GENIUS FORUMS

Elizabeth;

Are you arguing that only enlightened human beings can and should help others?

clyde

Nick;

You wrote,

Enlightenment isn't going to happen to anybody with the snap of a finger.

How is it going to happen?

clyde

clyde wrote:Since there is only Truth, where can you stand and not be on the path?

Why do you think wise men try to teach people?

Wisdom is no more or less a label than your list.

...with a meaning that I am trying to communicate to you.

If you see a human being drowning, do you throw that person a life preserver or do you wait until you’re wise?

If you don't know reality, then you can't clearly judge who is drowning, nor what a life preserver looks like.

Edit: I'm talking in a spiritual sense. If you literally see someone drowning, of course, you should rescue them.

Steven Coyle wrote:

Matt Gregory wrote:

clyde wrote:There are, according to the Buddha, 84,000 paths that lead to truth.

What he taught was that there are 84,000 teachings to deal with the 84,000 types of delusion, and one has to master all of them to become a Buddha.

Do you believe that?

Ah!

Seriously, master 84,000 teachings to become a Buddha?

Ah!

What delusion is that called?

Which attachments do you think a Buddha can hang onto and still be a Buddha?

David Quinn wrote:As Matt alluded to, the "84000 teachings" refers to the idea that there are many different ways to reach the path of having faith in reason. But once you're on this path, and remember that very few people ever get to this stage, you are finally in a position to make a serious bid for enlightenment.

Yeah, the "84,000 teachings" is just a figurative expression for abandoning all attachments. The fact is, most people need to practice giving up many attachments before they will be able to have faith in reason. Most people have no faith in reason whatsoever and as a result they float around without direction and therefore aren't on any path at all. They're certainly not on the path to Truth, as if you could stumble on it by accident.

Matt Gregory wrote:

clyde wrote:It would seem to me that wisdom and compassion requires us to assist one another as fellow wayfarers.

Sure, but you have to be careful. If you try to help someone without becoming wise first, then you can do more harm than good to them (and yourself).

(bold added by Elizabeth)

clyde wrote:Elizabeth;

Are you arguing that only enlightened human beings can and should help others?

No, I am saying recognize your limits. If someone slips in a patch of sandspurs, you should pluck those out of his back for him. If someone has a car accident, you should not unfasten his seatbelt or help him up because is his neck is broken, your "help" could cause him to become paralyzed. If he can not move on his own, you should call an ambulance instead of "helping" him yourself.

The thing is that too many people don't know that they should not move someone who was in a car accident, and in their good desires to help, actually do great harm because they don't even realize that they don't know what they are doing.

Well intentioned words can equally do great harm, but fortunatly enough conflicting words can mitigate the damage (unlike in the physical example above).

Matt's statement was a word of caution and a release of unwarranted sentiments of responsibility. You are not obligated to help others along the path of wisdom, especially if you don't know what you're doing.

Also an urgent redirection or a patch of first aid is different from a non-surgeon feeling obligated to do surgery on a cancer patient.
.

No, I am saying recognize your limits.

Fair enough.

Matt Gregory wrote:

Steven Coyle wrote:

Matt Gregory wrote:

clyde wrote:There are, according to the Buddha, 84,000 paths that lead to truth.

What he taught was that there are 84,000 teachings to deal with the 84,000 types of delusion, and one has to master all of them to become a Buddha.

Do you believe that?

Ah!

Seriously, master 84,000 teachings to become a Buddha?

Ah!

What delusion is that called?

Which attachments do you think a Buddha can hang onto and still be a Buddha?

I think it depends on personal karma.

If a person's mind was free from delusion (about the Nature of Reality), then I think they could be free to pursue other interests. Suppose a Buddha was an artist. I see no apparent reason to censor the spirit of such a person.

Matt;

I appreciate your edit. It made a difference to me.

Regarding your question,

Why do you think wise men try to teach people?

I don’t know. You will have to ask a wise teacher. I believe they do so from compassion.

What do you mean by wisdom? And what do you mean by “spiritual sense”?

clyde

Clyde,

The “one path / many paths” argument reminds me of the “sudden / gradual” enlightenment argument.

It is similar in the sense that both arguments confuse the beginning and advanced stages of the path to enlightenment.

If we think of the path to enlightenment as being like a river flowing into the sea, then the "many paths" stage is all the little trickles, tributaries and streams in the hills which gradually join the river, while the "one path" is the river itself flowing strongly into the sea. Most spiritual practitioners, however, never reach the river stage.

Similarly, "sudden enlightenment" refers to the dramatic altered states of consciousness and major breakthroughs in thinking that one experiences in the early stages of the path, which beginners often mistake for enlightenment.

"Gradual enlightenment", in turn, refers to a more advanced stage of the path, when all of one's gross delusions have already vanished and one's understanding of Reality is already very insightful, a stage in which the last remaining delusions gradually fade away. But again, very few people ever reach this stage.


-

Ryan Rudolph wrote:That’s a happy way to put it. However, this is no evidence that every being alive is destined to become enlightened. On the contrary, based on the evidence, most of the population lives and dies in total disorder. On the deathbed of most individuals, all there is in the brain is a conglomeration of contradictions, painful psychological memories, identifications, longings, attachments, people’s faces and all the rest of it. For most of the population, life is a nightmare/fantasy that ends in total confusion.

The path does not end at death, life and death is the space in which the path perpetually collects focus.

The mind and enlightenment never meet. On the deathbed of a Buddha, you could also find a mind in which sits a conglomeration of contradictions, painful psychological memories, identifications, longings, attachments, people’s faces and all the rest of it. The mind is only ever the mind; it has only the language of the mind with which to exist. A Buddha is one who sees the mind as it is without wishing for it to be something else, whose relationship with the mind is fearlessly beautiful in this respect.

Attachments and aversions never leave the mind. The path to self-realization is not about altering the way the mind is, it is about developing awareness regards the relationship with the mind. Anyone changing what their mind is doing has some motive for doing so, some motive for doing something other than just looking (like for example, fear of the pain caused by attachment and aversion). You cannot watch the mind and self-identify with its output simultaneously.

Leah,

You're confusing the ego with the mind. The ego is that false sense of self with which we are indoctrinated from an early age. Being a fictitious entity, an illusion created by deluded views, it needs constant affirmation of its existence through things, both internally and externally. These attachments reinforce the ego's sense of being, sense of purpose.

The fully enlightened Buddha has become so by utilizing his complete and perfect understanding of Reality to eradicate his ego and merge with the ever-existent underlying identity, beyond the artificial mind of the ego. This can only come to pass if the right circumstances align, the "grace of God," that is, the correct causal conditions arise.

Bryan McGilly wrote:Leah,

You're confusing the ego with the mind. The ego is that false sense of self with which we are indoctrinated from an early age. Being a fictitious entity, an illusion created by deluded views, it needs constant affirmation of its existence through things, both internally and externally. These attachments reinforce the ego's sense of being, sense of purpose.

The fully enlightened Buddha has become so by utilizing his complete and perfect understanding of Reality to eradicate his ego and merge with the ever-existent underlying identity, beyond the artificial mind of the ego. This can only come to pass if the right circumstances align, the "grace of God," that is, the correct causal conditions arise.

There is no way to see existence as seperate to delusion.

Identity itself is delusion. Shifting perspective from the mind to the "the ever-existent underlying identity" is but that, a shift of perspective, and perspective requires a localisation of a self entity.

Your "true nature", for lack of a better term, is all this at once; the mind, "the ever-existent underlying identity", and beyond, where identity cannot go.

What is your impression of the expression, "Samsara and Nirvana are the same thing"?

When you say i am confusing the ego with the mind, what are you using the term "mind" to describe?

clyde wrote:I appreciate your edit. It made a difference to me.

Sorry I didn't understand what you were saying the first time around. I get stuck in particular trains of thought sometimes.

Regarding your question,

Why do you think wise men try to teach people?

I don’t know. You will have to ask a wise teacher. I believe they do so from compassion.

Well, yeah, but anyone doing anything besides sitting there is moving to correct a lack of some kind that he or she perceives, wouldn't you agree?

What do you mean by wisdom?

Direct knowledge/experience of Ultimate Reality. The knowledge that goes beyond mere appearances and reaches into the very nature of all things.

And what do you mean by “spiritual sense”?

When we were talking about someone drowning, I thought you meant someone drowning in philosophical delusion or psychological problems. By "spiritual" I just mean "internal".

The point I'm really trying to make with all this is that enlightenment is the only permanent solution to the problem of ignorance and all the misery it causes. You can help people with kindness and stuff, and that's great, but without wisdom all you can really do is manipulate appearances. It may help in the short term, but working towards a long term solution is a wiser way to go in my opinion.

Steven Coyle wrote:If a person's mind was free from delusion (about the Nature of Reality), then I think they could be free to pursue other interests. Suppose a Buddha was an artist. I see no apparent reason to censor the spirit of such a person.

I agree that a Buddha wouldn't need to censor himself, but I don't think he would feel any particular compulsion to create art other than to serve some practical purpose.

Leah wrote:There is no way to see existence as seperate to delusion.

That comes down to your definition of 'existence.'

Identity itself is delusion. Shifting perspective from the mind to the "the ever-existent underlying identity" is but that, a shift of perspective, and perspective requires a localisation of a self entity.

Identity is the cornerstone of reason, without which you would have no argument. At the core, the mind from which reason issues forth, has no location. But this does not invalidate any identity which it applies even to itself.

Your "true nature", for lack of a better term, is all this at once; the mind, "the ever-existent underlying identity", and beyond, where identity cannot go.

The mind and the ever-existent underlying identity are the same. If in any sense they are 'beyond,' they are beyond the identities fostered by the ego, for the simple reason that the ego is attached to these identities and so unable to see past the thicket of attachment in which it nests and upon which it feeds. By removing attachments through the application of reason one comes to see what is 'beyond' the things of the mundane, day-to-day universe of the enchanted ego. That is not to say that identity cannot go there, but that that 'there' is the True Identity.

What is your impression of the expression, "Samsara and Nirvana are the same thing"?

Life and death are the same thing.

When you say i am confusing the ego with the mind, what are you using the term "mind" to describe?

I am defining mind as that field in which all comes into and out of consciousness, those rabbits and turtles only get there if they lose the horns and fur.

Matt Gregory wrote:You can help people with kindness and stuff, and that's great, but without wisdom all you can really do is manipulate appearances. It may help in the short term, but working towards a long term solution is a wiser way to go in my opinion.

True compassion is not motivated by anything.

True "help" does not come from a desire to help.

When desire is there, "kindness" is merely ego building, and any "help" issued from this place is just as you stated, the manipulation of appearances. This is rather useful if you are literally drowning in a lake, a situation in which you may be very content with the mere manipulation of appearances. It is not so useful in respect to helping someone to see themself.

Compassion is the natural expression of not being moved by desire. It does not need to reference any set of beliefs to know what to do or how to act, as it unconsciously stems from truth wherever it is. "Correct Action", as Siddhattha put it, occurs when desire does not dictate action.

Matt;

And I sometimes don’t provide sufficient information.

Regarding your question,

Why do you think wise men try to teach people?

I don’t know. You will have to ask a wise teacher. I believe they do so from compassion.

Well, yeah, but anyone doing anything besides sitting there is moving to correct a lack of some kind that he or she perceives, wouldn't you agree?

A wise teacher may teach because of compassion for the student who feels a lack. As I suggested, find a wise teacher and ask.

What do you mean by wisdom?

Direct knowledge/experience of Ultimate Reality. The knowledge that goes beyond mere appearances and reaches into the very nature of all things.

Yes, that seems a very good definition of wisdom; i.e., to experience what is as it is. That is the passive aspect of reality. The active aspect is compassion; i.e., to act in harmony with what is.

The point I'm really trying to make with all this is that enlightenment is the only permanent solution to the problem of ignorance and all the misery it causes. You can help people with kindness and stuff, and that's great, but without wisdom all you can really do is manipulate appearances. It may help in the short term, but working towards a long term solution is a wiser way to go in my opinion.

Wisdom and compassion are not solutions; they are the functioning of a human being experiencing reality.

Do no harm,
clyde

Clyde,

And I sometimes don’t provide sufficient information.

No problem. There's always some uncertainty in communication and we can just do our best to get our points across to each other. That's how I see it.

clyde wrote:

Regarding your question,

Why do you think wise men try to teach people?

I don’t know. You will have to ask a wise teacher. I believe they do so from compassion.

Well, yeah, but anyone doing anything besides sitting there is moving to correct a lack of some kind that he or she perceives, wouldn't you agree?

A wise teacher may teach because of compassion for the student who feels a lack. As I suggested, find a wise teacher and ask.

It doesn't really work that way. You can't simply ask someone for wisdom and expect to receive it without any effort. And on top of that there's the problem of who to ask. You would have to be wise yourself in order to figure out who is wise enough to ask. The only place that wisdom can really be found is inside your own mind, so there's no alternative but to become wise yourself.

Anyway, surely this isn't a hard problem. I mean, people are caused to do what they do no matter how wise they are, or would you not agree with that? Even if a person has compassion they still need to act in response to a particular situation. People don't just pull their decisions out of thin air, they base them on what's going on around them. And if someone is teaching someone else, then the teacher must perceive a lack in the student that he is attempting to rectify, otherwise there wouldn't be any point in teaching him, as there's no reason to change something that's already complete. See what I'm saying?

What do you mean by wisdom?

Direct knowledge/experience of Ultimate Reality. The knowledge that goes beyond mere appearances and reaches into the very nature of all things.

Yes, that seems a very good definition of wisdom; i.e., to experience what is as it is. That is the passive aspect of reality. The active aspect is compassion; i.e., to act in harmony with what is.

Yeah, I'll buy that.

The point I'm really trying to make with all this is that enlightenment is the only permanent solution to the problem of ignorance and all the misery it causes. You can help people with kindness and stuff, and that's great, but without wisdom all you can really do is manipulate appearances. It may help in the short term, but working towards a long term solution is a wiser way to go in my opinion.

Wisdom and compassion are not solutions; they are the functioning of a human being experiencing reality.

They are solutions because all of the problems we have are caused by people who act without awareness of reality. They hurt themselves and others because they don't know what they are really doing. That's why any action whatsoever one takes needs to be done in the light of wisdom in order to be ethical. This is true no matter what your particular ethical standards are.

Matt;

It doesn't really work that way. You can't simply ask someone for wisdom and expect to receive it without any effort. And on top of that there's the problem of who to ask. You would have to be wise yourself in order to figure out who is wise enough to ask. The only place that wisdom can really be found is inside your own mind, so there's no alternative but to become wise yourself.

Anyway, surely this isn't a hard problem. I mean, people are caused to do what they do no matter how wise they are, or would you not agree with that? Even if a person has compassion they still need to act in response to a particular situation. People don't just pull their decisions out of thin air, they base them on what's going on around them. And if someone is teaching someone else, then the teacher must perceive a lack in the student that he is attempting to rectify, otherwise there wouldn't be any point in teaching him, as there's no reason to change something that's already complete. See what I'm saying?

Rather an interesting two paragraphs. You end the first paragraph by stating that “there's no alternative but to become wise yourself.” That’s reasonable. But then what is a teacher to teach? In other words, if as you wrote, “[t]he only place that wisdom can really be found is inside your own mind”, then we have no need for teachers, the only “lack” is faith in our own mind which leads us to seek teachers, and this is the only thing a teacher can really teach.

clyde wrote:How is it going to happen?

clyde

Using sound and honest reason to bring one closer to Absolute Truth, something that requires much time, effort, dedication, and sacrafice. Something that most people are unwilling and/or incapable of doing.

Nick;

How do you know (or why do you believe) that using reason will "bring one closer to Absolute Truth"? Will you achieve "Absolute Truth" that way or any get closer?

clyde

clyde wrote:Nick;

How do you know (or why do you believe) that using reason will "bring one closer to Absolute Truth"?

I have faith in reason because I know its potential due to the progress I've made with it in revealing Truth. My faith in it has yet to be spoiled because of this. Other attempts such as things like blind faith, kindness, or some other religious means is in vain due to their biased logic, egocentricity, and childish/ignorant/wishful thinking.

clyde wrote:Will you achieve "Absolute Truth" that way or any get closer?

I have already made much progress in comparison to where I started. Will I be able to complete the path? Only time will tell.

Nick;

Can you share some examples (2 or 3) of Truths have been revealed to you?

clyde

That's a pointless question. If you don't reveal Truth for yourself how can you begin to fully understand the Truths I have to offer. Do your own work! =)