GENIUS FORUMS

Enlightenment Vs genius
Consider the definition of genius from Google

# someone who has exceptional intellectual ability and originality; "Mozart was a child genius
# brilliance: unusual mental ability
# ace: someone who is dazzlingly skilled in any field
# exceptional creative ability
# flair: a natural talent; "he has a flair for mathematics"; "he has a genius for interior decorating"

And enlightenment
#Described as complete and perfect sanity, or awareness of the true nature of the universe. After attainment, it is believed one is freed from the cycle of Samsāra; birth, suffering, death and rebirth.
#The ultimate achievement of buddhahood, the state of realization in which the subtlest traces of ego and ignorance about the nature of reality are purified or eliminated

Now my conception of genius and enlightenment is very close to these definitions. Genius has extraordinary mental abilities. While an enlightened person is aware of the nature of things, to be more precise knows the nature of the mind and the ego (and perceives them as a thing among other things, does not grasp onto conceptions etc). There could be geniuses in any field (music, science). And one may not have a realistic chance to compete with them (unless one has the innate (genetic?) talent and puts the hard work required to attain mastery. Now acclaimed philosophical geniuses such as "Schopenhauer" "Nietzsche" do not seem to be enlightened in the sense of Buddhism, for example Schopenhauer writes extensively in his old age about how to deal with specific situations in the world (advice) for everybody, while an enlightened person would not devise a tactic for each situation, but would be more open and spontaneous to each and every situation and far more accepting. A crude analogy might be of an expert tennis player vs. a novice (whereas the former would play concept free and spontaneously, the latter would devise a strategy for each occasion and logically process data before doing anything( the spontaneity factor is missing).The enlightened man is characterized by such openness and spontaneity and not logical gymnastics(plus of course clear perception). So there are enlightened people who do not seem to be philosophical geniuses (though the fact of their enlightenment allows them to see the world very accurately). While a philosophical genius would have a greater chance of seeking enlightenment, than an average person, this is true of all people who think deeply (without being a genius per se or without having extraordinary logical/creative abilities). Thus genius and enlightened are not really well correlated (any self aware person has a realistic chance at enlightenment, whereas genius is possession of extraordinary talent (a combination of nature and hard work).


A philosophical genius would need to be masterful in logic/analysis and would require a lot of creativity and knowledge. An enlightened person on the other hand becomes an expert in the game of life(the "what is") through his openness, clarity of perception and absence of ego(much like kids learn faster than adults).

Ankit Gupta wrote:Consider the definition of genius from Google

Keep in mind that the definition of genius you will find in dictionaries is made up by non-geniuses.

If you wanted to find out what God was, would it help you to look it up in the dictionary? No it wouldn't help you. The same with enlightenment. This is because the dictionary only carries popular definitions, and not necessarily wise ones.

If you click on the "Quotes" link at the top forum front page, you will see that genius, as considered by thinking people, is a lot more - a lot deeper - than what is indicated in dictionaries.

Now acclaimed philosophical geniuses such as "Schopenhauer" "Nietzsche" do not seem to be enlightened in the sense of Buddhism

I would say they are very wise in the Buddhist sense, though perhaps not "enlightened". I think Nietzsche may have achieved some real degree of enlightenment, though he could not cope with it.

The enlightened man is characterized by such openness and spontaneity and not logical gymnastics

Take a look at Nietzsche's "Thus Spake Zarathustra" and the message of "The Joyful Wisdom". They carry this precise message.

So there are enlightened people who do not seem to be philosophical geniuses

I say that a person is a genius to the degree that they speak the truth. Both Nietzsche and to a lesser degree Schopenhauer were exceptional in this regard, and that is why they will be remembered forever. They are remembered because of their uncanny ability bring truth to the fore.

Other philosophers, like virtually all the philosophers of the twentieth century, will be forgotten because they did not uncover and reveal the truth.

So, any enlightened person, who is able to speak the truth, will appear to be a philosophical genius.

any self aware person has a realistic chance at enlightenment, whereas genius is possession of extraordinary talent (a combination of nature and hard work).

"Self-aware" people are extremely thin on the ground. Simply being self-aware is a kind of genius in itself, and goes along with a certain degree of truth-speaking.

In other words, being self-aware is the same as being in possession of an extraordinary talent (a combination of nature and hard work, as you say).

A philosophical genius would need to be masterful in logic/analysis and would require a lot of creativity and knowledge. An enlightened person on the other hand becomes an expert in the game of life (the "what is") through his openness, clarity of perception and absence of ego (much like kids learn faster than adults).

In order to know "what is", and in order to verify the clarity of his perceptions and absence of ego, the enlightened person has to have the philosophical skills of logic and analysis.

KS wrote:
I think Nietzsche may have achieved some real degree of enlightenment, though he could not cope with it.

I believe that a philosphical genius could attain true enlightenment and cope with it. Although there is a middle ground of intelligence where enlightenment can lead to genius, I wonder if enlightenment is safe for those of lower intelligence.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I wonder if enlightenment is safe for those of lower intelligence.

If you're talking about I.Q again, only an average I.Q is required - just a basic ability to reason.

The earlier in life a person makes their realizations, so long as they do it steadily over time, the better grounded they will be. Nietzsche didn't make his major realizations till he was middle-aged - which was too late.

The only danger is not being properly grounded.

Kevin wrote:

only an average I.Q is required

That was the "middle ground" that I was referring to, but I see your point about being grounded and grounding as part of the begining of the path to enlightenment. I suspect that a middle aged person of average intelligence could become enlightened and be able to handle it if he were to approach the matter in the appropriate order. Then he would become a philosophical genius.

Kevin Solway wrote: Keep in mind that the definition of genius you will find in dictionaries is made up by non-geniuses.

Well language is merely used to communicate concepts, so this was the conception I wished to convey and the dictionary meaning fit well

I say that a person is a genius to the degree that they speak the truth.

Now you are using a non-standard definition. But it is now clear to me what you people mean when you say genius. You can as well say the truthful forum. Saying genius sound more pompous.

Take a look at Nietzsche's "Thus Spake Zarathustra" and the message of "The Joyful Wisdom". They carry this precise message.

There is a lot of egoism involved in Nietzche's concept of the superrman. While the enlightened man is free of this too. Someone with a strong ego can hardly be spontaneous.

In other words, being self-aware is the same as being in possession of an extraordinary talent (a combination of nature and hard work, as you say).

What do you say about the alternative hypothesis that self awareness is a form of mental hygiene which is not taught due to the great failure of the educational/social system?

In order to know "what is", and in order to verify the clarity of his perceptions and absence of ego, the enlightened person has to have the philosophical skills of logic and analysis.

How about testing the clarity of perceptions by the amount of harmony achieved. Harmony in everything which includes logic and intellect?

Kevin Solway wrote:I say that a person is a genius to the degree that they speak the truth. Both Nietzsche and to a lesser degree Schopenhauer were exceptional in this regard, and that is why they will be remembered forever. They are remembered because of their uncanny ability bring truth to the fore.

If unenlightened people have no chance of recognizing genius, & enlightenment is so rare [in your view], who is it that is remembering Nietzsche & Shopenhauer? It can't be enlightened people because they are too thin on the ground, & it can't be unenlightened people because they can't recognize truth.

It seems like you are ringing in 'the herd' when it's expedient, at least the herd of those who pay any attention to philosophy, which would include academics & others you think have the wrong idea.

So, any enlightened person, who is able to speak the truth, will appear to be a philosophical genius.

How does this fit in with your idea that a person who really speaks the truth will be shunned & reviled by all?

I guess what I'm wondering is how you explain the fact that an unenlightened culture manages to preserve & sometimes even revere the work of enlightened geniuses if they are incapable of understanding it.

What I think is that in an open-minded person, expressions of truth can resonate in such a way as to inspire their own inchoate potential to become enlightened & even if they can't say with 100% certainty 'this is truth', they can have a kind of intuitive understanding & can be drawn to it anyway.
.

Shard,

I guess what I'm wondering is how you explain the fact that an unenlightened culture manages to preserve & sometimes even revere the work of enlightened geniuses if they are incapable of understanding it.

Simple: unenlightened cultures tend to preserve the most vague sayings of their sages, never the clearest expression. When truth is revered, it is peripherally.

Shardrol wrote:

How does this fit in with your idea that a person who really speaks the truth will be shunned & reviled by all?

I guess what I'm wondering is how you explain the fact that an unenlightened culture manages to preserve & sometimes even revere the work of enlightened geniuses if they are incapable of understanding it.

This is an interesting question. When you look at it, "enlightened geniuises" are only remembered and revered by the general population when their enlightened thinking is mixed with popular delusion.

Jesus and Buddha are two classic examples. In the case of Jesus, we have the delusion of the miracles, the resurrections, the herd morality, the battles with the authorities, all bedded within an over-the-top, apocalyptic, God-centered soap-opera.

In the case of the Buddha, we have the delusion of reincarnation, herd-morality, guru-hierarchies, the romance of monastic living, the celestial imagary, and the overall soap-opera of the Buddha's life.

In both cases, the fantastical elements are given a sheen of credibility and power by the levels of wisdom which occured within Jesus and Buddha.

The wisdom and the fantasy elements are essentially unrelated, of course, and are only linked together through association. But even so, it is this very linkage which has made these fantastical elements seem so compelling and arresting to the general population.

If Jesus and Buddha had been less enlightened and wise, then the fantastical elements would have seemed too fluffy and insipid - much like the modern New Age religions - and the whole movement to worship them on a worldwide scale would never have got off the ground.

If they had been more enlightened and wise, and thus took greater care to ensure that their teachings wouldn't subsequently be mixed with populist delusional thinking, then they would have remained invisible and no one would have been interested.

Examples of people who spoke more purely and truthfully than Jesus and Buddha, and who are virtually unknown to the general population as a result: Kierkegaard, Weininger, Huang Po, Hakuin.

-

.

David Quinn wrote:Examples of people who spoke more purely and truthfully than Jesus and Buddha, and who are virtually unknown to the general population as a result: Kierkegaard, Weininger, Huang Po, Hakuin.

I doubt that Kierkegaard, Weininger, Huang Po, and Hakuin would have reached the heights you ascribe them if it were not for the existence of Jesus and Buddha. I also wonder whether Jesus and Budda's capacity to reside amongst the populace reflected greater saturation with wisdom, and the trappings layed over them occurred as a result of them being so big. A lesser sage will naturally attract less of that.

It may be that earlier sages needed to be more popular in order for their teachings to survive, whereas latter sages, having the benefit of the printing press, internet, etc, may not.

There is also the factor of 'seen that before'. Pretty much everyone in the western world is aware of Jesus and Buddha's lives, so there is less novelty value. The dynamic is different now.

.

.


In countries such as parts of Asia, where enlightenment based religions were accepted by the populace, sages are said to have tested their non-attachment by facing threats against the body, such as sitting down amongst wolves. In other times the agitations of the populace performed this role, e.g. the rocks being thrown at Jesus and the crucifixion. Some may think this age is superior to Jesus', but in my experience the very same things occur.

If a sage from fear avoids these kinds of challenge, that can uproot the deepest of attachments, is he putting his ascent on a shelf?


.

Ankit Gupta wrote:

I say that a person is a genius to the degree that they speak the truth.

Now you are using a non-standard definition. But it is now clear to me what you people mean when you say genius. You can as well say the truthful forum. Saying genius sound more pompous.

I think we settled on the title "Genius" because we want to attract people who aren't afraid to be superior and different - people with relatively strong egos and who can take criticism.

If we called it "The truthful forum" we would probably attract the kind of people who burst into tears the moment you disagree with them.

There is a lot of egoism involved in Nietzche's concept of the superrman.

I don't see that egoism in "Thus Spake Zarathustra". In that book the Superman appears to be the same as a Buddha. He is a humble, superior man.

Some of his later writings on the subject were edited and altered by his sister, and these became used by the Nazis.

Someone with a strong ego can hardly be spontaneous.

I would say that "Thus Spake Zarathustra" is one of the finest works of spontaneity in human history. The book is like a soul with covers.

In other words, being self-aware is the same as being in possession of an extraordinary talent (a combination of nature and hard work, as you say).

What do you say about the alternative hypothesis that self awareness is a form of mental hygiene which is not taught due to the great failure of the educational/social system?

Self-awareness is really just courage and rational thinking. These things are not taught in the educational/social system because they are not valued by society. People need to be self-aware themselves before they can begin to encourage self-awareness in others.

In the current politically-correct environment it is very difficult for a self-aware person to survive in the educational system. Such people are very quickly weeded-out.

In order to know "what is", and in order to verify the clarity of his perceptions and absence of ego, the enlightened person has to have the philosophical skills of logic and analysis.

How about testing the clarity of perceptions by the amount of harmony achieved. Harmony in everything which includes logic and intellect?

I'm not sure what you man by "harmony".

It's possible to achieve a certain amount of harmony by disposing of logic and intellect altogether. "Ignorance is bliss". The kind of harmony a cow has grazing in the field.

But this doesn't give us a good idea of how wise the cow is, or how accurate his perceptions are.

Shardrol wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:I say that a person is a genius to the degree that they speak the truth. Both Nietzsche and to a lesser degree Schopenhauer were exceptional in this regard, and that is why they will be remembered forever. They are remembered because of their uncanny ability bring truth to the fore.

If unenlightened people have no chance of recognizing genius, & enlightenment is so rare [in your view], who is it that is remembering Nietzsche & Shopenhauer? It can't be enlightened people because they are too thin on the ground, & it can't be unenlightened people because they can't recognize truth.

Every person has a genius buried deep inside them. But it usually remains buried.

Emerson says, "In every work of genius, we recognize our own rejected thoughts; they come back to us with a certain alienated majesty."

So, in works of great truth we recognize our own great thoughts. But those thoughts are only in "henid" form. They are hidden, unformed, in the unconscious. They might be remnants or fragments of thoughts we had as children. They are not integrated or brought forwards into the clear light of consciousness. They aren't examined and made sense of.

People recognize and enjoy the greatness of great thoughts but they don't want it to go any further since they have a vague sense as to where it might lead. Selfhood. And consciousness. For them, death.

For that reason people prefer their "great works of truth" to be written in some kind of poetic way, which doesn't spell out in black and white exactly what it is talking about.

They want to enjoy the sun, but only from twenty kilometres underground. They want a mere suggestion of the possibilitiy of a photon, but no more.

People who speak the plain truth, in direct and simple language, are regarded as crude, cold, unfeeling and inhuman.

So, any enlightened person, who is able to speak the truth, will appear to be a philosophical genius.

How does this fit in with your idea that a person who really speaks the truth will be shunned & reviled by all?

People will perceive the genius's genius so long as they are able to sheild themselves from 99.999% of what he is saying. But the truly great geniuses do not allow, or they make it virtually impossible, for their audience to sheild themselves.

What I think is that in an open-minded person, expressions of truth can resonate in such a way as to inspire their own inchoate potential to become enlightened & even if they can't say with 100% certainty 'this is truth', they can have a kind of intuitive understanding & can be drawn to it anyway.

Yes, it happens on an unconscious level.

Sometimes I'll hear a piece of music - it might only be a few notes - and I'll think, "That is great". It resonates on a unconscious level - more than likely on an emotional/deluded level.

And that is how unenlightened people are able to recognize genius even though they don't know what it is.

Importantly, making this recognition doesn't necessarily make the person a better person, because the ego can use the experience to reinforce and strengthen itself.


[Edit:

Watched a documentary a few days ago about an artist who spent a season in Antarctica. Judging by the thoughts he expressed, he was a bit of a genius. He tried to incorporate his thoughts into his paintings.

He got paid for his paintings, but not for his thoughts, even though his thoughts were about 1000 times more true and powerful than his paintings. ]

Kevin Solway wrote: It's possible to achieve a certain amount of harmony by disposing of logic and intellect altogether. "Ignorance is bliss". The kind of harmony a cow has grazing in the field.
But this doesn't give us a good idea of how wise the cow is, or how accurate his perceptions are.

The harmony I had in view was not based on this kind of repression of any facet of the human experience. For example many people are well adjusted to society, and they have repressed their critical faculties. Similary one can numb one's mind to become a cow as you say. This seeming harmony is only on the surface and hides terrible madness born out of repression. The harmony I had in mind was a complete harmony with everything, a total acceptance and integration of all facets of the human experience including logic, reason, emotion and even foolishness. To live a life with no dark repressed corners of the personality, at home in every situation. Every faculty used and each moment savored.

Ankit Gupta wrote:The harmony I had in mind was a complete harmony with everything, a total acceptance and integration of all facets of the human experience including logic, reason, emotion and even foolishness. To live a life with no dark repressed corners of the personality, at home in every situation. Every faculty used and each moment savored.

Wisdom and foolishness can't be integrated, since they are opposites. Similarly truth and untruth can't be integrated.

It is the nature of wisdom to dispel ignorance. They can't live happily side by side.

By the same token, nothing should ever be repressed. Ignoring reality is never a wise thing to do.

Let's say that a person wins a million dollars. If he is wise he won't rejoice over it. But, then, being wise, he won't be using his faculty of delusion to rejoice and gloat over his winnings. So is he missing out on something? He won't be able to savor the moment in as full a way as he might.

To analyze all these things requires logic. And that's what makes a person a philosopher.

Kevin Solway wrote: Wisdom and foolishness can't be integrated, since they are opposites. Similarly truth and untruth can't be integrated.

The human mind will behave with foolishness at times, but there is also the underlying wisdom. Enlightenment consists in not rejecting the foolish parts but accepting them and even playing with them.

Let's say that a person wins a million dollars. If he is wise he won't rejoice over it. But, then, being wise, he won't be using his faculty of delusion to rejoice and gloat over his winnings. So is he missing out on something? He won't be able to savor the moment in as full a way as he might.

A whole person may rejoice over his winnings (and let us face it, it is better to have a million dollars, it frees you from the tyranny of the economic system to some degree), but he will not lose sight of the fact of the emptiness of the whole business. In fact a large accomplishment may produce even involuntarily a surge of joy which may happen due to the emotional part of the self(very irrational), why should one apply logic and repress this feeling? If one uses the logical-part of the brain to reject the emotional-part then integration is far away. When an emotion is completely lived through then it is no longer a frightening thing, and for that very reason it is finally integrated in the whole.

To analyze all these things requires logic. And that's what makes a person a philosopher.

Yes logic allows you to see the falsehood/emptiness in anything. But this is only part of the story, if one declares perpetual war on parts of one which are illogical, then a conflict is created which is never resolved. These parts would then become a source of constant threat and would thus become stronger for that very reason.

Ankit Gupta wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote: Wisdom and foolishness can't be integrated, since they are opposites. Similarly truth and untruth can't be integrated.

The human mind will behave with foolishness at times, but there is also the underlying wisdom.

It is impossible to be both fully wise and foolish at the same time. This is a logical necessity.

Should we preserve our foolishness and ignorance just so we can can balance it with our wisdom? I don't think so.

Enlightenment consists in not rejecting the foolish parts but accepting them and even playing with them.

Foolishness, or ignorance, is unenlightened by definition.

It is illogical to speak of wisdom accepting ignorance. Enlightenment is the absence of ignorance.

Unless of course you want to define enlightenment to mean the preservation of ignorance, delusion and violence, which I think would be a silly definition.

A whole person may rejoice over his winnings

You mean a person who is half wise and half ignorant? Half peaceful and half violent?

Wise people do not rejoice over their good fortune, full stop.

why should one apply logic and repress this feeling?

Logic doesn't repress feelings, it eliminates the possibility of them.

Only should only apply logic if one values truth. If one doesn't value truth then it doesn't matter what kind of delusions one has.

If one uses the logical-part of the brain to reject the emotional-part then integration is far away.

See above. It is not logical to repress anything. However it is logical to reject things which are false.

It is not wise to want to be integrated with something that is false, delusional, violent and harmful.

When an emotion is completely lived through then it is no longer a frightening thing

So if I hate someone and murder them, then I am no longer frightened by the emotion?

Logic alone is able to dispell the emotion as false, before it grows and does any harm.

If one declares perpetual war on parts of one which are illogical, then a conflict is created which is never resolved.

It's not possible to have a war with something that has already been dismissed as false, and no longer exists.

Let me add another observation on the enlightenment process.

A logical system functions with axioms and derives theorems from these. In the real world axioms are largely unnecessary. The truth of something( insofar it is required for life) can be known with sufficient accuracy by a process of observation and logical deductions, involving causality and of the form A=A.

Society brainwashes everyone to believe in certain notions, these forcefed notions then become like axioms for the logical mind, which builds a theoretical structure on these. However these notions(complete junk!) are in conflict with reality keeping the logical mind in a perpetual war with itself(first level of conflict).

The logical portion of the mind is dominant when the brain as a whole is relatively peaceful and quiet. There is an emotional part of the brain which at times becomes dominant over the logical part. The logical portion has not observed this portion, and is frightened by its power and tries to reject and rationalize it away. (However it cannot escape the what is(reality) and such an act causes the second level of conflict within the mind).


The rational part has to acknowledge the animal part, and the emotions have to be lived through whole to be able to be understood by the logical part, this self knowledge would allow complete integration.

When the emotional part is acknowledged, accepted and understood then there is no conflict present. The "madness" of the emotional part is then accepted and even transmuted. The thinking and feeling parts then work in unison.

Finally the animals lack a substantial logical part so they are relatively conflict free(from the "human condition").

PS: Kevin I think this answers most of your objections,. Living through an emotion means to experience its physiological effects, and the effects on the brain, triggering factors(conditioning) etc and not acting on the emotion, which is an escape from the emotion.

Ankit Gupta wrote:The rational part has to acknowledge the animal part

I agree with that. It would not be rational to do otherwise.

and the emotions have to be lived through whole to be able to be understood by the logical part

The emotions have to be thoroughly and honestly examined, but I wouldn't say that one has to live through all the most violent of emotions, in full, to be able to understand them.

this self knowledge would allow complete integration.

And I don't agree that integrating falseness and violence is a good thing.