GENIUS FORUMS

sky wrote:

DQ: just to rub it in he does it all with a big grin on his face

sky: aren't you being a little irrational i don't think he knows you exist

so it is hardly personal

Every aspect of his existence attacks the thing I love most, so it is personal. It is as though he is constantly kicking my mother in the head, while grinning about it.

maybe he is just not miserable

this is a fault from a buddhist

remember the point of buddhism is simply to find the way out of suffering

There are many different ways to escape suffering. Buddhism, as conceived by wise people, is solely about attaining the highest wisdom, which is beyond life and death.

anyway you did not answer my question which i believe is THE RELEVANT QUESTION HERE

i repeat

so let me get this straight

anyone who agrees with you is enlightened and anyone who does not agree with you is not enlightened

I would call a person "enlightened" if his mind has been opened up to the nature of Reality and he can speak the truth with authority.

is it that simple

could that possibly by the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth

There is only one Truth and enlightened people know it fully. Enlightened people can never disagree with each other when it comes to the fundamentals.

-

Tharan wrote:

Ryan Rudolph wrote: My biggest weakness and dishonesty is I have this gift where I can study someone to the point where I know exactly what to say to please them and then I just play with them to entertain myself; And then I derive more gratification just off the thought that the entire ‘show’ is just a manipulation of my own making: it’s quite evil really. Both of us end up being in a state of elation through incredibly dishonest means.

What is strange is that I’m not suffering anymore after dishonest actions; I no longer feel guilt or any sort of negative emotion after I do something I shouldn’t have. I feel like a psychopath; maybe this is why UG krishnamurti lied compulsively to deluded people because he felt absolutely no guilt after doing so; he did it merely for his own amusement and entertainment. However obviously it is dishonest.

The utility of truthfulness is subtle and can sometimes take quite a while to circumnavigate the wave of social experience. To be untruthful, as local causes might seem to endear, can be misleading in terms of outcome. UGK harmed his own credibility and thusly harmed his functional ability of message propagation. It hurts the meme, which is bigger than him as messenger. The speaker is suspect. And most followers are not attunded enough to disregard the messenger and to match the message with what they rightly know to be true. Someone clean must tell them; indeed, if that clean person chooses to tell them.

*edit*
Weird, I was trying to edit an earlier reply.
The=To

Ryan Rudolph wrote:I agree, UG was incredibly sloppy in this regard. He possessed a certain degree of wisdom, but it was almost as if he couldn’t be bothered to go the extra distance and eliminate all imperfections in his behavior and teachings. He assumed he was ‘there’ when he still had work to do. Perhaps this happened because he reached a state where he was no longer suffering and he confused this achievement with the end result of enlightenment, when in fact he needed to continue to expand his reasoning abilities, end untruthful behaviors and work out his teachings into something a little more coherent.

I agree with you, which all lends weight to the argument that "enlightenment" is an entirely subjective experience. But at the same time, it is irrelevant whether one believes one is "enlightened" or not.

If a person were to achieve such a state of perfection, there would certainly be no need to post here. But why not? Yet, if a person were in relative view of The Promiseland, would it not be adequate for the rest of us to answer affirmative and support their quest?

I'll be there soon. When I choose to be. In the meantime, I am a cheerleader for Cause and Effect and the resultant Universe.

yes AND no

sky,

if a person agrees with you he is enlightened

Not necessarily. A person could be agreeing with me without really understanding what I am saying. Or his understanding might only be partial. I would have to be satisfied that his understanding of Reality was authentic, and to do this I would have to closely examine his speech and behaviour.

if a person disagrees with you he is unenlightened

Yes, if a person disagrees with me on the fundamentals, he is unenlightened.

is your mode of enlightement the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth

Yes.

-

i would have to be satisfied

i am sure it comes as no surprise to you that it matters nothing to me whether you are satisfied or not

it is my own satisfaction that matters to me

that you have set yourself up as the ultimate guru means nothing to me

though it is obvious that it means everything to you

fortunately for me there are those subtle and anonymous boddhisatvas whose concern is for every sentient being which whether you like it or not

includes me

Fair enough. If you have the heartfelt desire to reach for the ultimate understanding, and if you are willing to go all the way with your reasoning, then you should have no problems. You won't need me or anyone else.

-

Tharan wrote:

I agree with you, which all lends weight to the argument that "enlightenment" is an entirely subjective experience.

True.

Tharan wrote:

But at the same time, it is irrelevant whether one believes one is "enlightened" or not.

Believing one is enlightened is tricky business. Knowing what is true is important, but keeping the mind open to that state of creating which can only happen when ones mind has surrendered totally is also important.

One needs to be careful that the facts/opinions/knowledge that have been accumulated thus far hasn’t closed the mind off from otherness.

In other words one needs to deeply understand the knowing/unknowing duality.

Ryan wrote:

In other words one needs to deeply understand the knowing/unknowing duality.

That's good. Knowing the differences between, as a partial example, what we actually know, what we have deduced because we only have partial information, and what we don't know, is very important. Knowing that we don't know what we don't know is a step up from just not knowing, which is a huge leap up from thinking that we know when we don't.

Tharan wrote:I agree with you, which all lends weight to the argument that "enlightenment" is an entirely subjective experience.

Could you elaborate some more about why you think enlightenment is a subjective experience?

Tharan wrote:But at the same time, it is irrelevant whether one believes one is "enlightened" or not.

Belief doesn't really have anything to do with it. It's all about knowing with 100% certainty. I also think it's very relevant as to whether one knows with 100% certainty if they are enlightened or not. In fact if one were to be enlightened, they would necessarily have to know that they are enlightened with 100% certainty.

Nick Treklis wrote:

Tharan wrote:I also think it's very relevant as to whether one knows with 100% certainty if they are enlightened or not. In fact if one were to be enlightened, they would necessarily have to know that they are enlightened with 100% certainty.

But do people have to be 100% enlightened to consider themselves enlightened? Some might say that to be 100% enlightened, one would have to be all-knowing. Others define enlightenment in such a way as to more indicate accurate awareness within their available scope, and maybe add a student status to expanding their scope.

I suppose the importance of knowing if one is enlightened would hinge on one's exact definition of "enlightenment."

Nick Treklis wrote:

Tharan wrote:I agree with you, which all lends weight to the argument that "enlightenment" is an entirely subjective experience.

Could you elaborate some more about why you think enlightenment is a subjective experience?

There is no such thing as an objective experience.

Tharan wrote:But at the same time, it is irrelevant whether one believes one is "enlightened" or not.

Belief doesn't really have anything to do with it. It's all about knowing with 100% certainty. I also think it's very relevant as to whether one knows with 100% certainty if they are enlightened or not. In fact if one were to be enlightened, they would necessarily have to know that they are enlightened with 100% certainty.

You may know it, but do you live it?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:But do people have to be 100% enlightened to consider themselves enlightened? Some might say that to be 100% enlightened, one would have to be all-knowing. Others define enlightenment in such a way as to more indicate accurate awareness within their available scope, and maybe add a student status to expanding their scope. I suppose the importance of knowing if one is enlightened would hinge on one's exact definition of "enlightenment.

You are either enlightened or not, there is not half enlightened or 3/4 enlightened. So absolutely yes, you would have to be 100% enlightened to not only consider, but KNOW you are enlightened. Also, whenever I speak of enlightenment, I am speaking about enlightenment as it is discussed on this forum.

Tharan wrote:There is no such thing as an objective experience.

If you dont mind, I'm looking for more a more detailed explanation as to how your reasoned your way to that conclusion.

Tharan wrote:You may know it, but do you live it?

Enlightenment would necessarily require one to live it and know it. It just makes logical sense. It applies with almost everything one does. If someone is a baseball player, then it is a logical requirement that they know they are a baseball player, and that they are living out their life as a baseball player. Otherwise they wouldn't be a baseball plalyer.

Nick wrote:

whenever I speak of enlightenment, I am speaking about enlightenment as it is discussed on this forum.

I have noticed some debate on this forum as to exactly what enlightenment is and I was speaking in general. I believe your above quote is another confirmation that you subscribe to the core concepts of the QRS philosophy without yet having attained the maturity that they show of being open to different ideas as long as the ideas are of sound logic.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I have noticed some debate on this forum as to exactly what enlightenment is and I was speaking in general.

I don't see what all the debate is about then. Its quite a simple ideal to describe, yet very hard to attain. Enlightenment is a lack of delusion, clarity of mind, and being able to maintain these two traits effortlessly. IMO, using the word enlightenment to desribe anything else wouldn't be giving the ideal enough credit.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I believe your above quote is another confirmation that you subscribe to the core concepts of the QRS philosophy without yet having attained the maturity that they show of being open to different ideas as long as the ideas are of sound logic.

Well, I dont know how you came to that conclusion. How can I subscribe to the "core concepts of the QRS philosophy" when there is no "QRS"? As far as me not having the maturity to be open to different ideas of sound logic, I don't know how you came to that conclusion either. I accept many ideas that are logically sound. Also, I don't think you know me well enough to say that I don't do that.

Nick Treklis wrote:

Tharan wrote:There is no such thing as an objective experience.

If you dont mind, I'm looking for more a more detailed explanation as to how your reasoned your way to that conclusion.

Into the conclusion that "enlightenment" is a subjective experience or the fact that ALL experiences are essentially subjective?

For the first one, consider the history of the term "enlightenment." Often it has been a label given to certain people who outwardly displayed certain characteristics, usually by people who are not, and admittedly so. In the cases where it is self-applied, more often than not, it is a method of ego gratification and an attempt at gaining credibility. But there is no real way for us to tell without examining behavior, because the self-label is an individual's choice to make.

For the second premise, consider the nature of experience itself. Were all of your experiences anything other than something personal to yourself? In what way might you consider these personal experiences in any way objective?

All perceptions of nature are fundamentally a subjective experience. If you read a book, you internalize the thoughts of the author. If my words ring true, then they ring true for you. It does not matter which sensory node inputs the information to your brain.

Tharan wrote:You may know it, but do you live it?

Enlightenment would necessarily require one to live it and know it. It just makes logical sense. It applies with almost everything one does. If someone is a baseball player, then it is a logical requirement that they know they are a baseball player, and that they are living out their life as a baseball player. Otherwise they wouldn't be a baseball plalyer.

You seem to know exactly what enlightenment is, therefore you would necessarily live it. Am I correct? Are you declaring your enlightenment?

And there is an old Buddhist argument concerning the nature of action and being. If one is playing baseball at any particular moment, are they then a Baseball Player, or are they merely the same as they were previously, only now currently playing baseball?

If a monk is cooking his dinner, is he a cook or is he a monk cooking his dinner? Am I an IT Specialist typing on my computer at work, or am I really a winged Phoenix constantly arising from the fire of my own delusions? You have your opinion, I have mine. Both subjective.

Nick wrote:

I accept many ideas that are logically sound.

Please clarify why you used the word "many" instead of "all" in the above quotation. Under what circumstance(s) would you not accept an idea that was logically sound?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Please clarify why you used the word "many" instead of "all" in the above quotation. Under what circumstance(s) would you not accept an idea that was logically sound?

Because there are many logical ideas that are geared towards something else, other than enlightenment. Most of which doesn't concern me, so I have never accepted or rejected them.

nick

maintain effortlessly

that's it

Tharan wrote:For the first one, consider the history of the term "enlightenment." Often it has been a label given to certain people who outwardly displayed certain characteristics, usually by people who are not, and admittedly so. In the cases where it is self-applied, more often than not, it is a method of ego gratification and an attempt at gaining credibility. But there is no real way for us to tell without examining behavior, because the self-label is an individual's choice to make.

For the sake of argument, lets consider enlightenment as perfect clarity of mind. So one must be free from delusion and able to effortlessly see ultimate reality/universe/God for what it truly is. Since there is only one universe there can only be one correct way to know it. With that said, enlightenment is not subjective, because there is only one correct way to know ultimate reality.

It's like trying to say 2+2=4 is subjective, meaning each person could posess a different and correct answer. That just doesn't make logical sense. There is only one answer to the equation, which is 4. The same logic applies to knowing what Ultimate Reality is, or enlightenment. With that said, any two people who are in fact enlightened, would recieve the same kind of knowledge about ultimate reality.

Tharan wrote:For the second premise, consider the nature of experience itself. Were all of your experiences anything other than something personal to yourself? In what way might you consider these personal experiences in any way objective?

All perceptions of nature are fundamentally a subjective experience. If you read a book, you internalize the thoughts of the author. If my words ring true, then they ring true for you. It does not matter which sensory node inputs the information to your brain.

I agree that our perception of the world around us is subjective, but the same logic can be applied to find Absolute Truth in every instance. One could start with the concept of cause and effect, and see that nothing happens on it's own, which can lead one to a greater clarity of mind.

Tharan wrote:You seem to know exactly what enlightenment is, therefore you would necessarily live it. Am I correct? Are you declaring your enlightenment?

I can know what enlightenment is by logically defining it. That doesn't in anyway mean I must necessarily be living it. Again I can describe what a baseball player is, but that doesn't mean I am a baseball player.

Tharan wrote:And there is an old Buddhist argument concerning the nature of action and being. If one is playing baseball at any particular moment, are they then a Baseball Player, or are they merely the same as they were previously, only now currently playing baseball?

If a monk is cooking his dinner, is he a cook or is he a monk cooking his dinner? Am I an IT Specialist typing on my computer at work, or am I really a winged Phoenix constantly arising from the fire of my own delusions? You have your opinion, I have mine. Both subjective.

Whatever someone is doing, they are necessarily the doer. It just depends how you want to describe the person by language preference. If someone is being a monk, then they are a monk. If someone is cooking, they are a cook. If someone is taking a shit, they are a shitter. There's nothing illogical about them being any combination of the three at any one time either. Although it might not be a great idea to shit and cook at the same time.

Nick wrote:

I don't think you know me well enough to say that I don't do that.

I apologize.

Nick,

I appreciate your opinion. But would you mind if we do a little mind experiment? Can you do me a favor, and give a name to a new color of reflected light? This color is not a combination of any previously known colors nor is it an obvious result of the known electromagentic spectrum. But it is "real" nonetheless. Can you give this existential form a name for me?

In the same manner that this request is impossible to imagine, it is equally nonsensical to name it or take it seriously. The exact same argument can be given to the terms "perfect" and "infinite." They are wholly unreachable and not actual forms, in much the same way the Platonic forms relate to the Aristotelian labeled objects.

One may label reproduceable facts, such as the First Law of Consciousness; Identity and Differentiation (A=A), the consistency of Cause and Effect, or the Nature of human existence as (the alleviation of) suffering, as Absolute Truths, and that is certainly your personal right to do so. But it does not mean that I must also do so. And whether I do or do not, is entirely immaterial to the "truth" of those forms. It is merely a linguistic trick, in much the same the term "enlightenment" is used.

With all this being said, the subjective journey, the relativity of language and sociability, whether or not Individual X calls himself enlightened is entirely outside the sphere of the personal, subjective journey. The history of peoples traverses the actual to the abstract (and often back again), as do the development of some individuals. They are mirrored. But they are mirrored internally in each of us, subjectively. One may choose to elevate the words of someone who claims enlightenment or disparage the words of that same person. But it is a personal, subjective choice relating to our experiences and the values we draw from them and how this interacts with the words we are hearing from Individual X.

There is only understanding. It should improve over time. That is the point of the journey.