GENIUS FORUMS

• "Nirvana comes to you,
  when you understand thoroughly,
  and when you live according to your understanding,
  that all things are of one essence
  and that there is but one law.
  Hence, there is but one Nirvana
  as there is but one truth,
  not two or three."

___________________________________________________

Exegesis is required. The Ass of God will now take the podium. The speech he rehearses tonight shall be based on the famous 'Checkers' speech by Richard Nixon.

[Rustling of papers, coughs, a sip of water].

Enlightened ones, angels of the dharma, demons, mischevious spirits, men of mass consciousness, bone-heads, pontificators, narcissistic bullies and their sycophants: our own Holy Dutchman has brought certain charges against us---the pack of the ignorant---and these charges must be addressed directly:

Diebert has said: "Admitting one has been wrong so far in every step of a discussion, not only here but often many years of moving away in straight opposition to life and truth has to be admitted. For the average man this is near impossible, he would rather die than to withdraw all the investments. It would be easier for a woman to make that specific psychological turn, in the rare case she arrives there."

Notice how you slip into an 'absolute perspective'. Essentially, you are claiming to be 'absolutely right' but I, for example, have never claimed such a thing. I suggest your first error, and it is in truth a 'sin against the dharma', is to have created for yourself this little charade. At the first encounter with you (and you-all) one notices this presumption and to a certain degree it rankles. So, without further ado I will simply state the obvious: in this sense you may have been wrong every step of the conversation. Not only in one moment but---and I will take what you have written as a confession---'for many years'. But turning this around is not as serious as you think. In fact, with the help of the Tao, it is easy---easy as pie. I would also suggest that---as per your own indication---what you NEED is whatever quality you identify 'for a woman' that can help you. Obviously, I am using a kind of 'psychological exegisis' but I really think it is appropriate.

I prescribe wearing a girdle and a long 'flowy' dress for a week. It will certainly help.

Diebert: "A journey would start which not only would force one to release many closely held convictions, it will also open doors to seeing the more ruthless, monstrous side of their current attachments. A possible nightmare would begin when a start would be made addressing them in any practical sense, for example the consequences for family ties, pet projects, any status and achievements so far, so much would be rendered meaningless."

I suggest that one 'closely held conviction' of yours is that you think you are not understood, or that others here don't deal with their own 'convictions' (haven't begun inner work, are not on a path, etc.) There is a terrible error in making this assumption, but you are incapable of recognizing it, internalizing it. But, you see, you are guru, you know. All those who come before you do not know. It is what I have called 'the ultimate arbiter's position'. It seduces like nothing else. If you could see that you essentially call forth from the world around you an opposition to your 'certainties', you would have made significant steps toward correcting the 'conviction' that keeps you from progress. Now, in respect to 'monstruous attachements' know you are talking about my panty collection, aren't you? Okay, I admit it: I have a Celebrity Panty Collection, okay? (I've even got a pair of Mily Cyrus if y'all must know).

Diebert: "Since the journey would require a thorough rewiring down to even our neural pathways, the effort and tensions involved might just be too high considering the age of the ones we're talking about. If one doesn't start pulling things together spontaneously from a young age, because the truthful mind demands it, no matter how it almost drowns in the sea of inattentiveness and hormone or tradition driven behaviour around them, there's just no incentive to turn things around later, unless some crazy devastating event, or a strong faith or desperation would provide the drive. But even then one might only go so far with it and settle with a little introduction."

I like the physiological determinism angle! Yet it is fitting with your doctrines. It has to be an issue of wiring. The force of your prejudices and your judgments moves into a 'dangerous' territory. Again, not out of keeping with your (apparent) primary suppositions. This is not aun un-serious game, my dear Diebert. Ideas have ramifications. I suggest you pay a little more attention to the ramifications of your own. For this reason, and numerous others, I challenge your primary suppositions. I explain my reasons in sparkling prose.

Diebert: "One other question that could arise: why hang around so long at a place where the message and the messenger are clearly so much in the wrong, "removed from reality", pathological, uninformed, etc? Personally, after one or two discussions I wouldn't waste my time anymore, everything at some point is said and is one really trying to "reach" some souls, to "correct" them? Some members stay here obviously because the tolerant nature of the forum provides a meagre form of acceptance, which turns into self-validation. Some members hang around because of some loneliness. Others seem to be driven by entertainment, the possibility to feel superior to the "wrong" ideas somehow boosts their own feelings of self worth. / But really, I'd like some input...all the ones that keep coming back to this forum, why would you do it? What do you think drives you? Perhaps you're here just to clog things up and keep younger flexible minds from discussing anything?"

My answer is that the errors that I feel are committed here are errors that are part and parcel of our age. As I have said about thirty times I feel you take not 'organic' spiritual steps but desperate, post-modern steps. The metaphysical underpinnings of your apprehension of 'reality' can all be challenged. In fact they ARE challenged. All the time. But you-all are so fortified against any dissident voice, and immediately assign pathology to dissidence, that conversation with you is...inhibited.

But I write for the ghosts.

I really, really enjoy this place. It has been and still is a very relevant place to think things through, clarify ideas, experiment with modes of communication. In my daily life, with the hustle and bustle, I don't have the time for intellectual interchange. Here, on this forum, everyone is here BECAUSE they are looking for this. Also, it is enormously FUN. But unlike you, I don't have an absolutist position. I note 'errors' (what I perceive as errors) but I don't suppose it is the end of the world or that you are physically (neurologically) defective. But I will say that your errors, like misdeeds, are deliberate. They are willed errors. So will it differently, is that so hard?

But what you are REALLY asking is: 'Why do you keep bothering me?!' The truth is that you never expected oppositon that you couldn't easily overcome through advanced sophistic art. But then---things changed, eh? The glory now is to defend your cause since (as is obvious) and let me just paste your own phrase: "For the average man this is near impossible, he would rather die than to withdraw all the investments".

[Clapping, then roar of applause. Hall rises to feet. Sustained applause for 10 minutes solid]

Talking Ass wrote:Notice how you slip into an 'absolute perspective'. Essentially, you are claiming to be 'absolutely right'

It's just how I see the dynamics, Alex. Nothing absolute, although I might be too forceful for you? And yes, a true thinker does reverse the case and questions himself often. And after one becomes more unattached, this or that doesn't matter much anymore. My perspective is freedom, the only requirement is desire or seeing a need for it. Any claim I make could still be wrong but it wouldn't change a thing, the ideas have fulfilled their purpose. But they are strong ideas, still and could be very useful to some.

you think you are not understood, or that others here don't deal with their own 'convictions' (haven't begun inner work, are not on a path, etc.)

You don't understand (heh!): this is not about "inner work" or being on a path. The context is a very specific understanding, getting to the nature of existence. Life goes on even without it and inner work goes on, paths still have to be taken, even within it.

I like the physiological determinism angle!

Actually I believe in a flexible, adaptable brain and have been writing on and off about it for many years. The problem is that there's a lot of effort needed and some of the neural pathways seem to be shaped in the forming years and seem incredibly difficult to change. Actually, I dare to suggest many harsh spiritual disciplines were introduces to give people who really wanted some chance. The price seems high and the success rate rather low. I'd suggest people to just live a pleasant life instead.

My answer is that the errors that I feel are committed here are errors that are part and parcel of our age.

That's what you concluded a year ago. But you're still here. Endlessly learning and adding to your theory, I suppose. A project without end: perfect!

But you-all are so fortified against any dissident voice, and immediately assign pathology to dissidence, that conversation with you is...inhibited.

There have been many healthy discussion with mature visitors at this forum. You, my friend, are just making shit up as you go. You don't care or miss the perception to see, or verify this.

I really, really enjoy this place. It has been and still is a very relevant place to think things through, clarify ideas, experiment with modes of communication.

I'm shocked there's no other place on the web for your favored type of intellectual exchanges. It sounds very disingenuous. Actually I've seen you at another place, with people more into psychology and not into absolutes, performing the same acts, pissing people off, twisting things around and being accused of pretty much the same thing as here. Which makes me think the pathology is yours, and not this forum. I think this place just hasn't booted you out and that's the reason you are here! You work with what you can get! And then make up some fantasy to justify what you are doing!

I note 'errors' (what I perceive as errors) but I don't suppose it is the end of the world or that you are physically (neurologically) defective.

Yes, that's what you do. But you have no means to establish whose errors you are detecting! This is what makes it so funny to compare your exchanges between different fora. Everywhere you keep detecting the same errors! For ever and ever! Amen!

The truth is that you never expected opposition that you couldn't easily overcome through advanced sophistic art.

Well, I had many pleasant exchanges, here and elsewhere with a broad range of people and views, to our mutual benefit or at time without resolving differences. You live in a fantasy world and you sound very lonely to me, projecting on me some inability to discuss or disagree with others?

Then again our discussions generate a lot of smoke but not much heat over time. And there's no reason to start over again. My intellect is active and likes some engagement and witty debates at times, without going overboard (like you are doing mostly). Such a need to be a clown, artist, forced attempt in appearing visceral - but not everybody is buying.

Diebert asks: "It's just how I see the dynamics, Alex. Nothing absolute, although I might be too forceful for you?"

At the point where you start eliminating people from the conversation, I suppose that, yes, my friend. You deny absolutism but act absolutely.

Diebert: "The context is a very specific understanding, getting to the nature of existence."

I think you might have to rephrase that. You will now have to say at this point it is getting to our understanding of the nature of existence. Although I certainly do see that many different people have come here and many different viewpoints have been entertained, it seems to me that---and especially in your case---you grow more and more intolerant. No part of the recent conversations have in any sense deviated from the intention of the forum, it has really to do with the attitudes of they who claim the doctrines. This is I suppose classical religious infighting and possibly marks a significant point in the evolution of the doctrines.

When threats get to close...you just eliminate them. You have been and you are party to this.

Still, in a philosophical, religious and spiritual sense I am interested in your-plural whole take on 'the nature of existence'. I am personally very, very concerned for this question and it has marked my life, but my conclusions about the nature of the place are not like yours. How can the unimaginable be defined? It seems ridiculous. I always think: it is less about how one 'defines' this realm and more what one decides to do. It is in taht sense that I spoke of 'paths' and 'inner work' since so much of it is just that: working with one's subjective impression, one's personhood in the midst of 'all this'.

Y'all spent a LOT of time just hashing and rehashing your definitions.

"There have been many healthy discussion with mature visitors at this forum. You, my friend, are just making shit up as you go. You don't care or miss the perception to see, or verify this."

I only say that I see you moving into progressively more extreme positions. My sense is that this occurs as the critique moves a little too close to...the truth? I don't 'blame' you necessarily for wanting to preserve your position here, the way you are viewed. You are the Forth Genius, you have real standing here.

Talking Ass wrote:Diebert asks: "It's just how I see the dynamics, Alex. Nothing absolute, although I might be too forceful for you?"

At the point where you start eliminating people from the conversation, I suppose that, yes, my friend. You deny absolutism but act absolutely.

That's a sweeping statement, this "eliminating". Especially from someone who I have debated and exchanged with at this forum, and a bit with PM and email like with no other member here. And I'm still doing it! And accused of eliminating troublesome questioners! Wow. When is enough, would you think? It's never I guess.

And if I say that I think for the average man it's very unlikely to change their spots, is that absolutism? Even old wives would agree with me!

Diebert: "The context is a very specific understanding, getting to the nature of existence."

I think you might have to rephrase that.

But the very nature of that understanding is that there's but one existence and with one nature, and of course countless of manifestations, some appearing orderly, some chaotic. To suggest there are wildly varying, incompatible or for others incomprehensible ways to talk about this one nature, is to be mistaken. There is only one finality, and that's not death but the totality of existence. There are not that many ways this can be expressed since it's basic to each and every consciousness.

When threats get to close...you just eliminate them. You have been and you are party to this.

Is it so hard to imagine that for another person it might become repetitive and tedious? Do you really have to be paranoid about the motives each time: "Hah I come too close, they are now forced to do this or say that!" It's all based on the assumption your search for subconscious drives and issues is actually based in reality. But such thing easily can turn in an religious kind of article, easily shared and exchanged with like-minded but that doesn't make it more grounded in reality.

How can the unimaginable be defined? It seems ridiculous.

Logic is a tremendous help. But I noticed logic is not your strongest point, making your thinking sloppy and all over the place. That doesn't mean it's not witty, unintelligent, or always uninformed. Just that it has not the focus I think is needed to progress much further in this particular undertaking. Perhaps focus is not the right word though.

Y'all spent a LOT of time just hashing and rehashing your definitions.

That's all I do! Finally you're getting it.

I only say that I see you moving into progressively more extreme positions.

To me they are just methods, but true enough, and serving as contrast to enhance visibility of some very basic but hard to distinguish aspects. But I think I'm actually capable of taking many types of positions and engage in different approaches when I see a need for it. What I discovered is that less extreme, more considered and fanned out positions are not making the topic any much clearer. Not when it comes to "discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality". Perhaps the one topic one cannot help but become extreme about, whatever position is taken, even no position.

As we all have noted, and Pye commented nicely on, two conversants were just 'eliminated'. It is that I was referring to. If you do not take some sort, any sort, of a position in regard to that, you are a participant in it.

Diebert writes: "But the very nature of that understanding is that there's but one existence and with one nature, and of course countless of manifestations, some appearing orderly, some chaotic. To suggest there are wildly varying, incompatible or for others incomprehensible ways to talk about this one nature, is to be mistaken. There is only one finality, and that's not death but the totality of existence. There are not that many ways this can be expressed since it's basic to each and every consciousness."

In my view, this is where a group of problems originate. By and large, I agree. Except insofar as in my own experience about 'the nature of this reality', which I cannot deny, would likely not concur with your own. It is probable that you would deny vehemently my view of reality, and my understanding of its 'meaning'. Do we then reside in the same 'reality'? The answer is yes...and the answer is also no. (I have no idea what you mean by 'countless manifestation' but surely you mean of beings and phenomena and not 'different manifestations of reality').

How you are called upon to act in relation to the one reality that surrounds us, and how I am called upon to act in it, are not the same. And by 'you' I also mean QRS and Kelly and some others here (and that could also include Laird, Nat and Robert). The problem, and it is a big problem, is that you-all have made definitive decisions (you are 'done' with all questions as Pye said) that exclude any other level of understanding. You have made yourselves or you are certainly becoming absolutists. I think this is a mistake, yet I see excruciatingly clearly how you do it and why you do it. The 'how' has to do with all your exclusions, the 'why' (I suggest) because of personal, psychological factors, 'post-modern' factors as I say. All of this is visible and intelligible to me, and to others. Still, everyone here comes at the core issues from different angles. Laird, Nat, Robert, Me and others. We may not agree with each other! But you and Kelly and QRS (with your 'innocuous' assistants) all seem to be working VERY VERY hard for a universal, one-size-fits all definition. If you do not achive concurrence, and if David is to be believed, it is better to shut down the forum than to allow alternate conversations to develop. You are a part of this.

Diebert writes "To suggest there are wildly varying, incompatible or for others incomprehensible ways to talk about this one nature, is to be mistaken. There is only one finality, and that's not death but the totality of existence."

You are clearly in thrall to absolutism. See how it functions. There are indeed "wildly varying, incompatible or for others incomprehensible ways to talk about this one nature". You do not own epistemological categories! You do not own the process of organizing perception. You do not have a final position. To speak in terms of 'totality of existence' is an abstraction. You cannot speak about such a thing, but I suppose it would take a few lifetimes to help you to 'get' why this is so.

The main argument, as I see it, against you and the QRS position is against absolutism, not against an adwaita or dwaita conversation, or against Buddhism. It is your absolutism.

If people weren't getting 'too close' and didn't pose a danger, you wouldn't be inclined to shut them out of the conversation. You 'chilled' that conversation.

Diebert writes "Logic is a tremendous help."

Your 'logic'. Your presuppositions. Your 'logical game'. There is a variety of opinions on the matter, on down through intellectual history, that do not accord with your understanding (what I call 'imposition'). Does that mean you have the right to shut them all down, to 'burn the page' so to speak?

"Just that it has not the focus I think is needed to progress much further in this particular undertaking."

Boy, if that isn't true as rain. But what 'you think' is just one more voice in a plurality of voices. And so again, numerous GF denizens take issue with your definitions and, lately at least, the strategy is to shut them out. It is a bad move. You are a part of this.

Diebert writes "That's all I do! Finally you're getting it."

I am not here to receive your Teaching, Diebert. I didn't 'get' anything. I mean to say that y'all spend way too much time establishing rushed conclusions, building limited presuppositions, 'working out your agreements'. This is very different from a rigorous, principaled conversation about the areas of disagreement, which are not small. Again, you shut down that conversation. Why? It makes you uncomfortable I assume.

Diebert writes "Not when it comes to "discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality". Perhaps the one topic one cannot help but become extreme about, whatever position is taken, even no position."

Fine. You should be working to include and not to exclude from that conversation. You are just a part of it, not the ultimate judge.

Talking Ass wrote:As we all have noted, and Pye commented nicely on, two conversants were just 'eliminated'.

Actually, only two rude, irrational psychologies were eliminated. RobertGreensky has a second account that is active: Robert Larkin. Unidian also has a second account that is active: Naturyl. And of course, they are free to open a third account.

De-activating the account of Nat was a good idea. He kept choosing to be rude, instead of responding to obvious contradictions in his reasoning. He was getting really out-of-hand. I'm not sure about Robert, because he hadn't done anything differently - he was still discounting anyone offering a view that wasn't endorsed by Wikipedia. It is crazy to expect an administrator to allow absolutely any behaviour, trolling, constant ad hominem attacks, and all-round irrationality.

But hang on a moment, Alex. You're trying to say, aren't you, that managing the membership proves the administrators, and others like myself, to be absolutist? For holding a view without endorsing an alternative view as possibly equally valid? That's your basic point, I take it.

If so, you should have attacked Pye for being absolutist also. Why didn't you? She labelled Dan's halting of an unproductive exchange "arbitrary absolutism". She was quite definite about that. She demonstrated no consideration of any other perspective. Was that not absolutist?

Yes, but if you criticised Pye's absolutism, you would have had to recognise your own. Ahhhh.

If you do not take some sort, any sort, of a position in regard to that, you are a participant in it.

(My italics).

Absolutism isn't the problem, is it? You have no problem with other people, including yourself, being absolutist. So why don't you say what you mean?


.

You're just reverting to your specialty, Kelly: word-games. In my opinion it was 'chilling' to axe two people at that juncture.

Kelly: "But hang on a moment, Alex. You're trying to say, aren't you, that managing the membership proves the administrators, and others like myself, to be absolutist? For holding a view without endorsing an alternative view as possibly equally valid? That's your basic point, I take it."

Again, you draw a conclusion, ascribe it to me, and then argue against it. It is a preferred formula I would gather. The nature of your game is to take an element of someone's discourse---minutia---separate it out, divide it, and then to 'argue' against the particles. I have noticed it is effective in 'splitting' the conversation and derailing it.

Here you are:

"If so, you should have attacked Pye for being absolutist also. Why didn't you? She labelled Dan's halting of an unproductive exchange "arbitrary absolutism". She was quite definite about that. She demonstrated no consideration of any other perspective. Was that not absolutist?"

This sort of eristic is at the center of the House Philosopher's style of argumentation, I have noted. Frequent with David and you and sometimes Dan and less so with Diebert. You make 'absolute statements' and when people take issue with them and categorize them, you point out (rather dully if you were to ask my opinion) that, to make that statement, they have engaged in attempting to describe something objectively, and so are guilty of the same defect of reasoning.

It is adolescent.

In my opinion, you and David (et cetera) are indeed 'absolutists'. I have written about it extensively. The structure of your thinking is founded on 'absolutism'. It is also reductionist and 'binary'. The philosophy you-plural have concocted is constructed out of this material. In this sense you do harm to 'the Dharma'.

"If so, you should have attacked Pye for being absolutist also. Why didn't you?"

Very simple: Pye is speaking about a 'real thing' (the chilling of speech) that is harmful in an environment of open conversation. This is what she expressed in her nicely reasoned post. She was not recommending 'absolutism', she was arguing for inclusion and other values.

Does this help you to get a little clearer?

Kelly, you are a silly child with an inflated head and one of these days I am going to show up in Australia, I am going to track you down, bare your little bottom, and give you a spanking you will not likely forget.

The reactions of both Laird and Alex are understandable. They are defending themselves after all, which is perfectly natural. However, although they don't know it, the way they have reacted has only served to underline the point I made in the opening post.

In essence, they have offered what I would call a "postmodernist defense". Laird insists that the philosophy of non-duality is just one of many different, and equally valid, perspectives. And Alex has echoed him by emphasising the "absolutist" nature of those who promote and defend non-dualism.

Of course, none of this should surprise us, as postmodernism is very much the religion of our age and currently enjoys full residence in the neurology of normality. Indeed, it has long been my experience that those who are postmodern in their mentally have particularly acute deafness when it comes to the music of non-duality.

How to illustrate the folly of their position?

It is like living in a world in which only a few people understand and appreciate the significance of 1+1=2, while everyone else acts as though it is perfectly valid to believe that 1+1=3, or 1+4=687, or whatever else takes their fancy.

Yes, in a sense, it is as Laird describes, that 1+1=2 is just another perspective, one of many different perspectives. And yet in another sense, it isn't. For in 1+1=2 there is the essence of sanity, which doesn't exist in any other perspective. And moreover, there are incredible implications involved with 1+1=2 that simply do not occur elsewhere, which are not seen by 1+1=3 crowd. It has a world-shattering potential that makes it qualitatively different from everything else.

From Alex's point of view, the act of maintaining and defending 1+1=2 is "absolutist" and a sign of rigid narrow-mindedness. And even old Pye chips in with the idea that recognizing and defending 1+1=2 is a sign that one has stopped growing, that one is "mentally done". I'm not sure who she is trying to kid with that one.

Oh yes, for those who can see, the neurology of normality is comedy of the highest order! But it is also tragedy of the highest order.

-

Alex,

You think I'm pointing to something finite as the Absolute. You don't see that I'm pointing to the nature of Everything. If your mind is closed to the Absolute, you're falling into the absolutist position that there is no Absolute. This is not an adolescent remark. It's literally what you're doing, but you talk so much that you can't see the actual position you're defending so immovably.

You remind me of the old clergyman in this place


.

David Quinn wrote:It is not my intention to pick on Alex ("Talking Ass") and Laird ("guest_of_logic") specifically, but I'd like to talk for a moment about the lack of aptitude for understanding non-duality which occurs in a certain class of people, of which Alex and Laird are two examples.

Of course, when I say "class of people", I am really talking about 99% of the human race, including almost all intellectuals. The typical human animal, in other words. Whenever a member of this class is directed towards the realm of non-duality by the spiritual philosopher, their minds invariably draw a blank. They look to see where the philosopher is pointing and they see .... nothing. Try as they might, they simply cannot see what the philosopher sees. It's as if they feel that the philosopher is playing a trick on them.

So where does this lack of aptitude come from? What causes it?

Straight away we can rule out a lack of intellectual capacity. Alex and Laird, for example, are both intelligent people who easily possess the intellectual capacity to understand non-duality, and yet they both fail utterly. So we have to look elsewhere.

Is it emotional? Is it a case of being too emotionally invested in certain kinds of dualistic concepts and beliefs that they cannot bring themselves to break away from them and make the leap into the unknown and uncertain realm of non-duality?

Is it the path they have taken in life? Have their experiences and choices led them along a path which deviates too far away from the philosophic path, such that they can no longer even see it, let alone contemplate making the transition over to it?

Is it genetic/neurological? Is it akin to, say, not being able to read, such that no matter how much they try and grasp the principles of the matter, they just cannot do it on a neurological level?

One would guess that it is a combination of all these factors. A genetic or neurological weakness in spiritual thinking leads them from an early age to make choices in life that shape their paths in life away from the kind of mentality needed for spiritual philosophizing, while at the same time their emotional well-being forms around this path. And so, by the time they reach adulthood, the distance between them and the beginnings of understanding non-dualism becomes so lengthy that it disappears over the horizon and extends well out of sight.

C'est la vie. Such is life, eh?

It's interesting to note that if a certain class of people were to display an entrenched inability to read, then we could be sure that it would be thoroughly investigated by the scientific community. There would be countless research papers produced, teaching programs devised, targeted drugs created, surgical procedures mapped out - whatever the solution is, everything would be done to find it. But when it comes to the inability to understand non-duality, which is an infinitely more serious problem than not knowing how to read, there is a complete void. There are no investigations. No scientific research. No media exposure. Nothing. There isn't even a recognition that the problem exists.

An indication, if any were needed, of just how primitive and unevolved the human race really is, despite all the razzle-dazzle of science and modern technology.

-

David Quinn,,,
You're an ASS!!! That is my antedote...

Talking Ass wrote:As we all have noted, and Pye commented nicely on, two conversants were just 'eliminated'. It is that I was referring to. If you do not take some sort, any sort, of a position in regard to that, you are a participant in it.

Try to focus instead on the conversation we're having, which in volume is relatively huge and exclusive in the sense that it's longer than all the other conversations I had with others combined. In that context to complain about Dan silencing dissent voices, both of them I've as well addressed quite in detail and with effort, sounds to me ridiculous, like a spoiled child with a never ending appetite for attention.

(I have no idea what you mean by 'countless manifestation' but surely you mean of beings and phenomena and not 'different manifestations of reality').

The way reality manifests, its very nature is one self-same way, but one can only describe this nature by using highly logical concepts. We cannot compare our other experiences.

The problem, and it is a big problem, is that you-all have made definitive decisions (you are 'done' with all questions as Pye said) that exclude any other level of understanding.

But where's the evidence for that? There you have a question, by the way. What do you think does it exclude, name one or two understandings which are excluded from debate or questioning?

a universal, one-size-fits all definition.

But of what? For what is patiently, logically derived to be some kind of universal, infinite-size entity? Why wouldn't a universal, unsized or "unisized" description be appropriate here?

There are indeed "wildly varying, incompatible or for others incomprehensible ways to talk about this one nature".

Yet the closer one comes in addressing it, the less varying, the more compatible and the more comprehensible it tends to become. This is because of the universal nature of what we're talking about. It's like talking about God, but you're not attacking religion in the same way, or Christians for their claims to universal divinity. Another example of how inconsistent you really are.

If people weren't getting 'too close' and didn't pose a danger, you wouldn't be inclined to shut them out of the conversation. You 'chilled' that conversation.

From my perspective others have had the tendency to chill and shutting down the meaningfulness and purpose of the conversation. But the very fact I've engaged in them, plentiful, patient and mostly with a friendly disposition should not be wiped under the table. It's a better treatment than you'd get at most other places!

Your 'logic'. Your presuppositions. Your 'logical game'. There is a variety of opinions on the matter, on down through intellectual history, that do not accord with your understanding (what I call 'imposition'). Does that mean you have the right to shut them all down, to 'burn the page' so to speak?

It seems to me you are the one having a problem with other understandings, wanting to shut them down, flooding them with your own views on salvation. At this moment in time, this place, this topic, this intent, I'm reaching for a specific type of understanding which has the potential to overcome ignorance about the fundamental stuff of life, like the object-subject relationship, the me-other, the I-Things, the ego-material and so on.

numerous GF denizens take issue with your definitions and, lately at least, the strategy is to shut them out. It is a bad move. You are a part of this.

If you had any awareness of the history and development of this place, the amount of attention and platform you personally have received, and the complete reasons those two people have been shut out, then you would be a bit more modest with your view here. Just to be sure: this place is one of the least moderated and censored yet functional and long living forums on the whole fucking Internet! Are you living under a rock?

I am not here to receive your Teaching, Diebert.

But we are here to receive yours? Please think for once before you write such stuff, and consider the amount of inconsistency and internal conflict it radiates!

I don't have time to read through her 'Gospel', but it looks pretty interesting. The man who wrote the forward is R.H Ward:

• "One way of seeing reality is to see the appearances we usually take for it inside-out, back-to-front or looking-glass fashion. This is very difficult to do, considering how habituated we are to those appearances. It is also very difficult to be witty about vital and essential matters, though that is one of the best hopes we have of seeing them objectively, which is about the only hope we have of seeing them at all. Miss Green has achieved the looking-glass vision and the wit. Many, therefore, will call her too clever by half, forgetting that one of the things she is saying is that we are not half clever enough, for the very reason that we lack her witty vision because we wear the blinkers of our belief in appearances. So anyone who reads this book (as opposed to merely reading its words) must be prepared to be profoundly disturbed, upset and in fact looking-glassed himself; which will be greatly to his advantage, if he can stand it. Few books, long or short, are great ones; this book is short and among those few. One day, perhaps, it will become part of holy writ: a gospel according to Celia Green. Which kind of "insane" statement belongs to the book's own kind of truth."
  — R. H. Ward

I wonder if it is the same man who wrote 'A Drug-Taker's Notes'? His work is cited on the website Council on Spiritual Practices which places emphasis on entheogens as a means of gaining spiritual and existential knowledge.

Celia Green wrote: "Sanity may be described as the conscientious denial of reality. That is to say, the facts of the situation (apart from a few which are judged to be harmless) have no emotional impact to a sane mind. / For example, it is a salient feature of our position that we are in a state of total uncertainty. Possibly the universe started with a "big bang" a few aeons ago, or perhaps something even more incredible happened. In any case, there is no reason known to us why everything should not stop existing at any moment. I realize that to my sane readers I shall appear to be making an empty academic point. That is precisely what is so remarkable about sanity."

Nice stuff. Still, in respect to the QRS position (rhetoric and dogma) I have the impression the 'mood' of this statement (which she tosses in earlier in her essay) is more apt to describe the QRS: "In the beginning was the word and the word is mine and the word was made by me."

The way I see things, you turn the miracle (remember that word?) of existence and being into a 'known thing'. It's the 'Totality'. The word and the concept, as I have seen it used here for months and years, contains no glimmer of such existential mystery. It seems to be used by the denizens here as a 'cap' on expanded awareness. Consequently, a huge part of what is communicated by you and others here is something so utterly dull that it appears as a form of psychological and spiritual death. Then, groups of you asseemble together and 'chant' the Glories of your Dull perceptions of 'the Totality', but there is literally NO wonder in it, no 'spirit' and no Life. For this reason, and others too, I would refer to you as 'the spiritually dead'. But you-all are so attached to your definition, to the game of dull meaning, that (it would seem) you just can't be moved from it. Any 'assault' on your dull and rhetorical position only causes you, like a limpit, to hunker-down with that much more zealousness. You circle the wagons, you rehearse your agreements, and everything stays the same. What an achievement!

I would suggest to you, my dear, that you hold out very much more like the Clergyman in her essay on 'sanity'. See, you capture and 'possess' the tradition (Zen, Christ's words, Kierkegaard, whatever) and 'inhabit' them. Like some odd species of rodent you burrow down into it, creating passageways, storerooms, antechambers, and of course little tunnels that rise straight up to the surface where, paranoically, you scan the horizons, hyper-alert to any approaching threat. (Sorry, I got a little carried away here: this is more or less the gist of Kafka's long story 'Burrow'). But truthfully, y'all seem to me to live in a kind of burrow. It doesn't look like 'freedom' to me but rather a kind of self-constructed prison.

Maybe Kelly you should really make it a point to take a number of huge doses of something.

PS: I did look up Celia Green and also your video of your 'interpretation' of her. As spurious and outrageous as your 'interpretation' of Bukowski. Let's take a little journey into Kelly's mind. Not a place I'd care to go, and less wish to 'reside'.

This may be my 'fave.

Again, you're interpreting Totality (or the Absolute) to mean something finite. That's why you think it is a dead concept.

I'm not one for going in circles. We're not going to make any headway, since you're quite fixedly sure that you're the one who is right, the one who is open-minded. You have no room to consider what I'm saying, namely, that the Totality (or whatever name one wishes to use) is characterless in nature. You just keep arguing that I'm pointing to something dead, empty, cold, impersonal, rigid, etc.

So, give us all a break, yourself included. There's really no point continuing. You're going to face this same issue with everyone on this board, and you're not going to win. Your position is one of ignorance, but you're ignorant of that ignorance.

But again, this is all meaningless to you. You'll only perceive it through the same old lens. So how about picking up your travelling pack, and getting back onto your own road, and your own activities.


.

It is funny to me that you have some special knowledge of 'the Totality' but you do not seem to grasp what is most immediately to hand. I am not trying to convince you of anything. It seems to me you are ignorant of a dynamic here: this is an open forum, we communicate back and forth in word-essays. What we say to each other may or may not be relevant to you or to me, but there is a readership who reads, and considers. Maybe you know who is there, maybe they never reveal themselves and you never know you were even read. I write to the 'readership' principally. You are a performer, Kelly. This became especially clear when I came across all your videos which I'd not seen before. You put yourself on TV! Anytime you assemble a platform (political, spiritual, whatever) and send it out there for consideration---say on youtube, and on a forum too---you indicate that you are interested in feedback, response, even argument. The activity is a life-activity, it is a way you and others have chosen to express your life, to remain alive. This desire to speak and be heard is really very important. So, when you create a position and start to speak in 'absolutes' (or even in particulars) you just have to accept that feedback will come your way. You and others here, those capable of expressing themselves, have gotten and will continue to get feedback from me. If you want to respond to it, do. If you don't, don't. You can also, with your connections, engineer my ouster. Maybe that will solve whatever the problem it is that you have? That is the girlish way of doing things though... ;-)

The topics of this forum are crucial topics. This is not (only) an image-management scenario for a cheeky girl playing Zen monk in the computer age. You don't decide the importance of a conversation, you don't direct the conversation. I suggest, through my writing, that you are significantly off-track, and make an effort to describe why. I feel it is important to do this, to take the time and effort.

The topics of this forum are crucial topics

Then why do you persist in this bait and switch game TA? How about a shift from such desultory activity?

Why not come to the table with a spirit that is not 'Talking Ass'....the request is for you to bring your greatest possibility please.

It's pointless, Dennis.

I've explained numerous times to Alex that he needs to present an actual argument to support his claim that there is no such thing as the Absolute, and why the explanations of its characterlessness are false.

I've explained numerous times that his ongoing reliance on ad hominem arguments is utterly foolish.

Nothing happens.

Why is it so? It's as David hypothesised. Alex can't see what I'm pointing to, and so he believes I'm pointing to something finite. He then throws that mistaken impression onto me, and says it is my personality that is the problem. His false interpretation of the characterlessness of the Absolute becomes the personality of the person who is is speaking to, and that's why he keeps getting bogged down into ad hominems. He enjoys this level of intercourse. He can't see how completely out of the picture his responses are.

So it's pointless. He's not going to get it.


.

Hi Kelly,
perhaps its not the drift of a Boddhisattva to give up. Realising causation reveals Alex will change one way or another. It's being with Alex in that flux...seeing the possibility of Alex...having the conversation with Alex around that great possibility Alex really is in his true nature...being tough love when he loses the vision of his possibility of contributing with wisdom.

If he could only take that wondrous pointer:

'One expressing as many'

If he could only take that and earnestly enquire of it and have it lay him open. Of the many bountiful riches realisable in that one concept...a concept that can, like a thorn used to remove a thorn, eradicate much confusion...he can be laid open to the possibility that he is God having a conversation with God and that all conversations are of that nature...this would then bring him to the experience of conversations with a spirit of freedom and happiness, a greater possibility than the current fascination for taking cheap shots.

Such joy he could bring to the table, such fun and frivolity, such warmth.

Dennis Mahar wrote:Such joy he could bring to the table, such fun and frivolity, such warmth.

Eeewh, are you serious?

You have to be caused to enlightenment. No amount of fluffies or emotion will do it.

Yes, I'm serious and yes what you say is correct that you have to be caused to enlightenment.

and in saying that, the point of this forum is solely to cause that enlightenment in seekers by skilfull means.

Much of the groundwork is taken up by the process of having the seeker be coachable.

David, I'm considering more and more seriously whether you are engaged in a huge game of self-satirisation. It would be such a wonderful explanation for this forum and all that goes on in it; a true work of art: if it truly is the case then I might just admit that you have a touch of genius in you.

"Laird insists that the philosophy of non-duality is just one of many different, and equally valid, perspectives." --David

I qualified my "insistence" that the philosophy of non-duality is a perspective with "largely": obviously, for it to be meaningful, it must be based on truthful representations of the world. Beyond that, though, how those representations are interpreted and formed into a philosophy is to a large extent a matter of perspective. Take, for example, what you represent as "truth": the arbitrariness of boundaries and the nature of a "thing" as a composite of causes. From this you derive the "emptiness" and the "non-inherent" nature of existence. This gives you a launching point into the practice of non-attachment.

All of this is just a perspective, though. It's possible to take another perspective: that boundaries, rather than being arbitrary, and albeit that they might be blurry, are inherent in reality, as, for example, areas in which chemical, phase and energetic differentiations are extreme; that there are causal nexuses, such as consciousness, in which can be located "inherent" identity. This perspective might lead one, rather than into non-dualistic non-attachment, more into the valuing of identity as the basis of a fulfilling life.

Whether any of what I've just said is "post-modern" I don't know, having not investigated post-modernism that much myself. I do believe in ultimate, non-negotiable truths, but I don't believe that non-dualism (at least as you represent it) qualifies as such.

Dennis, Kelly, random ghosts...

The terms: absolute, totality, just don't mean anything to me.

I see these terms are arising from 'concocted perceptions' (or extrapolations) that only seem to support a few people's interpretation of 'reality' and that supports a truly odd (I am emphatic in this!) form of neo-Buddhism. It is a Buddhism that is not Buddhism as far as I can tell.

Kelly uses her 'definitions' as a platform for launching of a huge contrivance. That contrivance is called Absolute Truth. Fine perhaps in mathematics to deal in such terms or definitions, but deceiving (perhaps it is fair to say 'potentially deceiving') when it has to do with defining existential issues.

Because we are persons here, and not adding machines, and not 'spectrometers', the person must always be considered. And one must ask 'What is the person doing?' In Kelly's case (who has become recently emblematic of my 'attack' against what I perceive as 'false-doctrines' or in any case 'false use of doctrines') she bases her platform on the notion of 'correct perception' but the perceiver is utterly captivated by 'wrong perception'. It is evident in nearly every post, in nearly every comment, in every idea. Why? The platform is defective. So, all that stems from that is similarly defective. Opinions about Christianity, opinions about Bukowski, opinions about Kierkegaard, opinions about Buddhism, about 'right action'.

Since we all seem to wish to talk about 'sanity' the question arises: what is to be our standard?

Now, the psychological element. Kelly is right when she notices my predisposition toward 'psychological analysis' and ad hominem. We can never, ever remove ourselves from the picture. Self-criticism is essentially ad hominem. I use the terms 'neurosis', 'mental illness' and others to describe a state of 'not being well'. The not well person can glom onto absolutes, totalities, spirtual trips, money, power, sex or fame and inevitably will do the same things within them. What determines this? Psychology.

These can never be mere conversations of mathematical value---that would be mere equationism. Here and in life we deal with people---persons---who may stand in relation to absolutes or to infinity or a totality. It is a question of doing not of merely organizing thought.

Here, one is told that one is 'delusional' or 'ignorant'. It is part and parcel of the 'game' that is played here. I do exactly the same thing, in exactly the same spirit: I tell the truth as I see it.

Why am I concerned? Must I explain?

Talking Ass wrote:The terms: absolute, totality, just don't mean anything to me.

But then you go on explaining what you think it means in terms of neurosis, how it can function as something to "glom' unto, etc.

And you stay even to explain this over and over again, so it means a big deal, as that is what you are doing instead of gardening.

And I'm not sure how one can "glom" unto something which does not "exist" anywhere, doesn't add anything to anything (by definition at least) and is already the case. The very existence of the concept of the absolute, As-Samad, only can lead to Aslama, a great unlearning, unbinding and loosing what one thought one had.

Hi Alex,

Kelly uses her 'definitions' as a platform

Well done, you do have good insights. We understand that reality is groundless and that we build conceptual structures or platforms to speak from.
Then we must ask 'does this platform deliver us to freedom and happiness?
Otherwise the platform is useless.

We can't really speak about the truth in the sense of building a tower of categories and properties...of building a predicate calculus, even tho' we try to.

We can only speak FROM the truth.

Speaking from the truth delivers liberation.

Since we all seem to wish to talk about 'sanity' the question arises: what is to be our standard?

Sanity is restoration to our true nature.

'What is the person doing?

No, the question is 'Who are you being?'
If you are coming to the table in a spirit of waging war, of hooking into 'personalities' and making hurtful barbs, of using words as weapons, making harsh judgements on races, cultures etc.
All of it in order to support your platform.

None of that is coming from the truth and neither is it skilful means.

Can you see that, Alex?

Well, I see numerous things. For example, you have internalized a Buddhist viewpoint and are working with it in your life, 'trying it out'. I see that you operate from a few apparent 'presuppositions', no one of which is definite or 'proven'. Conceptually, of course, I can enter into the viewpoint about 'groundlessness' within which we 'construct' our platforms. It is not inconceivable to me. But, my presuppositions are not those, and I am not a Buddhist.

I am not sure what is 'freedom' or 'happiness', so I can't just in se accept your premise that we must seek such a platform. It sounds good, I'll admit that, but the issue is far more complex. A tragic view of reality points to another ethic for existing in reality. That is just one possibility. I also myself think in terms of 'duty' and 'fulfillment of responsibilities', and there is not guarantee that 'happiness' is in there. I think a sense of well-being might arise from deciding to act right, and maybe that's the same as happiness in your book.

"Sanity is restoration to our true nature."

Sounds good. Could be. And I think I know where you are coming from.

I still rather see it as what the person is doing. Their ethical conduct. How they run their lives. What they do for their community, family, friends. Being is a given as I see it.

"If you are coming to the table in a spirit of waging war, of hooking into 'personalities' and making hurtful barbs, of using words as weapons, making harsh judgements on races, cultures etc. All of it in order to support your platform. None of that is coming from the truth and neither is it skilful means."

Though I see where your orientation lies, I don't see things in that way. One can certainly 'wage war' and yet do it in subtle ways. Sometimes, one MUST 'wage war'---in the I-Ching there is a line about 'chastizing the Devil's kingdom' (the North of China where many barbarous invasions were launched into 'civilized' China). Sometimes, energetic action is the correct means. Platforms are completely necessary, the end-question is which one are you going to decide on.

You want me to 'see' your point. I do see it. My orientation is different.

guest_of_logic wrote:The house philosophy, insofar as it represents itself as non-dual, is largely a perspective, and, as with all perspectives, its value varies for the individual. It needn't be a one-size-fits-all approach. If you, David, or any other of the house philosophers, find value in the perspective that all is empty; that the self has no essential identity by which to demarcate its boundaries from the rest of the universe, and if this perspective leads you into a sense of peace and equanimity (or "immersion in the Infinite", for whatever that phrase is worth), then more power to you. It is no more valid, though, than my perspective, nor than Alex's, which have value to us. You might want to consider the egotism at play in your need for your way to be THE way, in contrast to your claim to egolessness (to whatever extent you make that claim).

Just because one finds an idea valuable, doesn't mean it's actually true.

Why do you think enlightenment leads to peace and equanimity?


.