GENIUS FORUMS

scott:

You want to fight?

It Happens.

frank

Scott,

L: How do you distinguish between illusion, delusion and reality?

S: The self, being a delusion, must not be experienced in order for there to be enlightenment.

Without “I” there can be no logical distinctions, especially since (as tharpa pointed out with truth/totality) “I” is inferred -- as with memory, time (past, present, future), consciousness, unconsciousness, femininity, masculinity, etc.

If a Buddha -- as you say -- can appear yet still remain a Buddha, Buddha is the appearance of a Buddha and self/I of Buddha (and “you” as “not Buddha”) is inferred. If it were not, “Guatama Buddha,” or whatever label you might ascribe to such an appearance, is as deluded a notion as “I.”

The Buddha, of course, experiences the only reality -- as do we all -- but (by inference alone) is not deluded.

Given this, I understand how you would conclude that “every one/I” is unenlightened. But it seems the problem you face, logically, is precisely the consideration that a Buddha appears and he appears in the same way as the deluded, yet “somehow remains enlightened.”

If “I” does not exist and is delusion, then so it is with the Buddha; and any of those other things (mental objects) I mentioned above.

So, the question becomes, on what logical basis is the appearance of Buddha any less deluded than the appearance of “I.” What is there to point to with a Buddha that does not have an equal counterpart in “you” or “me”?

~

frank, I agree that you are “A Pack of Lies.”

You state that the only Absolute Truth is that there is no certainty so, day after day, you religiously assert your "hillarious script” ethos as if it were an absolute certainty.

I don't think it's funny. I think it's stupid.

Why would anyone but a hopeless liar pay any attention to what you are saying, let alone hold it as wisdom?

Words do have meaning, they point to things defined through thinking and logic. If you stopped feeling your way through life, you might be less inclined to use so many quotation marks.

.

scott:
You want to fight?


It Happens.

frank

We'll rewind it for Leyla.

Leyla,

Without “I” there can be no logical distinctions

How do you know that? Logic is greater than the self, and the self isn't needed for clear thinking. This should be apparent by anyone who uses logical reasoning...it's very not-human! They have to forget everything they assume in order to properly do it.

If a Buddha -- as you say -- can appear yet still remain a Buddha, Buddha is the appearance of a Buddha and self/I of Buddha (and “you” as “not Buddha”) is inferred. If it were not, “Guatama Buddha,” or whatever label you might ascribe to such an appearance, is as deluded a notion as “I.”

No. The ego is a delusion, and objects are always experienced as they are. When the ego is gone, there is pure seeing.

The Buddha, of course, experiences the only reality -- as do we all -- but (by inference alone) is not deluded.

Says who?

The fact remains, as long as there is an ego, there is delusion. If this supposed "Buddha" has to think in order to know the truth, that one hasn't attained enlightenment. Enlightenment is effortless wisdom, meaning the enlightened doesn't have to go, "Well all compounded things are ephemeral, therefore I am enlightened." No...there's no need for reflection, because delusion is gone. Who could possibly reflect? The truth alone is experienced, and all delusion is gone...therefore, what room is there for inference?

Given this, I understand how you would conclude that “every one/I” is unenlightened. But it seems the problem you face, logically, is precisely the consideration that a Buddha appears and he appears in the same way as the deluded, yet “somehow remains enlightened.”

This isn't a problem. A Buddha is an enlightened person. I am an unenlightened person. Enlightenment is when a person has no delusion in their mind.

If “I” does not exist and is delusion, then so it is with the Buddha; and any of those other things (mental objects) I mentioned above.

Understanding the absolute truth, a Buddha is just as empty as a tennis ball. Yet, my mind is still deluded so that I don't experience the absolute truth. I am swept up in this world, and tossed around within it. I think that false things exist.

So, the question becomes, on what logical basis is the appearance of Buddha any less deluded than the appearance of “I.”

Buddha appears and disappears, showing himself to be part of maya. Therefore, to say "The Buddha is absolute truth" is wrong, because the absolute truth doesn't appear and disappear. Therefore, there's no reason to "believe" in a Buddha, or worship one. The Buddha just points to yourself.

The self seems to be there because the mind says, "I am thinking." However, the self is a delusion. It isn't of the same nature as a Buddha, though, because the self never appears or disappears. The mind just continues to be unenlightened, creating the self process.

What is there to point to with a Buddha that does not have an equal counterpart in “you” or “me”?

A Buddha doesn't have any delusion or ignorance. However, you can't see this.

Scott: You want to fight?

Why not?

Leyla: Without “I” there can be no logical distinctions

Scott:How do you know that? Logic is greater than the self, and the self isn't needed for clear thinking. This should be apparent by anyone who uses logical reasoning...it's very not-human! They have to forget everything they assume in order to properly do it.

Logic presupposes self, without self there is no thought. All reason is human.

Leyla: If a Buddha -- as you say -- can appear yet still remain a Buddha, Buddha is the appearance of a Buddha and self/I of Buddha (and “you” as “not Buddha”) is inferred. If it were not, “Guatama Buddha,” or whatever label you might ascribe to such an appearance, is as deluded a notion as “I.”


Scott: No. The ego is a delusion, and objects are always experienced as they are. When the ego is gone, there is pure seeing.

The ego is never gone. Least of all where self appears to be beyond conception.

Leyla:
The Buddha, of course, experiences the only reality -- as do we all -- but (by inference alone) is not deluded.

Scott: Says who?

The fact remains, as long as there is an ego, there is delusion. If this supposed "Buddha" has to think in order to know the truth, that one hasn't attained enlightenment. Enlightenment is effortless wisdom, meaning the enlightened doesn't have to go, "Well all compounded things are ephemeral, therefore I am enlightened." No...there's no need for reflection, because delusion is gone. Who could possibly reflect? The truth alone is experienced, and all delusion is gone...therefore, what room is there for inference?

To equate ego with delusion of self is deluded.

Leyla:
Given this, I understand how you would conclude that “every one/I” is unenlightened. But it seems the problem you face, logically, is precisely the consideration that a Buddha appears and he appears in the same way as the deluded, yet “somehow remains enlightened.”


Scott: This isn't a problem. A Buddha is an enlightened person. I am an unenlightened person. Enlightenment is when a person has no delusion in their mind.

How do you know, as an unenlightened person? For instance, what if enlightenment lay in the conscious movement through delusion, and nothing more?

Leyla:
If “I” does not exist and is delusion, then so it is with the Buddha; and any of those other things (mental objects) I mentioned above.

Scott:Understanding the absolute truth, a Buddha is just as empty as a tennis ball. Yet, my mind is still deluded so that I don't experience the absolute truth. I am swept up in this world, and tossed around within it. I think that false things exist.

Leyla:
So, the question becomes, on what logical basis is the appearance of Buddha any less deluded than the appearance of “I.”


Scott: Buddha appears and disappears, showing himself to be part of maya. Therefore, to say "The Buddha is absolute truth" is wrong, because the absolute truth doesn't appear and disappear. Therefore, there's no reason to "believe" in a Buddha, or worship one. The Buddha just points to yourself.

The self seems to be there because the mind says, "I am thinking." However, the self is a delusion. It isn't of the same nature as a Buddha, though, because the self never appears or disappears. The mind just continues to be unenlightened, creating the self process.

Where does 'buddha' disappear to? Nothing is illusion, and delusion is only ever of self, not self.

Leyla:
What is there to point to with a Buddha that does not have an equal counterpart in “you” or “me”?


Scott: A Buddha doesn't have any delusion or ignorance. However, you can't see this.

So are you enlightened then after all? If no-one can see this but a buddha, why do you bother?

maybe we are all buddhas masquerading as deluded beings.

Suergaz,

Why not?

Well, because I'm too lazy to fight.

Logic presupposes self, without self there is no thought. All reason is human.

Wrong.

The ego is never gone. Least of all where self appears to be beyond conception.

What does this mean? The ego is gone when you sleep.

To equate ego with delusion of self is deluded.

Wrong.

How do you know, as an unenlightened person? For instance, what if enlightenment lay in the conscious movement through delusion, and nothing more?

Properly define enlightenment. Understand what it is exactly. An unenlightened person can do this by seeing what makes them unenlightened. Of course, they won't know what it's like to be enlightened until they become that.

Where does 'buddha' disappear to? Nothing is illusion, and delusion is only ever of self, not self.

Of course the Buddha doesn't disppear, but it seems like he does when he goes away and you stop thinking about him. Like peekaboo.

Saying "nothing is illusion" is pretty dumb, since people fall for illusions all the time. I think you should try to convey your thoughts in a more clear way, Suergaz. Using one small phrase is pretty dramatic, but if the reader doesn't get it the drama is wasted.

So are you enlightened then after all? If no-one can see this but a buddha, why do you bother?

No, I'm not enlightened. I meant no one can see the Buddha's lack of delusion...just as you can't see what I'm thinking when you look at me. Pretty simple.

Tharpa,

maybe we are all buddhas masquerading as deluded beings.

You're onto something here of course. I don't like saying it that way, though. I prefer to say that only a person who isn't deluded is a Buddha, because otherwise people will confuse what being a Buddha is.

Think of enlightenment as an Aware Ego...self realised...knowing yourself.

You don't lose the feeling of separation but you can as Sapius says:
...'eliminate the 'separation' conceptually, without actually breaking anything up at all...

We're all in the same boat...a Collective Ego so to speak...

To grok this causes compassion.

An Aware Ego has combed over it's past and noticed it's 'script logic'.....what it's been up to and why...

Basically, you've been driven by Instincts like 'financial instinct'...'sexual instinct'...'social instinct'...

get some money, get a chick and 'fit' into a social group in a way that brings you prestige...

You want prestige....

If your Ego ain't cutting it in the mainstream you go to things like philosophy, religion, booze to get a 'power script'....

Aristotle opined that philosophers were of the melancholic temperament...

frank

"because otherwise people will confuse what being a Buddha is."

Well, they always do....

On the other hand, this is where the function of the teacher principle comes in, I think. Whether or not people can understand what a Buddha is, when they meet one, their own innate buddha nature sees a naked Buddha, who hides nothing, is naked awareness.

This is what is known as 'transmission', although nothing is transmitted at all, rather that one's own ability to perceive reality clearly responds to witnessing such reality being manifest directly. One still has to do everything oneself, but teachers do help.

Just like Quinn's work can help trigger his readers' and interlocutor's insight and abilities to wake up from delusion. So there is a process beyond analysis in the realm of direct experience. Quinn mentions this in the last chapter when he explains how Philosophy, as he puts it, is more than just analysis or theory, at some point it has to be manifest in being. (I paraphrase not having it in front of me.)

Anyway...

Frank, I don't consider you enlightened or even learned in this subject, so there's no reason for me to listen to you. No reason for you to talk to me about this.

It's easily understandable that the ego picks up a "power script". However, understanding that this happens isn't enlightenment. Seeing that it's the case with ourselves isn't it. Knowing yourself isn't enlightenment. I know myself and I'm unenlightened. I see that I latch onto things in order to create meaning, yet this seeing doesn't enlighten me. I understand yet remain deluded.

I think it'd be a good idea for you to open up to new ideas. You might learn something.

Oh and Tharpa,

I agree.

scott:

Knowing yourself isn't enlightenment. I know myself and I'm unenlightened. I see that I latch onto things in order to create meaning, yet this seeing doesn't enlighten me. I understand yet remain deluded.

There's something to think about in that lot.

frank

You've got this flawed logic going scott.

You say you are unenlightened.
You say you know what enlightenment isn't which implies that you know what enlightenment is.
Then you run about telling people they are unenlightened.

You've pulled this stunt several times on different people.

It's kinda like a Weapon you use...it's a one-trick pony kinda thing...you punish Others with it: 'You are not enlightened'....and then you try to cover your arse from a kickback by saying: 'Neither am I'...

You've got yourself 'hooked up' in a Language Loop...it's a miniscript event that is based on I'm not OK...so...You're not OK...
You think it's a 'powerful' thing to do...

I usually get 'good bucks' sorting out people's Language Loops so what's your Credit Card details please...

It's Hilarious.

...you've got the tharpa script of rushing off to libraries, pulling Script Language from Buddha Books and reifying it on Bulletin Boards....what would that be...Journalist.

It's Hilarious.

...you've got Leyla, stampeding like a Warpath Commanche...attacking...the lack of clarity of thought...which basically amounts to attacking a person where the 'clarity of thought' gets lost somewhere.

It's Hilarious.

The precious antics of Ego.

My Script is 'it's Hilarious'...

It's either a Comedy or Tragedy.

for me it's Comedy.

frank

suergaz:
Why not?


Scott: Well, because I'm too lazy to fight.

Fightin' words!

suergaz:
Logic presupposes self, without self there is no thought. All reason is human.


Scott: Wrong.

Chicken.

suergaz:
The ego is never gone. Least of all where self appears to be beyond conception.


Scott; What does this mean? The ego is gone when you sleep.

What, and is the self too gone when you sleep? It, like the ego, is only resting, seeking in dreams.

suergaz:
To equate ego with delusion of self is deluded.


Scott: Wrong.

It could only be wrong were self-conception inherently delusion, which it is not.

Is your "wrong" from laziness, pride, or cowardice?

suergaz:
How do you know, as an unenlightened person? For instance, what if enlightenment lay in the conscious movement through delusion, and nothing more?


Scott: Properly define enlightenment. Understand what it is exactly. An unenlightened person can do this by seeing what makes them unenlightened. Of course, they won't know what it's like to be enlightened until they become that.

Well then they haven't understood it 'exactly' then, have they.
Was I too proper in leaving my definition in supposition? Fights to the death happen too.

suergaz:
Where does 'buddha' disappear to? Nothing is illusion, and delusion is only ever of self, not self.

Scott: Of course the Buddha doesn't disppear, but it seems like he does when he goes away and you stop thinking about him. Like peekaboo.

The grin of the cheshire cat shines on, as glow from sun set below the horizon. Buddha lies broad and flat as such, but his peekaboos are our own touch.

Saying "nothing is illusion" is pretty dumb, since people fall for illusions all the time. I think you should try to convey your thoughts in a more clear way, Suergaz. Using one small phrase is pretty dramatic, but if the reader doesn't get it the drama is wasted.

People fall for illusions, but not illusion, as it is nothing. Illusions are misunderstandings, whether inborn or induced.

suergaz:
So are you enlightened then after all? If no-one can see this but a buddha, why do you bother?

Scott; No, I'm not enlightened. I meant no one can see the Buddha's lack of delusion...just as you can't see what I'm thinking when you look at me. Pretty simple.

And I say still--then why do you bother?


Frank:

It's either a Comedy or Tragedy.

And yet melodrama shows us it is both.

Scott,

How do you know that? Logic is greater than the self, and the self isn't needed for clear thinking. This should be apparent by anyone who uses logical reasoning...it's very not-human!

Would you not say that clear thinking is the result of logic? If so, for anything logical to be apparent to any one who uses logical reasoning, that one is necessary for same to be apparent to: and it is very human. I know of no animal yet who speaks the word “I.” It is how we have distinguished ourselves.

They have to forget everything they assume in order to properly do it.

For exploratory purposes, I am going to tie this in with your idea that the Buddha is effortless wisdom and thereby conclude that -- as such an effortless manifestation of wisdom -- your assumption is that a Buddha does not need to think. I hope to address one thing that follows from this: omniscience -- the possession of all knowledge.

Since these things of inference are not ingested -- becoming a part of self -- in the same way food is ingested and becomes energy to the body, the faculty of logic is employed to gain insight into self-nature and, thus, the appearance of self. Once an individual has such an insight, yet remains interacting with the world, it is that insight that propels his wisdom -- attained through employment of logic and reason.

Knowledge, of course, is not the same as wisdom. It is indeed knowledge that requires assumptions, whilst wisdom works through them.

Such a manifestation -- effortless wisdom -- would indeed be that of no delusion. It seems to promise a sort of omniscience, without the monotheistic God fantasy. Still, the manifestation of “effortless wisdom” is on the order of frank’s script ethos, with one difference: it is always revelatory (rather than "hilarious") in nature. How, though, do we come about with the effortless aspect if not to identify and encapsulate such revelations as consistently emanating from a single, individual and separate source to oneself?

Otherwise, your Buddha -- your effortless wisdom -- would simply be the sum or continuity of wisdom you have gleaned/are gleaning without any identifiable source. In that sense only can I understand the manner in which you deny that “Buddha” is on the same order of inference as “I”; yet he still appears even here at least as the non-deluded division of self against the deluded.

Just as wisdom would be effortless for the Buddha, thinking would be just as effortless.

.

Leyla Shen:

How do you distinguish between illusion, delusion and reality?

By being void of expectation or anticipation.

However, there is something gnawing at me regarding the idea of "piercing through itself." The enlightened mind pierces through delusion. Just "who" this enlightened mind may or may not belong to is another question altogether.

This is the question of all questions that (when answered) shakes off the last bit of sleepiness.

You are not far from the Kingdom at all. This question will never go away as it is the answer to the question. In other words; the question and the answer are the same.

The answer is the most simple, childlike innocence that can be experienced.

The answer - everything that can be. A constant state of expansion that encompasses all that is known or experienced.

Think about it - you have already been doing this your entire life and will continue to do so. It is the thought and mind of God, if you will, that is in a continuous momentum of a stream of infinite energy. Zero point and critical mass of existence itself.

It is all that can ever be known. If God were to ask himself - "when did I begin?"
He would answer "I can`t remember".

For exploratory purposes, I am going to tie this in with your idea that the Buddha is effortless wisdom and thereby conclude that -- as such an effortless manifestation of wisdom -- your assumption is that a Buddha does not need to think. I hope to address one thing that follows from this: omniscience -- the possession of all knowledge.

Since these things of inference are not ingested -- becoming a part of self -- in the same way food is ingested and becomes energy to the body, the faculty of logic is employed to gain insight into self-nature and, thus, the appearance of self. Once an individual has such an insight, yet remains interacting with the world, it is that insight that propels his wisdom -- attained through employment of logic and reason.

It is in knowing where all the knowledge resides. Its kinda like faith. You believe you have the answer to any question - and you do. It appears as anything else appears into the mind.

Ask yourself any question and believe - without doubting - you have the answer.



sschaula:

Buddha appears and disappears, showing himself to be part of maya. Therefore, to say "The Buddha is absolute truth" is wrong, because the absolute truth doesn't appear and disappear. Therefore, there's no reason to "believe" in a Buddha, or worship one. The Buddha just points to yourself.

This is how you an tell the difference between the hucksters and the real thing. A true teacher will ALWAYS point to your own heart and mind.

His words may gain severe reaction; after the emotional wave subsides, new understanding and insight is experienced.

You are one that will truly shake delusion sir. I know this because you are not satisfied with surface answers nor fake imitation of any kind. Your hearts desire is to be free - not in appearance but in reality of experience.

When you are free from all envy and unforgiveness, ask yourself ;) if you see clearly. Funny; there will be no response, just energy of unrestricted flow.

God speed

Frank,

You've got this flawed logic going scott.

You say you are unenlightened.
You say you know what enlightenment isn't which implies that you know what enlightenment is.
Then you run about telling people they are unenlightened.

It's not like I'm doing this in the middle of the street or anything. I'm at a forum that's dedicated to enlightenment. The logic isn't flawed. It's clear that the definition of enlightenment is an absence of delusion. It should be clear by the word itself. I'm telling people that probably think they're enlightened or special, that they aren't because they haven't seen through the filtering factor of "me".

You've pulled this stunt several times on different people.

It's kinda like a Weapon you use...it's a one-trick pony kinda thing...you punish Others with it: 'You are not enlightened'....and then you try to cover your arse from a kickback by saying: 'Neither am I'...

Why would I use it as a way to feel better than other people...if I'm saying that I'm not enlightened either? Wouldn't it be easier if I just said I was enlightened, and then tell them how they're wrong? No, I don't do that because I don't have some weird hidden agenda, such as making others feel insufficient, so I tell the truth and say I'm unenlightened as well.

You've got yourself 'hooked up' in a Language Loop...it's a miniscript event that is based on I'm not OK...so...You're not OK...
You think it's a 'powerful' thing to do...

Of course I'm hooked up in a language loop. That's what happens when you try to communicate things. My language loop is about properly defining things, such as enlightenment. It's also about seeing the implications of those definitions in your life.

I could take on a different "language loop" and say it, but I think the one I'm using works just fine to communicate the point.

I usually get 'good bucks' sorting out people's Language Loops so what's your Credit Card details please...

I don't see why you'd get money for this. Of course, people fall for stupid things all the time.

It's Hilarious.

It's not that funny that you are taking people's money for doing this. Of course, it may be to you...until someone gets pissed off when they realize that what you do isn't that special and decides to take their money back by force.

Be sure that what you're doing is good and honest, Frank, because frankly, people get in trouble for conning people.

Yes, I think showing people their language loops and getting paid for it is a con. Maybe it helps some of them feel better, though.

...you've got the tharpa script of rushing off to libraries, pulling Script Language from Buddha Books and reifying it on Bulletin Boards....what would that be...Journalist.

It's good to know what other people have said about these topics that we discuss here. It gives more clarity for us. Seeing it from a number of different "language loops", so that we get a full picture of whatever we're discussing.

It's Hilarious.

Not really...reading and studying gets pretty boring actually.

...you've got Leyla, stampeding like a Warpath Commanche...attacking...the lack of clarity of thought...which basically amounts to attacking a person where the 'clarity of thought' gets lost somewhere.

It's Hilarious.

A warpath commanche...wow. That must be pretty funny if you see it that way.

The precious antics of Ego.

My Script is 'it's Hilarious'...

It's either a Comedy or Tragedy.

for me it's Comedy.

Good. Laughing seems better than crying.

Suergaz spoke a lot and only made sense once,

And I say still--then why do you bother?

Why do I bother telling people here that they're unenlightened? Because I would like to have been told this everytime I said "I must be enlightened".

Why do I continue on with this enlightenment stuff? Because it's the one thing that gets me going. It's obviously all that I care about.

Leyla,

Would you not say that clear thinking is the result of logic?

It can be. It needs insight as well, though...satoris. A person can think and think, but the understanding has to come in order for the person to go "Aha!".

If so, for anything logical to be apparent to any one who uses logical reasoning, that one is necessary for same to be apparent to: and it is very human. I know of no animal yet who speaks the word “I.” It is how we have distinguished ourselves.

Do you know of any animals who speak at all? Watch animals for a while and tell me if they don't see the world through a self. Perhaps amoebas or something don't have a self, but I'm sure they don't experience much, either.

For exploratory purposes, I am going to tie this in with your idea that the Buddha is effortless wisdom and thereby conclude that -- as such an effortless manifestation of wisdom -- your assumption is that a Buddha does not need to think.

That seems to be the case...but I don't know since I'm unenlightened.

I hope to address one thing that follows from this: omniscience -- the possession of all knowledge.

Since these things of inference are not ingested -- becoming a part of self -- in the same way food is ingested and becomes energy to the body, the faculty of logic is employed to gain insight into self-nature and, thus, the appearance of self. Once an individual has such an insight, yet remains interacting with the world, it is that insight that propels his wisdom -- attained through employment of logic and reason.

I don't understand this. Food?

Knowledge, of course, is not the same as wisdom. It is indeed knowledge that requires assumptions, whilst wisdom works through them.

There is a difference between the two, but I don't know about your definitions.

Such a manifestation -- effortless wisdom -- would indeed be that of no delusion.

Exactly...that's what enlightenment is.

It seems to promise a sort of omniscience, without the monotheistic God fantasy. Still, the manifestation of “effortless wisdom” is on the order of frank’s script ethos, with one difference: it is always revelatory (rather than "hilarious") in nature. How, though, do we come about with the effortless aspect if not to identify and encapsulate such revelations as consistently emanating from a single, individual and separate source to oneself?

We have to find out for ourselves what it's like to be enlightened.

Otherwise, your Buddha -- your effortless wisdom -- would simply be the sum or continuity of wisdom you have gleaned/are gleaning without any identifiable source.

Enlightenment isn't experiencing the world through the things you've learned...that's just knowledge. Like you said, wisdom and knowledge are different.

In that sense only can I understand the manner in which you deny that “Buddha” is on the same order of inference as “I”; yet he still appears even here at least as the non-deluded division of self against the deluded.

A Buddha is a piece of the puzzle that realizes the puzzle. That realization doesn't take away the fact that the Buddha is a piece of the puzzle. Lets say that all of existence is God, and when one person realizes God, it's as if God is realizing himself. It's not as if the world implodes then, destroying this person who is realizing God. Rather, the world continues and learns about reality from the realizer.

Just as wisdom would be effortless for the Buddha, thinking would be just as effortless.

Yes, I'm not saying thinking is impossible for a Buddha. It seems that enlightened beings do think, since they still function in the world. I don't know for sure, though.

If enlightened people couldn't think, then they wouldn't be able to solve math problems...and how enlightened would it be to not be able to do math? Not very enlightened in my opinion.

Being,

You are one that will truly shake delusion sir. I know this because you are not satisfied with surface answers nor fake imitation of any kind. Your hearts desire is to be free - not in appearance but in reality of experience.

A refreshing thought...thank you.

scott,
You're either enlightened or not...your Logic is flawed...if you're not enlightened then your comments about it are unenlightened.

I'm telling people that probably think they're enlightened or special, that they aren't because they haven't seen through the filtering factor of "me".

How would you know..if you're unenlightened.

You just want to tell people that they are conmen or something.

You comment away in an illogical structure of Language about things you don't know about.

Think about it.

How long will you spend doing this kind of thing?

frank

You're either enlightened or not...your Logic is flawed...if you're not enlightened then your comments about it are unenlightened.

You're right that you're either enlightened or not. You may be right that my logic is flawed. If it is, show me where. If a person isn't enlightened, can they talk about what enlightenment is and be correct? Yes, why not?

How would you know..if you're unenlightened.

I can tell how people are by the way they live. By the way they post things on this forum. You can do it, too. I'm sure it's easy to see that I'm unenlightened. Of course this is just judging someone, but it can be pretty accurate if you know what to look for.

I think it's pretty easy to tell when someone is enlightened...there's not much doubt about it. Of course you can question, "are they really enlightened?" But people are always judging, whether they know it or not. Subconsciously, you say about people "they are this" or "they are that". So when you think a person is enlightened, and you're pretty educated about what that is, you are probably right.

When you see some people as unenlightened, you're probably right about them as well.

You just want to tell people that they are conmen or something.

Why would I want to do that?

You comment away in an illogical structure of Language about things you don't know about.

Point out something illogical. Tell me where I don't know what I'm talking about.

Think about it.

How long will you spend doing this kind of thing?

I guess until the point is clear.

Scott:

Suergaz spoke a lot and only made sense once,

Quote:
And I say still--then why do you bother?


Why do I bother telling people here that they're unenlightened? Because I would like to have been told this everytime I said "I must be enlightened".

Why do I continue on with this enlightenment stuff? Because it's the one thing that gets me going. It's obviously all that I care about.

I actually spoke very little, and failed to make sense only once, where I let you have a bit of buddha. I can't help but suspect sickness where ego is not found healthy. Telling people they're anything is rather stupid when one is appreciative of what is possible in play and encouragement, let alone leaving the question of enlightenment open. It seems like you want freedom from danger! It's not like you, or at least not how I remember 'Voce Io'.

scott:

'I am unenlightened'....

'I can correctly describe enlightenment'....

'My judgements upon who is or isn't enlightened are correct'...

Is this your drift?

frank

Scott,

Do you know of any animals who speak at all?

Nope, I thought that was the point I was making.

Watch animals for a while and tell me if they don't see the world through a self.

They don't speak of a self.

Perhaps amoebas or something don't have a self, but I'm sure they don't experience much, either.

If self is delusion, does that make an amoeba enlightened?

.