GENIUS FORUMS

Some of the questions on this test are actually pretty good. The second and third sections are better than the first, although even it is on the right track.

http://www.texaschapbookpress.com/magel ... tintro.htm

I scored 172, for which the description is:

151 and above:
Frequently, intensely aware of how little you actually know, you move with increasing surety and only a few missteps along a vector toward true wisdom. One wonders why you're taking this test in the first place.

Heh... yeah. They have a point there. But Laird's thread got me Googling to see what was actually out there in this area, and this popped up.

I also took another one promoted by the New York Times, but it was far too bland and conventional. Many of the questions contained blatant cultural bias. I scored as "moderately wise" on that test, which is actually kind of bothersome because I think I'd rather have scored as a fool, given how misguided the whole test was.

Well, that's 8 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

I scored 88, for which the description reads:

While you clearly have achieved occasional glimpses beneath the surface of "reality", it is highly probably that your limited beliefs are rigid, dogmatic, and short-sighted, which makes you susceptible to the pitches of highly placed, self-proclaimed "wise" persons.

Yeah, like they say, I'm a fool for highly placed, self-proclaimed "wise" persons. You can just see how QRS have suckered me in. I'm not at all open to change either. I never speculate or grant possibilities.

They really nailed my description. Not.

From the introduction:

Is the test biased? You bet.

'kin oath mate.

Why should I be unwise simply for not owning copies of books? Why should I be unwise simply because I don't get out in nature much, or because I don't get much personal contact and haven't happened to have consoled anyone recently? As for why I should recognise a mere symbol as wise, I don't even want to hazard a guess. And half of those sayings were nonsensical.

Thumbs down for this test from me Nat.

Laird,

Hmm... interesting. I thought you'd score much higher than that. I found a great deal of meaning in almost all of the symbols and quotes. To get an 88, you must not have. I scored fairly poorly on the books and on going out in Nature as well, for the record.

As for why I should recognise a mere symbol as wise, I don't even want to hazard a guess.

Symbols have meanings. They represent insights. At least that's the way I and (apparently) the author of the test see it.

And half of those sayings were nonsensical.

Really? It surprises me to hear that. Almost all of them made a good deal of sense to me. Oh well. If the test says you're a fool, Laird, it's a worthless test regardless of my score.

I'm sorry this test wasn't enjoyable for you. I honestly thought it would be.

Laird: And half of those sayings were nonsensical.

Unidian: Really? It surprises me to hear that. Almost all of them made a good deal of sense to me. Oh well.

I'm going through a critical phase, sparked mostly by my discussion with Sam in the "Does it matter or not?" thread. As I wrote there, I find the traditional Eastern version of enlightenment to be largely a phantom, and people who believe in it as Sam does to be credulous. I guess once you start getting irritated with the "ineffability" (read: meaninglessness) of such thinking it's easy to start looking for vagueness and meaninglessness in general in traditionally accepted wisdom, or, as in this case, in the tid-bits of wise sayings/symbols that are presented to one.

Unidian wrote:If the test says you're a fool, Laird, it's a worthless test regardless of my score.

Thanks Nat, that's kind of you. It's obviously not totally worthless 'cos it got it right the once.

Unidian wrote:I'm sorry this test wasn't enjoyable for you. I honestly thought it would be.

No worries. At least you got something out of it.

Laird,

I'm going through a critical phase, sparked mostly by my discussion with Sam in the "Does it matter or not?" thread. As I wrote there, I find the traditional Eastern version of enlightenment to be largely a phantom, and people who believe in it as Sam does to be credulous.

Well, it's a tricky issue in many ways, and I can understand that viewpoint. I share your view that talking about concepts like "enlightenment" is fairly pointless, although I think the reasons we hold that view in common are somewhat different. I came to the realization of the emptiness of "enlightenment" (and all similar concepts) pretty much through the following the route prescribed in Taoism and Zen to its completion. You seem to have decided that there is no reason to do that, and I'm not saying that's the "wrong" decision. If you don't feel drawn to it, then there's no reason you should pursue it. As the Buddha said, "medicine is for the sick." I was sick. Perhaps you aren't.

I guess once you start getting irritated with the "ineffability" (read: meaninglessness) of such thinking it's easy to start looking for vagueness and meaninglessness in general in traditionally accepted wisdom, or, as in this case, in the tid-bits of wise sayings/symbols that are presented to one.

I don't know that I can speak to this beyond a certain point, because we may be coming from fundamentally different perspectives. Again, I was "sick" in the Buddhist sense. I needed "the medicine" because questions about who I am and what life is kept arising seemingly against my own will. It wasn't enough for me to simply accept that concepts like "enlightenment" are meaningless. If I could have done that, I certainly would have and saved myself some time and trouble. But instead, I had to find out for myself by literally exhausting the ability of the intellect to twist and torture concepts to the breaking point. Until I did that, the questions, thoughts, and intellectual wrangling simply would not stop.

But, as I said, if that's not the case for you, then there's certainly no reason you need to care about Eastern philosophy. A doctor who prescribes painkillers for a healthy man is a fool. Some might say that by ignoring all of this now, you're just deferring it until later, when life does create the circumstances that cause these questions to arise. But that's essentially just an unsubstantiated assertion that wouldn't make a difference at this point anyway.

I scored low, probably just because I didn't really focus on it, but then at the end didn't it seem to say that lower was a better score? I can't say I actually took the test, but I think I would have been toward the first one, which said something, but I forgot to copy the answer they gave me.

Unidian wrote:I share your view that talking about concepts like "enlightenment" is fairly pointless, although I think the reasons we hold that view in common are somewhat different.

My reason is that it has no real meaning (it can't even be described clearly). It exists purely as a phantom concept. One has to really make one's own meaning out of it. As far as I've gathered from talking to you, enlightenment to you is the realisation that there is no enlightenment and that one simply "chops wood and carries water". That makes a hell of a lot of sense to me and is essentially my view too. I've simply decided from that point that "Hey, actually, there *is* after all an enlightenment, and that is the perfection of oneself and one's actions." I'm by no means enlightened by this definition. But see, this is the kind of stuff that should be in a wisdom test. Also, for example, questions that test how much one has worked out about the inconsistencies of the Christian God. Also questions about how to behave in certain situations - moral wisdom. The stuff that they actually had in there was for the most part irrelevant to the question of true wisdom IMO.

Unidian wrote:I came to the realization of the emptiness of "enlightenment" (and all similar concepts) pretty much through the following the route prescribed in Taoism and Zen to its completion. You seem to have decided that there is no reason to do that, and I'm not saying that's the "wrong" decision. If you don't feel drawn to it, then there's no reason you should pursue it. As the Buddha said, "medicine is for the sick." I was sick. Perhaps you aren't.

Well I've followed a path too: a path of inspection and inquiry, trying to work out exactly what enlightenment is. It has by no means been a traditional path, for example I didn't sit and meditate for years nor did I ponder koans, and it's been very much an intellectual path, but hey, we've arrived at the same destination.

I don't know that I can speak to this beyond a certain point, because we may be coming from fundamentally different perspectives. Again, I was "sick" in the Buddhist sense. I needed "the medicine" because questions about who I am and what life is kept arising seemingly against my own will. It wasn't enough for me to simply accept that concepts like "enlightenment" are meaningless. If I could have done that, I certainly would have and saved myself some time and trouble. But instead, I had to find out for myself by literally exhausting the ability of the intellect to twist and torture concepts to the breaking point. Until I did that, the questions, thoughts, and intellectual wrangling simply would not stop.

Oh, I've used my intellect to explore the concepts of enlightenment too, although I probably wouldn't go so far as to describe that I "twisted and tortured the concepts of enlightenment to breaking point" - I don't know how "fundamentally different" our perspectives really are.

But really, it's an irrelevant game. If the concept of enlightenment didn't exist in the first place, then no one would have to go through the process of working out that it's meaningless. I guess though that there'd be something else in its place given that humans tend to search for answers with the hope of actually finding them.

A doctor who prescribes painkillers for a healthy man is a fool. Some might say that by ignoring all of this now, you're just deferring it until later, when life does create the circumstances that cause these questions to arise. But that's essentially just an unsubstantiated assertion that wouldn't make a difference at this point anyway.

Yeah, I guess we do have a slightly different take on it then. I don't think that even following a traditional path all the way to the end is going to ever stop the questions from arising in my head. I've simply decided that the hope of getting answers is pretty futile. That doesn't stop me from speculating in the spirit of intellectual curiosity though. And it doesn't stop me from hoping nevertheless.

snow bunny, are you deliberately trying to make me laugh?

You're fooling yourself if you take enlightenment to mean "essentially nothing."

That's fairly foolish.

What makes you guys think that anyway?

Steven,

Enlightenment has practical aspects that are meaningful, such as compassion. The essence of enlightenment, however, is a myth. Let's accept for argument's sake the definition of enlightenment that gets used on this forum: "the absence of all delusion". At face value that's quite reasonable and at face value I accept that it describes something that a person can at least strive for, if not ever actually achieve, so in that sense, sure, enlightenment is meaningful. However, the story doesn't end there. There are specific delusions that are implicitly referenced in that definition: namely that of the ego/self. Enlightenment is really something to do with "transcending the ego" or "realising the illusory nature of the self" or the like. What exactly is this supposed to mean though? In this forum it seems to mean something like intellectually comprehending that there is no particular thing that can be pointed to and described as "me", so that the self is an illusion because it has no "inherent" existence. Well, and so what? If that's enlightenment, then it's not particularly impressive. What's all the fuss about? What's particularly "enlightened" about this intellectualisation? Of what relevance is it to me?

And that's just the version of enlightenment that's promoted on this forum. There are people, like samadhim, who have particularly more vague conceptions of enlightenment, to the point that they describe it as "ineffable". Sure, when pushed, they'll admit that what they really mean by enlightenment is what I canvassed above - something about realising that the self is an illusion, however what they really like to do is to present it as some sort of ultimate breakthrough but at the same time as something that's impossible to understand; paradoxical. That's the real myth - that enlightenment is some magical paradox that can't be understood, and that's the one that Nat and I have been attacking. The truth is that it's not a paradox, and that what can be said meaningfully about it is so unimpressive as to lead one to the conclusion that the only "ultimate breakthrough" that one can meaningfully arrive at in the sense of enlightenment is to stop believing in ultimate breakthroughs and to instead simply get on with living one's life as best as one can.

Laird,

Enlightenment has practical aspects that are meaningful, such as compassion. The essence of enlightenment, however, is a myth.

You may be allowing your value system to misguide you; allowing subjectivity to overrun a more objective stance.

Let's accept for argument's sake the definition of enlightenment that gets used on this forum: "the absence of all delusion". At face value that's quite reasonable and at face value I accept that it describes something that a person can at least strive for, if not ever actually achieve, so in that sense, sure, enlightenment is meaningful.

An objective stance, but not enough reasoned information to back its claims; in turn distorting your subjectivity beyond reasonable proportion.

(You're not grasping essentials, confusing what should be simple, thus making it overly complex. In what context are you defining, "the absence of all delusion"?)

However, the story doesn't end there. There are specific delusions that are implicitly referenced in that definition: namely that of the ego/self. Enlightenment is really something to do with "transcending the ego" or "realising the illusory nature of the self" or the like. What exactly is this supposed to mean though?

You must first recognize what the ego is (or perhaps, what it feels like) before asking these questions. In doing that, you've transcended it intellectually, and then maybe you can progress over to "realising the illusory nature of the self," as the self is separate from the ego.

In this forum it seems to mean something like intellectually comprehending that there is no particular thing that can be pointed to and described as "me", so that the self is an illusion because it has no "inherent" existence. Well, and so what? If that's enlightenment, then it's not particularly impressive. What's all the fuss about? What's particularly "enlightened" about this intellectualisation? Of what relevance is it to me?

That's correct. Though you haven't pushed its full implications yet. It takes quite the stretch of imaginative force as well. You should also remember that enlightenment is a realization; wholly separate from intellectualization.

What initially interested you in the idea of enlightenment?

And that's just the version of enlightenment that's promoted on this forum. There are people, like samadhim, who have particularly more vague conceptions of enlightenment, to the point that they describe it as "ineffable". Sure, when pushed, they'll admit that what they really mean by enlightenment is what I canvassed above - something about realising that the self is an illusion, however what they really like to do is to present it as some sort of ultimate breakthrough but at the same time as something that's impossible to understand; paradoxical. That's the real myth - that enlightenment is some magical paradox that can't be understood, and that's the one that Nat and I have been attacking. The truth is that it's not a paradox, and that what can be said meaningfully about it is so unimpressive as to lead one to the conclusion that the only "ultimate breakthrough" that one can meaningfully arrive at in the sense of enlightenment is to stop believing in ultimate breakthroughs and to instead simply get on with living one's life as best as one can.

Don't allow terms like "ineffable" to confuse your efforts. People use those types of terms after
a reasonable amount of time has passed, as their understanding naturally widens and they've drifted out some from initial breakthroughs. Enlightenment is a very personal, spiritual way of perceiving, and terms like "ineffable" are really the wisest to describe it at a certain stage. Though, beginners simply begin, the more advanced continue to advance.

Laird,

But really, it's an irrelevant game. If the concept of enlightenment didn't exist in the first place, then no one would have to go through the process of working out that it's meaningless.

True. But perhaps it's best that such concepts do exist, because if they didn't, people like me would have to make them up before determining them to be empty. That might add another 2 or 3 years to the whole process.

Then again, if the entire culture was already oriented toward a Zennish perspective to begin with, the impulse to think of such things might not arise. I once read somewhere that there was an ancient indigenous Tibetan culture that had no word for "God," for example. But in superficial Western-style society, I can't see how at least some of us are naturally going to look for something "beyond."

Yeah, I guess we do have a slightly different take on it then. I don't think that even following a traditional path all the way to the end is going to ever stop the questions from arising in my head.

It might or it might not. Essentially it depends on how hard you are willing to push concepts - what the Buddhist terminology calls bodhicitta. The mind will not give up on the idea that conceptual thought can "solve" reality until it is forced to do so. This is the idea of the koan, although I didn't go that route. I just kept formulating conceptual answers and shooting them down until I felt I was literally close to becoming physically ill or losing my sanity if I continued. Shortly thereafter, the thought occurred to me - "reality is never what I say it is.". Whatever I might conceptualize, verbalize, or think about reality, reality is the antithesis of that. This realization was basically the end of it for me.

I've simply decided that the hope of getting answers is pretty futile. That doesn't stop me from speculating in the spirit of intellectual curiosity though. And it doesn't stop me from hoping nevertheless.

If doing so doesn't make you frantic to find an answer, then I'd say go for it. There is an old Zen story about a student who asked a master "how can I find the truth?" The master took him to a nearby pond and held his head underwater for a long time. When the master finally released him, the student asked angrily, "why did you do that?" The master said "only when you desire truth as strongly as you desired air just now will you find it."

Sounds kind of fishy to you, I'd imagine.It did to me too, until I found out what he was talking about.

Steven,

You're fooling yourself if you take enlightenment to mean "essentially nothing."

That's fairly foolish.

What makes you guys think that anyway?

Zen.

Though, beginners simply begin, the more advanced continue to advance.

And I do nothing. "Beginner" and "advanced" are more concepts (and ego-based ones at that). They add nothing to reality except more imagined division.

"In the pursuit of knowledge, every day something is learned. In the pursuit of Tao, every day something is dropped." -Lao-Tzu

Unidian,

What aspect of Zen? I understand you've been throwing around the Mu koan a little. Along with "What is the Sound of One Hand Clapping?" it does have a distinct purpose, the same purpose in fact.

What is your conception of the number zero and its relation to "emptiness"?

What aspect of Zen?

The Zen aspect of Zen, at least according to its founder Bodhidharma:

A special transmission outside the scriptures;
Depending not on words and letters;
Pointing directly to the human mind...

I understand you've been throwing around the Mu koan a little. Along with "What is the Sound of One Hand Clapping?" it does have a distinct purpose, the same purpose in fact.

And I suppose the implication is that you know this purpose and I don't. Let's hope so, anyway. One more concept chained to my ankle is the last thing I need.

What is your conception of the number zero and its relation to "emptiness"?

Zero is infinity.

From the Heart Sutra:

Addressed in this way, noble Avalokiteshvara, the great enlightened being, said to venerable Shariputra, "O Shariputra, a son or daughter of noble family who wishes to practice the profound and most perfect wisdom should see individual human existence to be empty of nature. Form is emptiness; emptiness also is form. Emptiness is no other than form; form is no other than emptiness..."

But those are just more words, eh? It's what they point to that matters, and they point to nothing but whatever is here, right now, directly present. Why cloud "now" with anything else? As the saying goes, "Before Zen, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers. During Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and rivers are no longer rivers. After Zen, mountains are once again mountains and rivers are once again rivers."

So, I guess you win this exchange, Steven. You provoked me write all these words when no response would have worked equally well.

Unidian wrote:

What aspect of Zen? I understand you've been throwing around the Mu koan a little. Along with "What is the Sound of One Hand Clapping?" it does have a distinct purpose, the same purpose in fact.

And I suppose the implication is that you know this purpose and I don't. Let's hope so, anyway. One more concept chained to my ankle is the last thing I need.

Important concept...

Then why do you assume I'm not already familiar with it?

I think you might be seeking a game of "more Zen than thou." If so, let's jump straight to the end and save ourselves the trouble. If you want to be "more Zen" than me, or "more enlightened," or "more whatever," then I'll simply concede that you are. Those words are as unimportant to me as any others. If I need to prove my Zen, it's worth nothing.

So, now that it's been fully established that you understand Zen and/or "enlightenment" and/or "Mu" and I don't, what have you gained? Just curious.

Well, you initially struck my interest, due to the fact that you propagated enlightenment as a "meaningless" concept - a two-fold assertion, speaking of both your own POV, as well as a potential lack of understanding.

My intention was to learn about both further.

We're in agreement that bickering over status is pointless.

Steven Coyle wrote:You're not grasping essentials, confusing what should be simple, thus making it overly complex.

What's particularly complex about what I wrote? I can sum it up in a single sentence: "enlightenment when defined as the absence of all delusion is meaningful but this isn't its original form, and its original form as a breakthrough into an ultimate understanding of reality is a myth."

Steven Coyle wrote:In what context are you defining, "the absence of all delusion"?

In the context of a human mind.

You must first recognize what the ego is (or perhaps, what it feels like) before asking these questions. In doing that, you've transcended it intellectually, and then maybe you can progress over to "realising the illusory nature of the self," as the self is separate from the ego.

At the same time as describing the self as an illusion, you nevertheless talk about the self as a something "separate from the ego". So is there a self or isn't there? You seem to want to have it both ways. "I" become enlightened by realising that there is no "I". Does that make any sense to you? It doesn't make any sense to me. Work it out: it's a game. It's not some paradoxical ultimate truth, it's a meaningless mind-warp invented by some smart-arse to suck credulous people in.

Laird: In this forum it seems to mean something like intellectually comprehending that there is no particular thing that can be pointed to and described as "me", so that the self is an illusion because it has no "inherent" existence.

Steven: That's correct.

Actually, it's not correct from an Eastern perspective though, it's simply the distortion that's presented on this forum. My (admittedly limited) understanding is that in real Eastern philosophy, if I asked whether intellectually comprehending, or even "realising" the illusory nature of the self constituted enlightenment, the answer would be "no". And if I asked, "well then what about satori - is that enlightenment?" - again, the answer would be "no". And if I asked, "well then what exactly is enlightenment?" - I might get an answer of "neti neti": not this, not that.

Don't you see what all of this is pointing to? The obvious answer is that there is only one true paradox to enlightenment, and that is that "enlightenment is the realisation that there is no such thing as enlightenment". But we don't even have to phrase it as a paradox, we can phrase it more directly as "enlightenment has no true meaning, it's a phantom for people to chase after until they realise that it doesn't actually exist".

Steven wrote:Though you haven't pushed its full implications yet.

Please describe those full implications.

Steven wrote:You should also remember that enlightenment is a realization; wholly separate from intellectualization.

There's not a significant difference between the two. They're both cognitive states. Is that all that enlightenment is? A cognitive state?

Steven wrote:What initially interested you in the idea of enlightenment?

The promise of ultimate understanding.

Don't allow terms like "ineffable" to confuse your efforts. People use those types of terms after a reasonable amount of time has passed, as their understanding naturally widens and they've drifted out some from initial breakthroughs.

Please describe these widened understandings.

Enlightenment is a very personal, spiritual way of perceiving, and terms like "ineffable" are really the wisest to describe it at a certain stage. Though, beginners simply begin, the more advanced continue to advance.

How advanced are you?

Laird wrote:What's particularly complex about what I wrote? I can sum it up in a single sentence: "enlightenment when defined as the absence of all delusion is meaningful but this isn't its original form, and its original form as a breakthrough into an ultimate understanding of reality is a myth."

Since you have determined this to be a myth, I can't understand how there is any point in discussing these matters with you at all. I can only conclude that your reasons for continuing to ask questions about it is for entertainment and boredom relief purposes only.

Laird,

There's not a significant difference between the two. They're both cognitive states. Is that all that enlightenment is? A cognitive state?

Yes, which is why it is of no interest to me. It's what that cognitive state is pointing to that matters. To use a Zen approach, once we see the moon, the finger pointing to it (the concept of "enlightenment") is unimportant. And what is pointed to in Zen and Taoism is not a cognitive state. More accurately, it is the antithesis of all cognitive states - subsuming them all but dependent on none in particular. In other words, it is directly-experienced reality, just as it is, right here in the present moment. No big deal, unless one has been led to expect a big deal. Zen is now. Nothing more.

Seeing the moon, so to speak, is only made "a big deal" so that those who aren't seeing it will be interested in doing so in the first place. Some people "see the moon" automatically, with no need for pointers. But others among us get distracted by thoughts, ideas, concepts, and words, and we stop seeing the moon because it's been replaced with some word. For us, somebody has to point to the moon to get us to see it, or we will never look past the finger. And that process has to be "sold" to us, so to speak, because if it is described as "nothing special" and "profoundly ordinary" from the start, we egotistical beings will never be interested. Human psychology must be taken into account from the start.

So yeah, it's a game, as you correctly point out. The better teachers use the game to get the student beyond it. But admittedly, many teachers string the unfortunate student along as long as possible in a maze of traps, concepts, and conceptual prisons in order to gain either money or ego-validation. At best, terms like "enlightenment" can be used as "skillful means" (in Buddhist parlance) to move us toward seeing that there is no need for any terms at all. But sadly, any area of life, including the "guru business," is full of hucksters with ulterior motives, and sure enough, there's no shortage of credulous people willing to pay both money and respect to play egotistical games with them.

Dan Rowden wrote:Since you have determined this to be a myth, I can't understand how there is any point in discussing these matters with you at all. I can only conclude that your reasons for continuing to ask questions about it is for entertainment and boredom relief purposes only.

That's part of it, but another part of it is that I like to express my views and to hear the views of others. My opinion is rarely so fixed that I'm not willing to entertain alternatives. I claim that the traditional version of enlightenment is a myth (and I choose to define my own more practical version), but I'm willing to change my mind if I see a compelling counter-argument from Steven, samadhi, you or anyone else for that matter.

Laird,

I claim that the traditional version of enlightenment is a myth (and I choose to define my own more practical version), but I'm willing to change my mind if I see a compelling counter-argument from Steven, samadhi, you or anyone else for that matter.

It's a myth, but for some people, a potentially useful myth. A means to an end, in other words. From a Zen or Taoist perspective, it's an example of "necessary folly." Of course, that doesn't mean it's necessary for everyone. Rather, it is necessary for those who believe in such myths to begin with - those who confuse the map with the territory.

For that matter, all claims about anything beyond the empirical realm are myths, in a very real sense. Some, like the much-abused concept of "enlightenment," are potentially useful myths because they point to a more direct experience of reality, but the only knowledge that actually constitutes "knowledge" is that which is obtainable through empirical observation. This is why the concept of "enlightenment" is a myth (because it necessarily describes a certain cognitive state of which knowledge can be claimed), but what that concept is pointing to is not a myth, nor can it be "known" in the sense that the concept of "knowledge" is meaningful. It's isn't "ineffable" simply because some people insist on making it mysterious (although some do). Rather, it is "ineffable" because it just isn't knowledge. It's "now" and nothing more, whatever that is. Any number of words could be used, but why use any? There's nothing mysterious about "now," since it's what we're experiencing and it is what we are. But it can't be put into a conceptual box and served up as knowledge.

My essay Physicalism and Eastern Philosophy deals with this topic to some extent. You might have already read it, though.

Huang Po, 9th Century Chinese Zen Master:

"Only awake to the One Mind and there is nothing whatever to be attained.

This pure Mind, the source of everything, shines forever and on all with the brilliance of its own perfection. But the people of the world do not awake to it, regarding only that which sees, hears, feels and knows as mind.... If they would only eliminate all conceptual thought in a flash, that source-substance would manifest itself like a sun...."

Yep.

+1 for Huang Po. :)

Unidian wrote:Rather, it is "ineffable" because it just isn't knowledge. It's "now" and nothing more, whatever that is. Any number of words could be used, but why use any? There's nothing mysterious about "now," since it's what we're experiencing and it is what we are. But it can't be put into a conceptual box and served up as knowledge.

Ok that all sounds pretty good, but the question for me is: why then do you go on to call into doubt the validity of the self? Doing so constitutes more than simply "realizing things are just as they are" so to speak, doesn't it?