, he wrote a half-truth here (which is much more dangerous than an outright lie):

Sure, but that only allows one to understand phenomenal (conditioned) existence, not noumenal (ultimate) reality. The intellect has no path to noumenal reality. This is heavily stressed in Zen and Taoism.

Yeah, I get it that he is just saying his view, which he believes because it is supported by old texts and lots of people, whereas David said what he said because that was the extent of his own thinking it through.

Nat doesn't want to push the envelope any further today, so I'm letting it drop there, and with an appreciation for his participation and gratitude for sharing some information about what the mainstream says. I don't consider him "misleading" because I recognize what he was sharing.

Unidian wrote: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.

I'm absolutely sure you are using terms like "Katz", "toilet brush", and "sticky buns" in an effort to be "Zennish". It's the perfect defense mechanism for you. Not only does it require you to not think too deeply about the matter at hand, you also get the feeling you are doing something noble through the use of them. Like I said to you before, it is absolutely disgusting. I get a pit in my stomach thinking about it.

You are like a child who found his father's shotgun. You simply aren't in the right state of mind to use it properly without killing yourself and anyone else you come into contact with. Please, put the gun down, your future lives are at stake!

Nat: 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 seems absolutely consistent with what existence is, which is, just is. In any case, any realization is absolutely personal, that no other may ever actually know, for it cannot be verbalized.

I know nothing about Zen, but in my opinion, what follows once what you say really becomes ones mental state, is a sense of real freedom from the shackles of mental exercise that initially arose due to the dissatisfaction of not knowing. One now knows; there is nothing to know.

This does not make one not value something; on the contrary, there is nothing that one does not value, naturally.

BTW, Jamesh, your post does make sense.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: Yeah, I get it that he is just saying his view, which he believes because it is supported by old texts and lots of people, whereas David said what he said because that was the extent of his own thinking it through.

How condescending. The implication here is that I only parrot other people's words with no genuine understanding of my own, while heroic David has done the work of thinking it through for himself.

Completely wrong, but I don't think I'm going to convince anyone here of that.

Nat doesn't want to push the envelope any further today, so I'm letting it drop there, and with an appreciation for his participation and gratitude for sharing some information about what the mainstream says. I don't consider him "misleading" because I recognize what he was sharing.

No, you don't. I'm not parroting or repeating anything "mainstream" or "traditional" here. My viewpoint reflects that of authentic Zen and Taoism not because I mindlessly recite these things with no understanding, but because I've gone down the same path their authors have and reached the same conclusions.

David has reached other conclusions, which he teaches here at Genius Forum. That's fine and he has every right to do so, but his fans should not assume that other viewpoints are not valid, or that those who express them are simply parroting mainstream "academic" things they don't really understand. Contrary to apparent popular belief here at Genius, it is possible to understand Eastern philosophy differently than David Quinn does.

Just ask Thomas Knierim, Robert Larkin, or others who have studied these matters more thoroughly than David has, and who regard him as a laughing stock. Note that I don't regard David quite so dismissively, despite the best efforts of some of his loyal followers (namely Trevor, Nick, and Layla) to dismiss my own viewpoint at every opportunity.

I think I'm about done debating against this church and its congregation for the moment.

Sapius wrote:Nat: 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.

Sapius: This seems absolutely consistent with what existence is, which is, just is. In any case, any realization is absolutely personal, that no other may ever actually know, for it cannot be verbalized.

I know nothing about Zen, but in my opinion, what follows once what you say really becomes ones mental state, is a sense of real freedom from the shackles of mental exercise that initially arose due to the dissatisfaction of not knowing. One now knows; there is nothing to know.

This does not make one not value something; on the contrary, there is nothing that one does not value, naturally.

Exactly right, and well stated. Thank you, you've given me a positive note on which to depart from this thread. :)

"David Quinn and Kevin Solway have developed a new version of pantheism, which they term "mantheism." Asked to comment on the essence of their religion, Quinn stated "it's raining men, hallelujah!" Worship rituals reportedly include a ceremony in which adherents, dressed as members of the Village People, give burnt offerings to Otto Weininger." - Lyrutan

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

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.

Enlightenment is prior to concepts, categories, belief systems, explanations, etc.

Enlightenment has always been unconditional, and thus requires nothing from anyone, including "understanding".

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: What did people see in Gotama Buddha?

I don't know. Perhaps hope?

Why was he considered enlightened -- and others not

What people think is not up to them.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:-- and how did he get that way?

By doing nothing.

Stephen Coyle wrote:

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

Understanding their lack of inherent existence is part of one's understanding of emptiness, certainly. But forming emotional bonds with these things is only reveals an ignorance of emptiness.

To love a finite thing within the Tao is to push away the Tao itself. In effect, you are saying to the Tao, "I have no interest in what you really are; I am only interested in the things you create which give me pleasure." It's a case of treating the Tao as though it were a prostitute.

Whether it is wise to engage with certain women, is a matter of personal wisdom, isn't it?

Or personal lust.

Didn't Jesus teach that God is love?

I've never seen it mentioned in the Gospels. It might be one of those Christian fictions aimed at reassuring women and children at bedtime.

Jesus did say, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."

And, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—such a person cannot be my disciple."

But of course, nobody pays any attention to that.

Doesn't pleasure arise from nowhere?

Emotional pleasure is generated by feelings of dissatisfaction and lack, which is a form of hating the Tao.

-

Uni,

Note that I don't regard David quite so dismissively, despite the best efforts of some of his loyal followers (namely Trevor, Nick, and Layla) to dismiss my own viewpoint at every opportunity.

I didn't completely dismiss your viewpoint until you said you don't care about Truth. It's a habit I picked up after I read a particular book by Aristotle.

In fact, at first I was simply trying to see what you were criticizing, because you weren't saying that what they were saying about existence were untrue ("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 what they are saying is correct, then your criticism must be about their ethics.

But when David defended his lifestyle, you said "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."

Which means you are criticizing what, exactly? You are simultaneously telling him he can practise however he wants but not in the one way that he views as correct. Coming from someone who has no interest in Truth, and spoken to someone who has professed interest in nothing but Truth, this is laughable.

From a purely ethical standpoint, whether or not David's metaphysical notions are correct, I am forced to agree with David -- not out of loyalty, but simply out of the absurdity of your own position.

My viewpoint reflects that of authentic Zen and Taoism not because I mindlessly recite these things with no understanding, but because I've gone down the same path their authors have and reached the same conclusions.

No true Scotman would believe what David believes.

Contrary to apparent popular belief here at Genius, it is possible to understand Eastern philosophy differently than David Quinn does.

That's not the popular opinion here. I've read the Tao Te Ching four times, and each time believed I had a proper understanding of the text although I was reading it differently each time. It's easy to understand it in many different ways.

However, until I looked at it analytically, I did not have the insight to prove that my understanding was complete and accurate.

It is possible to understand philosophic texts incorrectly, especially if you fail to bring logical thought into it.

I think I'm about done debating against this church and its congregation for the moment.

Think carefully: have you ever seen a debate in a church?

hades,

Enlightenment is prior to concepts, categories, belief systems, explanations, etc.

Enlightenment has always been unconditional, and thus requires nothing from anyone, including "understanding".

You are describing autism, not a spiritual accomplishment.

me: What did people see in Gotama Buddha?

hades: I don't know. Perhaps hope?

Read the Diamond Sutra and see if you can find an ounce of hope in it. Pay attention to the part that goes something like: "in the realm of complete nirvana, you shall liberate all beings; but no matter how many beings you liberate, none shall be liberated."

It's nihilistic, not hopeful.

me: -- and how did he get that way?

hades: By doing nothing.

Really? The years as a prince, the years with the ascetics, all those years of hermitude in the wilderness, and the time under the boddhi tree were nothing?

Simon wrote:

DQ: 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.

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

Not to my knowledge.

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?

A quality thinker necessarily has strong empathy for others, as part of his desire to understand human psychology. This involves mentally getting into other people's shoes and understanding, from an insider's perspective, how they tick. However, it is unlikely that he would gush this empathy outwards in the way that, say, women and New Age gurus do.

It is also unlikely that he would behave maliciously to others, as he would be fully aware that people are caused to be the way they are and that they are fundamentally blameless. God is the doer of all things, so to hate a person for what they do is to hate God himself.

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.

In a way, that's true. If I do express any empathy outwards, it usually confined to those who genuinely strive and struggle to lead a truthful life.

-

Trevor wrote:

hades: By doing nothing.

Trevor: Really? The years as a prince, the years with the ascetics, all those years of hermitude in the wilderness, and the time under the boddhi tree were nothing?

You know it makes sense, Trevor. He sat down under the tree with the firm resolve to never get up again until he became enlightened and then did.... nothing.

-

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: You are describing autism, not a spiritual accomplishment.

Autism is conditional :)

But, whatever...believe what you are determined to.

Really? The years as a prince, the years with the ascetics, all those years of hermitude in the wilderness, and the time under the boddhi tree were nothing?

Yep. That was nothing.


As I've said before, enlightenment does not come through practice, meditation, information, understanding concepts, adopting belief systems, or having mystical experiences....it is
Unconditional.

It does not come or go at all.

Little off topic, I had an idea for inventing an "enlightbulb" that doesn't really do much of anything when you flick the switch. Maybe there's a speaker built into it, so if it feels like it, it can say something like "true wisdom can only be found within" or "the path to great understanding is long".

David: indeed.

hades: what is enlightenment?

Only Nature itself is unconditional - i.e. beyond all possibility of being conditioned by something else, and therefore beyond life and death.

Everything else within Nature is conditional, including enlightenment. For example, one of the conditions of enlightenment is the absence of ignorance.

-

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:David: indeed.

hades: what is enlightenment?

The same as who you are.

David Quinn wrote:Only Nature itself is unconditional - i.e. beyond all possibility of being conditioned by something else, and therefore beyond life and death.

Everything else within Nature is conditional, including enlightenment. For example, one of the conditions of enlightenment is the absence of ignorance.

-

You speak of basically, an academic enlightenment. When one gathers certain information(wisdom), and experiences, and rejects other information(delusions)...he will pass the test and get his enlightened-diploma. This isn't authentic, this is more ego, its kinda funny actually.
This will come and go.

Nature itself, is an idea, and so is the idea that there are things "within" nature. Things that aren't exactly "nature". So you already have various degrees of separation and distinction that are products of your imagination....

There is nothing within or beyond Enlightenment, because it is unconditional, complete, and always present.