GENIUS FORUMS

Let’s get a bit serious here, Scott, not that you are not.

There IS an end to the path, but it doesn't involve perfect enlightenment. It's a realization that all you've done is absolutely meaningless and foolish. It's not called enlightenment. There is no enlightenment, because only perfect enlightenment would be something meaningful, since any other kind is simply foolishness on hold.

Scott, trust me, I know exactly what you are saying here, and in essence I do agree. In a sense what you are reflecting is “perfect realization”. (I don’t like the word “enlightenment” either, for other reasons), which also in-it-self in nothing much too, but the important part is what does this realization entail? How has it changed the perspective towards the same things one perceived earlier? Things do remain exactly the same, but your perspective must have surely changed.

However, this is exactly what UG is all about and I may not disagree with him entirely - at least not with its core understanding that is, except that I do not agree with the absolute ‘meaningless’ part.

It takes real courage to realize, which means reach the end. If you have, then good for you, but you cannot actually do the “realizing” part for anyone else by simply telling that there is nothing to be really achieved at all. It seems you have no idea how terribly weak a false-ego is.

Please let me try and explain how foolish would the ‘meaningless’ part be, as in advocating to others.

There IS an end to the path, but it doesn't involve “perfect” enlightenment.

I tend to agree, however...

It's a realization that all you've done is absolutely meaningless and foolish.

No. It is a realization that there was no-thing really there to chase after in the first place. And this realization comes after considerable chasing, and not by magic, or simply agreeing with or listening to absolutely anyone at all. The realization has to necessarily be realized by an individual and that has to sink in, but superficial contradictions do not allow that to happen easily.

It's not called enlightenment.

OK, so what? You call it ‘realization’, others call it ‘awakening’, and yet one may “call” that (enlightenment) ‘foolishness’, what ‘s the real difference? I know that the word ‘enlightenment’ has tons of existing volumes that one is intelectually impressed by and thinks on THAT, rather than actually think over first hand experiences with a clean mental slate so to speak. But, those words do help some IF one can really read between the lines, realize, and grasp the futility of the written words, and “see” beyond them, to reach an end.

There is no enlightenment, because only perfect enlightenment would be something meaningful, since any other kind is simply foolishness on hold.

So according to you, ‘perfect enlightenment’ holds some meaningful meaning, otherwise not. So how does saying that there is no 'enlightenment' relate to this? Would you agree that once foolishness on hold realizes that I have been indulging in foolishness all this while, then it would be “enlightenment”, plain and simple that is?

I personally have no reason to believe in some kind of “perfect” enlightenment, because no ‘thing’ that can be defined could be actually perfect in any sense, for things have too much of dependency, and yet, I would consider understanding just that as a perfect realization, otherwise, your claim that there is an end to this path is not only foolish, but a lie.

So, there has to necessarily be ‘meaningfulness’ in the statement that ‘no-thing is perfect’, and that statement itself may not be considered “perfect” in-it-self by you, but only for the sake of communication, one has to necessarily differentiate between what a defined ‘realization’ is, and what the hell are you talking about. Hence a ‘”perfect” realization’ would be in order. Logically speaking.

Sapius,

Scott, trust me, I know exactly what you are saying here, and in essence I do agree. In a sense what you are reflecting is “perfect realization”. (I don’t like the word “enlightenment” either, for other reasons), which also in-it-self in nothing much too, but the important part is what does this realization entail? How has it changed the perspective towards the same things one perceived earlier? Things do remain exactly the same, but your perspective must have surely changed.

It's exactly the same, except now I'm free of a stupid belief and the resulting stupid actions.

However, this is exactly what UG is all about and I may not disagree with him entirely - at least not with its core understanding that is, except that I do not agree with the absolute ‘meaningless’ part.

I always thought UG was just about getting people's money by making them believe he's a guru while at the same time confusing them by saying he isn't one.

It takes real courage to realize, which means reach the end. If you have, then good for you, but you cannot actually do the “realizing” part for anyone else by simply telling that there is nothing to be really achieved at all. It seems you have no idea how terribly weak a false-ego is.

Please let me try and explain how foolish would the ‘meaningless’ part be, as in advocating to others.

Okay...

Quote:
There IS an end to the path, but it doesn't involve “perfect” enlightenment.


I tend to agree, however...

Quote:
It's a realization that all you've done is absolutely meaningless and foolish.


No. It is a realization that there was no-thing really there to chase after in the first place. And this realization comes after considerable chasing, and not by magic, or simply agreeing with or listening to absolutely anyone at all. The realization has to necessarily be realized by an individual and that has to sink in, but superficial contradictions do not allow that to happen easily.

I agree with you. However, I don't think saying "there was nothing to chase after" and "everything I've chased after has been meaningless" are all that different. Semantics.

Quote:
It's not called enlightenment.

OK, so what? You call it ‘realization’, others call it ‘awakening’, and yet one may “call” that (enlightenment) ‘foolishness’, what ‘s the real difference? I know that the word ‘enlightenment’ has tons of existing volumes that one is intelectually impressed by and thinks on THAT, rather than actually think over first hand experiences with a clean mental slate so to speak. But, those words do help some IF one can really read between the lines, realize, and grasp the futility of the written words, and “see” beyond them, to reach an end.

It's a big deal to say it's enlightenment. It's like a pedophile telling an innocent child that there are a bunch of puppies and candy bars in the car, when in fact there aren't any. So using the word to describe this realization is a disgusting lie. It perpetuates delusion. It traps innocent people inside a car they don't want to be in, with the types of people they would most likely rather not be with. The only thing it teaches them is how to become like the pedophile, and the thing perpetuates itself.

There is a big difference between realization and enlightenment. Realization implies you have figured something out...the "aha" moment happened for you...simply that you realized something, whether by hard thought or by accident. Enlightenment implies you are somehow above everything...that you are in heavenly peace...that you have no ego...that you have supernatural control over nature...that you have absolutely no delusions...etc. The list goes on and on and on and on and on. The fact is, is that this realization which ends the path doesn't get you any of those things. It may be a perfect realization but it doesn't make you perfect. It just puts you back to square one.

So out of respect for the ideal of enlightenment, I can't use the word enlightenment to describe what I've had, or what anyone else I've ever met had. I don't want to shit all over the ideal by playing wise man, when I'm not that. I think it's disgraceful for others to do that.

I have to go to class now...

I have to go to class now...

So far so good, Scott; I shall wait for you to respond to the rest of my post though, before I say something.

Sapius,

So according to you, ‘perfect enlightenment’ holds some meaningful meaning, otherwise not. So how does saying that there is no 'enlightenment' relate to this? Would you agree that once foolishness on hold realizes that I have been indulging in foolishness all this while, then it would be “enlightenment”, plain and simple that is?

Perfect enlightenment is an idea. It's not anything real - no one has attained it, but as an idea it exists. So when I say "enlightenment isn't real" I'm saying both enlightenment and perfect enlightenment (which I consider to be the same) both aren't something to be attained. But when I attribute respect to perfect enlightenment, I'm saying the idea is good.

When you realize that you've just been experiencing foolishness on hold and not any sort of lasting wisdom that is not enlightenment, because after that point you still experience more foolishness on hold. I would never call what I've attained, enlightenment. Nor what anyone else at this forum has attained, or anyone I've met for that matter.

I personally have no reason to believe in some kind of “perfect” enlightenment, because no ‘thing’ that can be defined could be actually perfect in any sense, for things have too much of dependency, and yet, I would consider understanding just that as a perfect realization, otherwise, your claim that there is an end to this path is not only foolish, but a lie.

If enlightenment is defined as an absence of delusion, then perfect enlightenment only means that there's an absolute absence of delusion.

Your understanding is not a perfect realization in my opinion. You are saying that you realized "no thing that can be defined could actually perfect in any sense, for things have too much of dependency". That rule seems very illogical to me, even if it makes little sense to me the way it's written. I wonder how you arrived at that conclusion.

I wonder why you think that understanding that rule is either perfect realization or else if it's not, then I'm lying and being foolish. It seems like you're just playing word games without actually thinking. Is English your second language? If so, then it's understandable.

So, there has to necessarily be ‘meaningfulness’ in the statement that ‘no-thing is perfect’, and that statement itself may not be considered “perfect” in-it-self by you, but only for the sake of communication, one has to necessarily differentiate between what a defined ‘realization’ is, and what the hell are you talking about. Hence a ‘”perfect” realization’ would be in order. Logically speaking.

I'm trying to follow you, but you lost me.

Scott.

Is English your second language? If so, then it's understandable

Yes, and thanks for understanding, however, I can understand the core meaning of what you are saying with considerable clarity. I hope I can be that clear too.

It's exactly the same, except now I'm free of a stupid belief and the resulting stupid actions.

…and you don’t consider ‘that’ a glaring change in your perspective and outlook? What else do you think ‘enlightenment’ leads to?

I always thought UG was just about getting people's money by making them believe he's a guru while at the same time confusing them by saying he isn't one.

I don’t think so; others have given the label ‘non-guru guru’. I know from very reliable sources that he dose not accept money, but as a normal human, which he considers himself to be, enjoys invitations and a free stay, and generally doesn’t speak unless spoken to. He lives a very simple life, living off income from ancestral properties that came by much later in life due the demise of the elderly family members.

He does have a tremendous philosophical background, and has developed his own style of delivering his ideas, which revolve around – Jesus, and all the prophets, the Enlightened Buddha and all their likes, were conmen. Not in the sense that they coned other people, but were coned into believing a thing like God or Enlightenment, through the “mistake” called human consciousness that is based on conceptual knowledge, which takes one away from nature and what a human already naturally is, which is no different than a dog – naturally in tune with nature, without a conceptual care.

However, I'm not an authority on him.

I agree with you. However, I don't think saying "there was nothing to chase after" and "everything I've chased after has been meaningless" are all that different. Semantics.

May be, but I see a huge difference, by your own admission if I may add.

Scott: It's exactly the same, except now I'm free of a stupid belief and the resulting stupid actions.

Have you not gained a meaningful realization that is was meaningless? It does not really matter I call it a chase to nowhere, and you call it a meaningless chase, but the results are necessarily meaningful in either case. That is the reason you consider yourself free of stupid beliefs.

It's a big deal to say it's enlightenment. It's like a pedophile telling an innocent child that there are a bunch of puppies and candy bars in the car, when in fact there aren't any. So using the word to describe this realization is a disgusting lie.

Who told you that there is some-“thing” to be literally acquired? The whole point revolves around there being no candy bar at the end of the rainbow.

One of the founders of this site, David Quinn, has this to say…

The biggest obstacle for the serious student seeking to become enlightened is his natural habit of trying to grasp at Reality as though it were a "thing" of some kind, as though it were a limited phenomenon separated from himself. He might be aware that he is unenlightened, it might deeply dissatisfy him and strongly motivate him to want to rectify the situation. But because he does not yet comprehend the nature of Reality, he is hampered by his flawed understanding and wrongly interprets Reality to be a realm which needs to be mentally reached in some way. Here.

It perpetuates delusion.

Of course, and people like David and yourself are here to help rid those delusions, in their own unique way. Isn’t it?

There is a big difference between realization and enlightenment. Realization implies you have figured something out...the "aha" moment happened for you...simply that you realized something…

I am with you here, but that does not mean you understand the word “enlightenment” as traditionally understood and then argue with those who themselves do not accept it. How un-foolish is that?

It may be a perfect realization but it doesn't make you perfect.

Sure. It is just the understanding that is perfected.

It just puts you back to square one.

Absolutely not; here is the proof… again.

Scott: It's exactly the same, except now I'm free of a stupid belief and the resulting stupid actions.

Does this relate to just one stupid belief, that of enlightenment, or has it taught you something more?

So out of respect for the ideal of enlightenment, I can't use the word enlightenment to describe what I've had, or what anyone else I've ever met had. I don't want to shit all over the ideal by playing wise man, when I'm not that. I think it's disgraceful for others to do that.

Well I respect your opinion, but that is just that, unless you ask people here what do they really mean by that word.

But when I attribute respect to perfect enlightenment, I'm saying the idea is good.

And that idea is.. this I take it..

When you realize that you've just been experiencing foolishness on hold and not any sort of lasting wisdom that is not enlightenment, because after that point you still experience more foolishness on hold. I would never call what I've attained, enlightenment. Nor what anyone else at this forum has attained, or anyone I've met for that matter.

What do you mean by ‘foolishness on hold’? Does ‘foolishness on hold’ mean that you are still a conscious human that experiences daily life?

Sapius: I personally have no reason to believe in some kind of “perfect” enlightenment, because no ‘thing’ that can be defined could be actually perfect in any sense, for things have too much of dependency, and yet, I would consider understanding just that as a perfect realization, otherwise, your claim that there is an end to this path is not only foolish, but a lie.

Scott: If enlightenment is defined as an absence of delusion, then perfect enlightenment only means that there's an absolute absence of delusion.

Your understanding is not a perfect realization in my opinion. You are saying that you realized "no thing that can be defined could actually perfect in any sense, for things have too much of dependency". That rule seems very illogical to me, even if it makes little sense to me the way it's written. I wonder how you arrived at that conclusion.

I wonder why you think that understanding that rule is either perfect realization or else if it's not, then I'm lying and being foolish. It seems like you're just playing word games without actually thinking. Is English your second language? If so, then it's understandable.

Let me break your above response to what I wrote.

If enlightenment is defined as an absence of delusion, then perfect enlightenment only means that there's an absolute absence of delusion.

And what exactly is ‘delusion’ in such contexts?

That rule seems very illogical to me, even if it makes little sense to me the way it's written. I wonder how you arrived at that conclusion.

How I arrived at that conclusion is a long story. May be in time. And it might make little sense because we might be reading into each other’s words according to our own definitions. Hence I have asked for certain clarifications.

I wonder why you think that understanding that rule is either perfect realization or else if it's not, then I'm lying and being foolish.

If you say that you have reached the end through the understanding of whatever you have, and you really mean it, then I would consider that a perfect realization, but since you say that you still remain ‘foolishness on hold’ then what about THAT “REALIZATION”? Has it disappeared? And hence I asked above earlier; what do you mean by “foolishness on hold”.

It seems like you're just playing word games without actually thinking. Is English your second language? If so, then it's understandable.

Ironically, I have to think a bit harder than you, for obvious reasons.

I'm trying to follow you, but you lost me.

Is the understanding - ‘enlightenment is meaningless and foolishness’ – a meaningful realization? Or should I consider it a meaningless realization?

(I’m actually down with cold and flu, so please pardon all those partly blotted words. That’s just me sneezing on the screen.)

The forum seems a bit slow though. Generally that happens on week-ends.

To all; this is not necessarily a one to one discussion; if others have anything to contribute, please do so.

Sapius,

Yes, and thanks for understanding, however, I can understand the core meaning of what you are saying with considerable clarity. I hope I can be that clear too.

No problem. I will keep that in mind from now on.

…and you don’t consider ‘that’ a glaring change in your perspective and outlook? What else do you think ‘enlightenment’ leads to?

No, because my perspective and outlook haven't changed. I feel and am the same way I was.

I don’t think so; others have given the label ‘non-guru guru’. I know from very reliable sources that he dose not accept money, but as a normal human, which he considers himself to be, enjoys invitations and a free stay, and generally doesn’t speak unless spoken to. He lives a very simple life, living off income from ancestral properties that came by much later in life due the demise of the elderly family members.

He does have a tremendous philosophical background, and has developed his own style of delivering his ideas, which revolve around – Jesus, and all the prophets, the Enlightened Buddha and all their likes, were conmen. Not in the sense that they coned other people, but were coned into believing a thing like God or Enlightenment, through the “mistake” called human consciousness that is based on conceptual knowledge, which takes one away from nature and what a human already naturally is, which is no different than a dog – naturally in tune with nature, without a conceptual care.

However, I'm not an authority on him.

Oh, okay. Just to be clear I'm not suggesting we all become unthinking, like dogs.

May be, but I see a huge difference, by your own admission if I may add.

Then you should know that the writer of the words sees little difference, so you should probably change your perspective on that if you want to understand what's actually being written.

Have you not gained a meaningful realization that is was meaningless? It does not really matter I call it a chase to nowhere, and you call it a meaningless chase, but the results are necessarily meaningful in either case. That is the reason you consider yourself free of stupid beliefs.

Why do you want this realization to be meaningful?

Who told you that there is some-“thing” to be literally acquired? The whole point revolves around there being no candy bar at the end of the rainbow.

One of the founders of this site, David Quinn, has this to say…

Quote:
The biggest obstacle for the serious student seeking to become enlightened is his natural habit of trying to grasp at Reality as though it were a "thing" of some kind, as though it were a limited phenomenon separated from himself. He might be aware that he is unenlightened, it might deeply dissatisfy him and strongly motivate him to want to rectify the situation. But because he does not yet comprehend the nature of Reality, he is hampered by his flawed understanding and wrongly interprets Reality to be a realm which needs to be mentally reached in some way. Here.

I was talking about something else entirely from what David was talking about. He was saying a big obstacle on the path to enlightenment is thinking that reality is a thing. I was saying there is no enlightenment.

Of course, and people like David and yourself are here to help rid those delusions, in their own unique way. Isn’t it?

From what I've seen David only perpetuates them by constantly feeling the need to play the role of a sage. At least I'm honest and assume no role. At least I say there's nothing to be had, where David's taunting just makes you chase your tail. I think we're quite different.

I am with you here, but that does not mean you understand the word “enlightenment” as traditionally understood and then argue with those who themselves do not accept it. How un-foolish is that?

Huh?

Sure. It is just the understanding that is perfected.

I probably disagree.

Absolutely not; here is the proof… again.

Quote:
Scott: It's exactly the same, except now I'm free of a stupid belief and the resulting stupid actions.

Does this relate to just one stupid belief, that of enlightenment, or has it taught you something more?

It's only taught me to know how foolish I can be.

Well I respect your opinion, but that is just that, unless you ask people here what do they really mean by that word.

It doesn't matter what definition individual people give a word. It matters how the word has been defined. If I say, "I want soup" should you have to ask me what I mean by "soup"? That would be really ridiculous. We all know what soup means.

I have the same problem with how people use the word "God" here. Everyone knows what it's commonly thought to mean, but some "wise people" like to use the word to describe the infinite. They probably think it makes them sound cute or something. It's only misleading.

Quote:
But when I attribute respect to perfect enlightenment, I'm saying the idea is good.

And that idea is.. this I take it..

Quote:
When you realize that you've just been experiencing foolishness on hold and not any sort of lasting wisdom that is not enlightenment, because after that point you still experience more foolishness on hold. I would never call what I've attained, enlightenment. Nor what anyone else at this forum has attained, or anyone I've met for that matter.

No. I have already said I'm not enlightened, and certainly not perfectly enlightened. Quote me on this: perfect enlightenment is a complete and permanent absence of delusion.

I don't have that.

What do you mean by ‘foolishness on hold’? Does ‘foolishness on hold’ mean that you are still a conscious human that experiences daily life?

I mean that I may currently have no delusions manifesting themselves. I may be in the highest heights of Nirvana, or whatever...but if that ends then my experience was only foolishness on hold. "Foolishness on hold" is my way of describing imperfect enlightenment. Here is the definition for that: imperfect enlightenment is an incomplete and temporary absence of delusion.

That's what I have.

Quote:
If enlightenment is defined as an absence of delusion, then perfect enlightenment only means that there's an absolute absence of delusion.

And what exactly is ‘delusion’ in such contexts?

Say for example, if you think you are wise when you're not. That would be deluded.

Why am I defining such a simple term? Don't we all know what delusion is? It's when we're not understanding and living in accordance with reality.

If you say that you have reached the end through the understanding of whatever you have, and you really mean it, then I would consider that a perfect realization, but since you say that you still remain ‘foolishness on hold’ then what about THAT “REALIZATION”? Has it disappeared? And hence I asked above earlier; what do you mean by “foolishness on hold”.

When you realize something it changes your life, but you can still forget about it. Like if I realize that today is March 20th...I can still forget the date sometime today. Foolishness on hold is explained above.

Is the understanding - ‘enlightenment is meaningless and foolishness’ – a meaningful realization? Or should I consider it a meaningless realization?

I never said enlightenment is meaningless and foolishness. Consider things however you find them to be.

Get well soon, Sapius.

Scott,

No, because my perspective and outlook haven't changed. I feel and am the same way I was.

I find that hard to believe. If your perspective remains exactly the same as before, then you shouldn’t have any problems with ‘enlightenment’.

Oh, okay. Just to be clear I'm not suggesting we all become unthinking, like dogs.

No, he too is not exactly suggesting that. He says that even that is not possible at all. He means that we can in no way be anything other than what we are due to the fact that a human mind necessarily works through previously acquired ‘knowledge’, which is fed to us from childhood. Hence, in reality, we chase after something that has already been established in our minds as being existent, say ‘enlightenment’ for example, or that ‘this’ song is melodious, and then we acquire a taste for it or some other tune. For him, he says even the grunt of a pig is melodious, because he does not really apply meaning to previously acquired knowledge, but yet cannot operate in any other way, hence has to necessarily use it, but use it for superficial purposes, as in for purely surviving.

He says that existence can survive irrelevant of our knowledge, and that a body is already far more intelligent in the art of surviving, to which I disagree, because how unnatural or irrelevant is meaning making, which is but a tool provided to survive, eventually.

Sapius: May be, but I see a huge difference, by your own admission if I may add.

Scott: Then you should know that the writer of the words sees little difference, so you should probably change your perspective on that if you want to understand what's actually being written.

OK, If you say so.

Why do you want this realization to be meaningful?

Well, if you don’t really mean anything in saying ‘there is no enlightenment’, then so be it. What can I say…

I was talking about something else entirely from what David was talking about. He was saying a big obstacle on the path to enlightenment is thinking that reality is a thing. I was saying there is no enlightenment.

Same goes for ‘enlightenment’ too; that is if and when you reach a point where that necessarily becomes the case. That does not mean that there is absolutely no enlightenment or reality. Both of them are simply comparative ideas, whereas existence encompasses the opposites too.

From what I've seen David only perpetuates them by constantly feeling the need to play the role of a sage. At least I'm honest and assume no role. At least I say there's nothing to be had, where David's taunting just makes you chase your tail. I think we're quite different.

From what you have SEEN? You should probably change your perspective on that then, if you want to understand what’s actually being written. (It works both ways you see.)

Sapius: I am with you here, but that does not mean you understand the word “enlightenment” as traditionally understood and then argue with those who themselves do not accept it. How un-foolish is that?

Scott: Huh?

Was that a reaction because of my weak command of English, or my sloppy thinking?

Scott: It may be a perfect realization but it doesn't make you perfect.

Sapius: Sure. It is just the understanding that is perfected.

Scott: I probably disagree.

Sure you can. How perfect am “I” to force any thing onto you. One has to work that out on his own.

It's only taught me to know how foolish I can be.

And yet you remain a fool without any progress in thought or realization? Give me a reason to take you seriously.

It doesn't matter what definition individual people give a word. It matters how the word has been defined. If I say, "I want soup" should you have to ask me what I mean by "soup"? That would be really ridiculous. We all know what soup means.

Really? Do you know what Goulash is, or a Country soup? It is a full-fledged mean in its self, far from what the word actually means to me.

I have the same problem with how people use the word "God" here. Everyone knows what it's commonly thought to mean, but some "wise people" like to use the word to describe the infinite. They probably think it makes them sound cute or something. It's only misleading.

Yes, I agree, it could be misleading, but one has to necessarily look beyond the words and grasp the entire concept by actually reading all that is actually written. I think you should agree to that.

No. I have already said I'm not enlightened, and certainly not perfectly enlightened. Quote me on this: perfect enlightenment is a complete and permanent absence of delusion.

I don't have that.

OK you don’t have that, but I think your point is that no such thing actually exists. Isn't it?

I mean that I may currently have no delusions manifesting themselves. I may be in the highest heights of Nirvana, or whatever...but if that ends then my experience was only foolishness on hold. "Foolishness on hold" is my way of describing imperfect enlightenment. Here is the definition for that: imperfect enlightenment is an incomplete and temporary absence of delusion.

That's what I have.

OK, so you temporarily remember what you have realized and forget it at other times. That is understandable; I have heard others say the same, so it must be possible.

Scott: If enlightenment is defined as an absence of delusion, then perfect enlightenment only means that there's an absolute absence of delusion.

Sapius: And what exactly is ‘delusion’ in such contexts?

Scott: Say for example, if you think you are wise when you're not. That would be deluded.

And who is to be the judge of that?

Why am I defining such a simple term? Don't we all know what delusion is? It's when we're not understanding and living in accordance with reality.

When are we NOT living in accordance WITH reality? Are we any other thing than what "reality" is? What is un-REAL when we talk in such contexts?

In my opinion, we simply cannot accept that actually neither of the two attributes really apply in any sense when we encompass absolutely All that there IS.

When you realize something it changes your life, but you can still forget about it. Like if I realize that today is March 20th...I can still forget the date sometime today. Foolishness on hold is explained above.

Sure, if that ‘forgetfulness’ is what you mean, I can understand that, but if you say that somehow you forget that “there is no enlightenment”, and then start chasing it again, then I’m sorry to say, I haven’t much to say about it.

I never said enlightenment is meaningless and foolishness. Consider things however you find them to be.

I realize that, and I also read what else you wrote, so I could only consider that as a temporary confusion. However, it may be crystal clear to you, but we cannot get into each other’s minds, so I say, good for you. I cannot really judge you from within your mind, nor can you really judge me. That is the reason that ecah path is unique, and on its own.

Get well soon, Sapius.

Thanks.

"Enlightenment," for me, is the realization that concepts such as "enlightenment" are only concepts and not substitutes for direct, unconditioned experience. I'm not fond of the term for a variety of reasons, and I think that if anything, "awakening" is a better one. Specifically, the idea is to "awaken" from the various dream states (delusions) manufactured by our own minds. It isn't about achieving some mythological state of perfection, hopping around on our asses like the Maharishi, or any of that. It's about realizing that as intellectual beings, we are prone to mistake our concepts for reality. But reality is not conceptual. The map is not the territory.

As the Diamond Sutra reminds us, "there is no named thing which is not merely a name." This includes "enlightenment," and yes, it includes "awakening" as well. But if we must use a term (and if we want to communicate, we must), we might as well use one that points to reality as directly as possible.

The "enlightened (or awakened) being" as a concept is essentially a fiction, as Scott points out. There is no "state of mind" which constitutes awakening. Rather, awakening is an abandonment of all such concepts. It is a direct engagement with reality, a dissolving and forgetting of the question "what is the state of enlightement" and all similar questions, because one has realized that the full application of intellect results in the conclusion that the intellect has nothing to grasp at or cling to. This, in part, is is what is meant by "emptiness."

"Enlightenment" (if we must use the term) is not perfection, bliss, salvation, or any such thing. However, I do think it is "freedom" or "liberation" in the sense that we free ourelves once and for all of the desire to apprehend reality conceptually, which is a fundamentally egoistic pursuit. The ego wants to trap reality in a conceptual box, slap a label on it, and present it to everybody for show-and-tell. Awakening is the realization that such an approach just doesn't work, and therefore freedom from the compulsion to continue attempting it.

Hi Unidian, your concept(teehee) of enlightenment seems to have some similarities with mine. I rejoice in the spreading of like-mindedness. But before I get too excited, lets see if we really are in agreement:

Unidian wrote:"Enlightenment," for me, is the realization that concepts such as "enlightenment" are only concepts and not substitutes for direct, unconditioned experience.

What do you mean by "unconditioned" in that sense?

It's about realizing that as intellectual beings, we are prone to mistake our concepts for reality. But reality is not conceptual. The map is not the territory.

Concepts are a part of reality though, yes? So maps are a part of the territory.

"Enlightenment" (if we must use the term) is not perfection, bliss, salvation, or any such thing. However, I do think it is "freedom" or "liberation" in the sense that we free ourelves once and for all of the desire to apprehend reality conceptually, which is a fundamentally egoistic pursuit.

When you use the word "reality" above, is that equivalent to "literally everything that exists/is"? Or something else?

Awakening is the realization that such an approach just doesn't work, and therefore freedom from the compulsion to continue attempting it.

Don't you think that is kind of a lame ending? I do. No bliss or end to all suffering or any of that, just an escape from what is, to some degree, a thing that our philosophizing constructed in the first place. It's not much of a prize. Or do you see something else, special, happening?

Nat,

Upon first read, it seems that what you've said is exactly what I've been trying to say.

Jason wrote:Don't you think that is kind of a lame ending? I do. No bliss or end to all suffering or any of that, just an escape from what is, to some degree, a thing that our philosophizing constructed in the first place. It's not much of a prize. Or do you see something else, special, happening?

Yes, no prize. Nothing special.

You get to the end of a video game, and so you stop. Well, you could have stopped at any time, really.

If you want bliss, then look for bliss. If you look for truth, you will only find truth. Bliss doesn't come with.

If you find truth, it may be that you will stop looking for bliss. Doesn't mean you found it, though.

Jason wrote:What do you mean by "unconditioned" in that sense?

Experience not clouded by thinking about what the experience "is." Unconditioned by thoughts and concepts.

Concepts are a part of reality though, yes? So maps are a part of the territory.

Yes. Just a part, though. The trouble occurs when we mistake our models of reality for the whole of reality.

When you use the word "reality" above, is that equivalent to "literally everything that exists/is"? Or something else?

Reality is not what we say it is. It's a term of convenience.

Don't you think that is kind of a lame ending? I do. No bliss or end to all suffering or any of that, just an escape from what is, to some degree, a thing that our philosophizing constructed in the first place. It's not much of a prize. Or do you see something else, special, happening?

I agree with what dhodges said. It is only a "lame ending" if we are expecting another sort of ending.

If your enlightenment isn't special, amazing and infinitely liberating, then it isn't the enlightenment of the buddhas.

-

What buddhas?

Which enlightenment of the Buddhas, though? The "special, amazing and infinitely liberating" one described primarily to lay followers in order to get them interested in the path to begin with, or the "chop wood, carry water" one discussed with fellow Buddhas and realized individuals? Historically, as you know, this distinction did exist. Religion has always had a strong "bait and switch" element, and the Eastern traditions are no exception. Without the promise of salvation, "infinite liberation," and the like, who's going to sign up?

Uni,

Religion has always had a strong "bait and switch" element, and the Eastern traditions are no exception.

Are you referring to the point where people know enough that they can decide whether to think rationally or keep dreaming?

As far as I understand it, the switch is done by any seeker who wants truth rather than fantasy.

Nat,

Experience not clouded by thinking about what the experience "is." Unconditioned by thoughts and concepts.

It is not the thinking about what the experience “is” that clouds the experience, but the reasoning and conclusions thereof. If your reasoning conforms to logic every step of the way, then the conclusion will, and if realized completely, then just that realization remains, as a simple change of perspective of how you look at the same experiences then on.

Which enlightenment of the Buddhas, though? The "special, amazing and infinitely liberating" one described primarily to lay followers in order to get them interested in the path to begin with, or the "chop wood, carry water" one discussed with fellow Buddhas and realized individuals? Historically, as you know, this distinction did exist. Religion has always had a strong "bait and switch" element, and the Eastern traditions are no exception. Without the promise of salvation, "infinite liberation," and the like, who's going to sign up?

Unless and until you don’t allow others to think and reason on their own, they will realize nothing at all; you cannot do the realization part for them. The realization that there is no cage to begin with, that one may be liberated from.

Scott wrote:

What buddhas?

Gautoma, Nagarjuna, Huang Po, Hakuin, Hui Neng, etc.

And also Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Diogenes, Socrates, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, etc.

These were all buddhas - or more accurately, bodhisattvas.

-

Unidian,

Which enlightenment of the Buddhas, though? The "special, amazing and infinitely liberating" one described primarily to lay followers in order to get them interested in the path to begin with, or the "chop wood, carry water" one discussed with fellow Buddhas and realized individuals?

Both.

Each is amazing in its own way. The first involves a breaking away from ordinary consciousness, which is exciting, momentous, profound, life-changing, etc.

The second involves a mode of life that is infinitely removed from ordinary consciousness, wherein perfect freedom is achieved and all philosophical issues are resolved with the clarity of a single thought.

The first is amazing because it involves the first few tastes of God-consciousness, while the second is amazing because one's whole life is literally immersed in God-consciousness. One is "chopping wood and carrying water" inside God-consciousness.

Historically, as you know, this distinction did exist. Religion has always had a strong "bait and switch" element, and the Eastern traditions are no exception. Without the promise of salvation, "infinite liberation," and the like, who's going to sign up?

I don't want to lie about it. Enlightenment is fantastic and has nothing to do with ordinary consciousness. This is the truth as I see it.

Keep in mind that the baiting thing can work both ways. I'm sure the "chopping wood, carrying water" teaching within Eastern philosophy is very attractive to those who are weary of striving for greater consciousness and clarity of thinking.

-

Enlightenment peace within ones self etc, these things people strive to experience or attain are impossible. For instance the so called calamity which many of us claim to have undergone is only an experience. As to live in a state of peace or whatever you may choose to call it is like trying to walk without our legs or to see without our eyes. The human make up does not allow for such an achievment. Its like the 2nd demension trying to explain the 3rd. Without the tools of the 3rd demension it is impossible to explain, so all we can do is ponder on the ideas. At the end of the day we are all at times miserable and comicle beings. But look at the bright side, we are all in this comedy show together.

DHodges wrote:Yes, no prize. Nothing special.

You get to the end of a video game, and so you stop. Well, you could have stopped at any time, really.

I agree with what you're saying obviously, and you've said something very similar before, and you phrased it so well back then that I saved a local copy of it.

But I have to ask what justification you have to say that? Have you actually found the truth yourself? I've been reading your posts to genius for years, and I can't remember you ever saying you'd reached a final and certain truth or understanding or realization etc.

The impression I get from you is that for many of those years you have been carefully(and slowly, from my point of view) investigating possible truths, making some definite evolution in your thought, but yet to come to any final conclusions. Am I correct(at least about the not reaching final conclusions bit)? Just out of curiosity I'd like to know what conclusions you've reached so far.

If you want bliss, then look for bliss. If you look for truth, you will only find truth. Bliss doesn't come with.

Again, how do you know this? Maybe bliss comes with truth as wetness comes water? I haven't found that to be the case, but why would the two have to be mutually exclusive?

Unidian, this enlightenment or awakening you describe, would you say it is a realization of truth? Does, and how does, truth figure into it?

Unidian wrote:

Jason wrote:What do you mean by "unconditioned" in that sense?

U: Experience not clouded by thinking about what the experience "is." Unconditioned by thoughts and concepts.

Could you give me an actual everyday example of how such a clouding of experience might operate? Is it something like confusing the idea of a walking with the experience of walking?

J: Concepts are a part of reality though, yes? So maps are a part of the territory.

U: Yes. Just a part, though. The trouble occurs when we mistake our models of reality for the whole of reality.

In your first reply you wrote about "experience" being clouded by thinking about what it is - that seems to relate to specific finite things. Whereas mistaking the "whole of the reality" for a conceptual model relates not to any finite thing, but rather the infinite aka everything. Do you agree with that distinction? Do you think there are different ramifications for each case?

J: Don't you think that is kind of a lame ending? I do. No bliss or end to all suffering or any of that, just an escape from what is, to some degree, a thing that our philosophizing constructed in the first place. It's not much of a prize. Or do you see something else, special, happening?

U: I agree with what dhodges said. It is only a "lame ending" if we are expecting another sort of ending.

I'm not sure that's what dhodges meant, but I agree with what you're saying. It is relative to expectations, and I did hope for another ending, with the bliss and the other really amazing happy happy double plus cool stuff. But I was ultimately searching for truth, and so I could only take what I found to be true. What were you hoping for? If anything?

David Quinn wrote:If your enlightenment isn't special, amazing and infinitely liberating, then it isn't the enlightenment of the buddhas.

Why should I care if the buddha's enlightenment matches the realization I have had, I was after truth not the buddha's seal of approval.

David Quinn wrote:Scott wrote:

What buddhas?

Gautoma, Nagarjuna, Huang Po, Hakuin, Hui Neng, etc.

And also Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Diogenes, Socrates, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, etc.

These were all buddhas - or more accurately, bodhisattvas.

David you rope in so many famous and influential old philosophers and religious-types as one of your own that I can't help but consider the possibility that you do so just as a recruitment tool. e.g. if you claim Jesus then you can more easily capture the christians who come here and so forth. Your use of the word "God" is another thing that falls under the same suspicion.

I just get the impression sometimes(and I find it unfortunate) that your goal to spread your truth leads to some loss of integrity. But it is just a hunch, I have no proof. The truth is I have always been quite impressed by you, so it is no fun for me to have these suspicions.

David,

Gautoma, Nagarjuna, Huang Po, Hakuin, Hui Neng, etc.

And also Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Diogenes, Socrates, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, etc.

These were all buddhas - or more accurately, bodhisattvas.

All of them attained a special, amazing and infinitely liberating experience? You know this...how? To me it seemed as if many of those men were quite different. Didn't Nietzsche go insane? Didn't Socrates hear a voice? Do you really know what Lao Tzu was writing about half the time? Or Kierkegaard for that matter?

Do we know anything at all about the real Gautoma.

What exactly is the special, amazing and infinitely liberating experience? It's essential to know what it is, because one person may interpret something as great, and another may not care all that much for it. In other words, you may feel that thinking on your own is a special, amazing and infinitely liberating experience...whereas someone else may see it as normal and nothing to get all worked up over. So what is this amazing and liberating experience?

Why should anyone believe that you've attained it? Why should anyone want to attain it?

Keep in mind that the baiting thing can work both ways. I'm sure the "chopping wood, carrying water" teaching within Eastern philosophy is very attractive to those who are weary of striving for greater consciousness and clarity of thinking.

Undoubtedly. I'd be dishonest to not acknowledge that. It's responsible for luring in hordes of complacent New Age types who think that "nothing to do" means that all you have to do is try to do nothing. "Oh boy, I'm really doing nothing now!" Ego translation: "Soon I'll be enlightened, whoopie!"

But to get to the actual "nothing to do" realization (the one that doesn't involve the obvious contradiction of trying), most of us end up doing quite a bit. It's only the rare prodigies who get to wu-wei quickly, because the egoistic delusion that "nothing to do" means "something to do" is a strong one. If we don't understand why there is nothing to do, doing nothing is still a method of doing something. Who wants to get enlightened? To whom does the thought arise? That's Maharshi Ramana's question, and it is one that we should ask until we finally get tired of banging our heads into the wall and the question dissolves. At that point, we would be "enlightened," except for the pleasantly ironic fact that the thought of anybody getting enlightened no longer arises.

The attainment delusion is comically evidenced by the typical guru satsangs, retreats, and seminars, where 30 or 40 people are sitting in a room trying to do nothing, all hoping they are going to "get enlightened." It is also evidenced here on Genius Forum by those who are "following" QRS teachings in hopes of "getting it." But when someone like Scott does "get it" on his own and behaves accordingly (by agreeing with the historical teachings that there's nothing to do and no one attains anything), the herd descends upon him.

He wasn't trying to do nothing, like the guru-deluded New Agers. He was trying to do something (get enlightened) and he reached the end of it - the same end spoken of in Taoism and Zen. The dissolving of the question. For Scott, "enlightenment" and "unenlightenment" no longer arise. And that's why in my Toilet Brush School of Zen, he gets a graduation certificate, suitable for framing in the crapper. Nagajuna and Chuang Tzu are smiling somewhere.

There's nothing to attain because the concept of attainment is inherently egoistic. Nor will it do to suppose that we have no ego and have found attainment in that manner. That concept is destroyed by the simple question, "who has no ego?" To whom does the thought of having no ego arise? One can't win conceptually. All we can do with any of these words and ideas is chase our tails until we finally get tired of it and quit, as both Taoism and Zen continually implore us to do. No thought or idea can capture reality in a convenient little box. There is no path but the reliquishment of all paths. If we understand this, what are we supposed to do, stand there jogging in place pretending to be doing something? That would be silly, because there's nothing to do. :)

What is enlightenment? Sticky buns. Three pounds of flax. Meaningless questions call for meaningless answers.