GENIUS FORUMS

Dan;

You made my point. You wrote,

Dan Rowden wrote:Perfection does not mean someone is able to maintain their state in the face of all the forces of Nature.

But Kevin has argued that perfection is permanent,

Kevin Solway wrote:

clyde wrote:But is something perfect if it comes and goes?

Definitely not.

I will acknowledge that Kevin seems to have retreated from that view and seems to accept that perfection might come and go, that a so-called ‘perfect human being’ is subject to natural conditions. So that now they are a ‘perfect human being’, now they’re not, and now they are again a ‘perfect human being’ (where “perfect” means without delusion). This is different from Kevin's initial position that a so-called 'perfect human being' was in a permanent state of non-delusion.

And you again make my point here,

Dan Rowden wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:The perfect person himself would have a pretty good idea whether he was perfect or not, but he would always be wary - because even though he might think he has dried up all his seeds of subtle delusions, he might find new ones appearing out of nowhere.

This is contradictory and seems to negate the possibility of perfection.

Although you don’t present your analysis or argument, I also noted contradictions in Kevin’s statement.

clyde

Perfection by definition is permanent (i.e. delusions cease to arise). Permanence in this sense doesn't entail that a person is always what they are. If I cut a perfect person's head off chances are they will cease to be perfect, but that isn't relevant to the point. A definition of perfect that meant a person live forever and be free from possibility of change would be kind of silly. It's not meant to be taken like that. Perfect people die like everyone else.

Dan;

In another thread you wrote,

A perfect person is only perfect whilst the causes of their perfection continue.

So, a so-called 'perfect person' is a perfect person so long as they are perfect and when the so-called 'perfect person' ceases to be a perfect they are no longer a perfect person.

Exactly. And this satisfies "permanent" because . . .

clyde


p.s: By your statement a 'perfect person' is dependent on causes, not self-made.

clyde wrote:And this satisfies "permanent" because . . .

Because the delusions are not being generated from any faults within their own mind, and are therefore unlikely to occur.

It's no different to a "permanent marker" or a "permanent building society".

I agree that delusions arise because of causes, but so do "faults" arise because of causes.

Perfect . . . not perfect . . . perfect . . . not perfect . . .

clyde wrote:Perfect . . . not perfect . . . perfect . . . not perfect . . .

You sound like you're a badly programmed computer that's got into a loop and can't come out of it.

Kevin;

Well perhaps you could respond to this:

Dan Rowden wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:The perfect person himself would have a pretty good idea whether he was perfect or not, but he would always be wary - because even though he might think he has dried up all his seeds of subtle delusions, he might find new ones appearing out of nowhere.

This is contradictory and seems to negate the possibility of perfection.

clyde wrote:Well perhaps you could respond to this:

Dan Rowden wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:The perfect person himself would have a pretty good idea whether he was perfect or not, but he would always be wary - because even though he might think he has dried up all his seeds of subtle delusions, he might find new ones appearing out of nowhere.

This is contradictory and seems to negate the possibility of perfection.

There's nothing to respond to, since it's all been clearly explained. In his next post Dan demonstrated that he perfectly understood what I was saying. Things can happen at any moment to take perfection away - like an axe through the skull, or the planet blowing up, or aliens implanting delusions.

Kevin Solway wrote:

clyde wrote:And this satisfies "permanent" because . . .

Because the delusions are not being generated from any faults within their own mind, and are therefore unlikely to occur.

It's no different to a "permanent marker" or a "permanent building society".

Oh, that makes perfect sense. Except for one thing--there is no evidence for any thing outside of one's mind; not even aliens! Hence, such a person would be unconscious to that degree and therefore not perfect.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:

clyde wrote:And this satisfies "permanent" because . . .

Because the delusions are not being generated from any faults within their own mind, and are therefore unlikely to occur.

Oh, that makes perfect sense. Except for one thing--there is no evidence for any thing outside of one's mind; not even aliens!

There's also no mind outside your mind. No outside outside your mind. So the argument doesn't seem to help to differentiate here.

Still, Kevin, what's then the difference between a delusion generated from a fault 'within' the mind and a fault 'outside' it (the axe...)? In terms of causality we cannot start creating this distinction between a delusion generated from an outside influence and something occurring in our brain chemistry or abstract reasoning capability. An axe has just as many causes to exist as a delusion, and there's no reason to assume all of them are within our power to regulate. Some neuron might spontaneously flip the wrong way and cloud our perfect judgment. Perhaps this is how the mind flows and grows.

The only perfection possible it seems is not exclusive but all-inclusive. The moment perfection is reached the realization is there it was already the case - perfection never stopped. Perfection being then of course the absolute, the constant, never-ending - way above the ever changing state of a human mind.

People can realize this perfection to some degree, just like they can realize the absolute, but there's no reason to assume they'll maintain the realization. They will be okay with it because they know that change itself will be perfection now. Until they or their children forget even that again.

Yes, well, magically I just this very moment found a quote that I think applies, and points to the same thing:

The One Mind alone is the Buddha, and there is no distinction between the Buddha and sentient things, but that sentient beings are attached to forms and so seek externally for Buddhahood. By their very seeking they lose it, for that is using the Buddha to seek for the Buddha and using mind to grasp Mind. Even though they do their utmost for a full aeon, they will not be able to attain it. They do not know that, if they put a stop to conceptual thought and forget their anxiety, the Buddha will appear before them, for this Mind is the Buddha and the Buddha is all living beings. It is not the less for being manifested in ordinary beings, nor is it greater for being manifest in the Buddhas.

Clyde,

Thanks for the link to Richard Rose, who I'd never heard of. He's interesting.

Leyla Shen wrote:Yes, well, magically I just this very moment found a quote that I think applies, and points to the same thing:

The One Mind alone is the Buddha, and there is no distinction between the Buddha and sentient things, but that sentient beings are attached to forms and so seek externally for Buddhahood. By their very seeking they lose it, for that is using the Buddha to seek for the Buddha and using mind to grasp Mind. Even though they do their utmost for a full aeon, they will not be able to attain it. They do not know that, if they put a stop to conceptual thought and forget their anxiety, the Buddha will appear before them, for this Mind is the Buddha and the Buddha is all living beings. It is not the less for being manifested in ordinary beings, nor is it greater for being manifest in the Buddhas.

Fitting quote but I've to add that this translation becomes iffy when stating to "put a stop to conceptual thought". The no-mind, no-thought and no-action teaching that was common in the time has absolutely nothing to do with the cessation of conceptualizing, end of perception and interpretation or stop going out and do stuff, which many derive from the teaching somehow.

Other systems teach to have right mind, right view, right concepts and right action. But it really boils down to the same.

It's about a lack of attachment, not having an 'I' resting in it, stagnating, freezing, killing it, or any other delusion about the nature of our existence.

The mountain (concept - wrong view) stops being a mountain (questioning - disintegration) but becomes a mountain again (concept - right view). Different teachings and systems are used to help with different stages in this universal process.