GENIUS FORUMS

If someone was perfectly enlightened, in David's sense of the word, I wouldn't hesitate to call them perfectly enlightened, or a Buddha.

David Quinn wrote: Becoming enlightened does involve a change of perspective, and this perspective, once actualized, does remain permanent.

Other than that I don't like the term "enlightenment" due to its baggage, I agree with this insofar as once one has the intellectual comprehension of the True perspective, short of brain damage, one does not lose that perspective.

David Quinn wrote: The bit about going in and out of nirvana hinges on whether the enlightened person is prepared to intensify his concentration and bring nirvana fully into focus. To the degree that he doesn't do this, he slips back into delusion.

I'll agree with that to the level that if a person is not truly prepared to permanently disavow any activity that is contrary to the achievement of nirvana, this person is not on a spiritual path.

David Quinn wrote:However, he only ever slips back a little distance. The farthest he can slide down is the lowest level of his changed perspective, as it were, which isn't very far.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a little distance." I believe a person could slip all the way back down to the hell realms, but would not stay there very long.

David Quinn wrote: He never really loses his connection with nirvana, even at this lowest level, but neither is he fully immersed in it during that time.

I agree, and this is like always having a ladder available to get out of the lower realms.

David Quinn wrote:The delusions he suffers at this lowest level aren't intellectual in nature, so it isn't really a case of his forgetting what Reality is. It's more a case that his mind gets side-tracked by subtle, habitual delusions which arise from boredom or fear.

I disagree with the attribution of causes here. Fear may be an effect of forgetting about Reality - and by forget, I mean a moment of inattention. One may, due to boredom, choose to temporarily subscribe to "delusions" - which are selected to bring pleasure (including intellectual pleasure). This would be an example of a concious venture into other realms, rather than truly becoming deluded.

It could most easily be likened to going to a movie. When you are watching a movie, you allow yourself to become absorbed in the storyline to some degree for various purposes. You do not really forget that you are in a movie theater or watching a television in your living room, but you temporarily set aside that awareness for a purpose. Although the movie can have an effect on you, or deepen your perspective on something, if the main character dies, you do not grieve for days, weeks, years... During the movie you may laugh or feel sad or scared, but you do not believe that you were actually in a tornado, or gunfight, or whatever. In fact, if the movie gets to be too much for you, you will suddenly remember "it's only a movie." One who has a Real perspective regards life much like the average person regards the movies.
.

Scott,

It's the same way with philosophy. If you dress it up in words like "enlightenment", "buddha", "nirvana", etc...people will be looking for something which just isn't there. Why not just call it what it is, in the English language?

I find those words no more dressed up than "ontology", "epistemology", "logic", or what-ever. If someone finds the words misleading, it is because the words describe concepts that can only be understood after much thought. Non-philosophers should not be touching philosophic concepts. If they do, then they will only end up sounding clueless.

I guess the answer to that is: you can only catch fish if you bait the hook. But how hypocritical is it when the fisher is trying to show the fish the truth, and he lies to them...

It is true that truth needs to be dressed up to be interesting to the deluded, but deluded fish have a tendency to bait the hooks themselves before they bite. The fishermen rarely have to do any work.

I do not personally have any ethical problems with lying to promote wisdom, if it comes to that. If someone is capable of wisdom, they will catch the lie, and understand the motivation. If someone is incapable of wisdom, then it doesn't really matter what I tell them. I might as well be saying "tuna fish".

There are those who have not defined enlightenment; the innocent, also known pejoratively as the ignorant.

There are those who have defined enlightenment and believe they do no meet the requirements of enlightenment as they have defined them; the seekers, also known pejoratively as the confused.

There are those who have defined enlightenment and believe they do meet the requirements of enlightenment as they have defined them; the enlightened, also known pejoratively as the insufferable.

And there are those who once defined enlightenment, but now have no belief in the definition.

Do no harm,
clyde

clyde wrote:And there are those who once defined enlightenment, but now have no belief in the definition.

Enlightenment is just a word, and its definition is more words. Some like the word for what it points at and the energy with which it points, others find all that energetic pointing to be the equivalent of pointing in too many directions.

Ultimatly, if it makes a difference to you whether or not you get the label "enlightened" - you are trapped in delusion. If you accept the label of "enlightened" to be an example for others, that is an acceptable albatross to wear around one's neck.
.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: I remember being in a writing class, and a girl said off-hand, "I didn't eat for 3 days once and I got into an enlightened state."

I think that's a far more disappointing use of the term. It is better to use the word enlightenment the way it is used here, because it contrasts nicely with the darkness she spends every single day of her life immersed in.

I think the girl probably did get into an enlightened state.

Enlightenment is the result of a few years of deliberate effort -- thinking about logic, causality, and the nature of reality -- not about the word enlightenment, or about attaining some mystical state.

You make it sound like only thinking is involved or required. How droll.

Anyone can achieve enlightenment. It's not really that hard. It's actually harder to convince someone that they've already achieved it once they get to the point where they can honestly call themselves enlightened. "Oh, THAT? Why would I use such a beautiful word to describe THAT?"

How would you know?

Or, I guess it depends on how the word is described. You make it sound like it only involves an understanding of logic. Is that so?

Don't be so attached to the word. It really just means the lights are on in your head: you don't believe anything happens magically without reason. You're not fumbling in the dark, trapped by your own delusions.

And you don't believe the girl who didn't eat for three days could have reached this state?

It goes without saying, but I'll say it again, that only you know whether or not you're enlightened. Everyone else can only guess.

And so you're guessing about the girl who didn't eat for three days?

clyde & Eliza:
Either you're enlightened or not. It's not a moral issue. It has entirely to do with how whether or not you understand reality perfectly.

If someone can't deal with the word enlightenment, it's their loss.

Carl, no. She was deluded. Enlightenment is not a "state".

How would you know?

Do I really need to spell it out for you?

Or, I guess it depends on how the word is described. You make it sound like it only involves an understanding of logic. Is that so?

It doesn't only involve an understanding of logic. An understanding of logic is required to be enlightened, though.

And you don't believe the girl who didn't eat for three days could have reached this state?

No, not by not eating for three days. She was describing an unfamiliar feeling, not enlightenment, and slaughtered a perfectly good word to do so.

And so you're guessing about the girl who didn't eat for three days?

It's a highly educated guess.

There is a huge difference between not being able to deal with the word enlightenment, and recognizing that the connotations are out of control as far as the disparity of thoughts that the term points to for different minds.

Eliza, I recognize only that most people don't know how to use the word. The connotations are due to ignorance. Non-philosophers sound clueless when they use the word "enlightenment".

.

clyde writes:

There are those who have not defined enlightenment; the innocent, also known pejoratively as the ignorant.

There are those who have defined enlightenment and believe they do no meet the requirements of enlightenment as they have defined them; the seekers, also known pejoratively as the confused.

There are those who have defined enlightenment and believe they do meet the requirements of enlightenment as they have defined them; the enlightened, also known pejoratively as the insufferable.

And there are those who once defined enlightenment, but now have no belief in the definition.

(clyde, the thought has some hugeness behind it, has more to say, more to tumble out, whether public or private, I extend the encouragement for its safe arrival to port, even and especially with its heavy cargo . . . . )


.

Trevor,

The connotations are due to ignorance. Non-philosophers sound clueless when they use the word "enlightenment".

I'll try to remember not to use the word in the future. Being clueless is one thing, but sounding clueless is just too much.

.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Carl, no. She was deluded. Enlightenment is not a "state".

Uh, yes it is. A state of mind, of being. What else is there? Everything is a state.

Nevermind. I'm ready to throw out the word for good. It's a flytrap for just about any interpretation anyone wants to throw at it. Never cared for it, anyway.

Sher,

I'll try to remember not to use the word in the future. Being clueless is one thing, but sounding clueless is just too much.

Indeed. I've seen people try to use the word "ontological" unsuccessfully before (say, when trying to review a book that has nothing to do with ontology), as well, and it makes me cringe.

General rule of thumb: if you aren't yourself enlightened, you shouldn't use the word.

Carl,

Uh, yes it is. A state of mind, of being. What else is there? Everything is a state.

Calling enlightenment a state implies that it's something that is flicked on and off, or that there's an emotion that accompanies it. Calling enlightenment a state is similar to calling wisdom a state, or intelligence a state. Except it's even less appropriate.

Nevermind. I'm ready to throw out the word for good. It's a flytrap for just about any interpretation anyone wants to throw at it. Never cared for it, anyway.

Actually, everyone who is enlightened agrees on what it is. My disagreement with David, for instance, is semantics, not content.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: General rule of thumb: if you aren't yourself enlightened, you shouldn't use the word.

Folks, you heard it here first: Trevor considers himself _________.

Carl, this is not the first place I said it. I also said it at the Big View, when I was defending the Genius forum from the members there. It's not particularly relevant, actually. I say I'm enlightened so I can talk about it without being a hypocrite.

If I was not willing to call myself enlightened, I would have no business talking about it.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Calling enlightenment a state implies that it's something that is flicked on and off, or that there's an emotion that accompanies it. Calling enlightenment a state is similar to calling wisdom a state, or intelligence a state. Except it's even less appropriate.

Bullshit. I think you're making this up.

Actually, everyone who is enlightened agrees on what it is. My disagreement with David, for instance, is semantics, not content.

Everyone who agrees on a certain meaning of the word.

Fine. Have at it. Doesn't mean you are. So far, what I hear from you is mostly theorectical talk with a big dose of ego. Has any transformation occurred?

I'm sorry, but I have to ask - is that the avitar of an enlightened man?

General rule of thumb: if you aren't yourself enlightened, you shouldn't use the word.

Not even to say something like: David Quinn says he is _____________ ?

Can us laymen and laywomen use some other word instead?

Trevor said,

Actually, everyone who is enlightened agrees on what it is. My disagreement with David, for instance, is semantics, not content.

Carl replied,

Everyone who agrees on a certain meaning of the word.

Fine. Have at it. Doesn't mean you are. So far, what I hear from you is mostly theorectical talk with a big dose of ego. Has any transformation occurred?

I would be willing to bet that Trevor is enlightened, in the way he defines the word. It's kind of funny how everyone's claim to it here is tested. I contest David's claim. He contests mine. You contest Trevor's.

To me, that kind of tells us about everyone's high interpretation of the word. That maybe we shouldn't call ourselves enlightened until we're perfectly enlightened, because until then, we are still capable of much delusion and error.

Or maybe all the contesting just isn't worth the title.

Shahrazad wrote:

General rule of thumb: if you aren't yourself enlightened, you shouldn't use the word.

Not even to say something like: David Quinn says he is _____________ ?

Can us laymen and laywomen use some other word instead?

You can use whatever word you want in whatever way you want as long as you believe you have an accurate stance on the use of it. Some people have been known to use the word "women" to describe men who want a wife. Just be aware that if you use a term that is contested or use a term in a manner that is likely to be contested, you will be faced with defending your position.
.

Carl,

I think you're making this up.

Yes, you do. And, I made it up a while ago. Originally, my only motivation for claiming enlightenment was so I could talk about it. However, the longer I talked about it, the more I learned. Now I have different reasons for claiming it.

Everyone who agrees on a certain meaning of the word.

Logically. I believe, however, that other meanings of the word do not respect the traditions behind it. If someone doesn't eat for three days and starts feeling inexplicably funky, I think they are doing Gotama a huge disservice by claiming enlightenment.

Fine. Have at it. Doesn't mean you are. So far, what I hear from you is mostly theorectical talk with a big dose of ego. Has any transformation occurred?

There has been a transformation to the extent that what you see as "theoretical talk with a big dose of ego", I see as practical advice given from one philosopher to another. I have no reason to be egotistical here, or speak about vague theories that I don't understand. Enlightenment is not something above me. It's practical. That's the extent of the transformation: I'm not afraid of it.

If you look at other threads I'm in, you'll notice that I do not like faking an understanding of things I don't understand. For instance, I can't tell the difference between capitalism and communism, so I don't talk about economics or politics. Just a couple days ago I quickly got out of a conversation that was sliding in that direction.

I can talk about enlightenment, though.

Elizabeth,

I'm sorry, but I have to ask - is that the avitar of an enlightened man?

No, the character in my avatar is not an enlightened man. I believe he was a werewolf gypsy in a Sierra game, circa 1994. If the image is an issue, I can always find a camera and replace it with a picture of myself. I only have an avatar at all because you were asking why people chose theirs, so I picked the first random thing that popped into my head.