GENIUS FORUMS

Dude, I don't even care to continue on with this stupid shit. It's obvious you "became angry" originally. Stop slithering your way out of it. You yourself said "I never admitted to being perfectly enlightened" so stop defending that which is obviously not perfect. It just looks retarded.

sschaula wrote:Nick,

Well it certainly doen't threaten me, I've gained too much wisdom to be derailed by someone like you, but for others just starting out on their spritual journey, or those yet to start out you might. I'm just looking out for my brothers, that's all.

Haha, right. Just as you were trained to do...to spread the virus of wisdom without thinking.

Wonderful, again you throw out another groundless claim when someone shows you the errors in your logic. Like I said, it's just like clockwork.

It's not groundless. It's quite apparent.

sschaula wrote:

Man, you love this particular song and dance don't you? Why I want you to figure it out is because if I tell you will mentally construct a way to reject it, but if your own mind makes the realisation that's much harder to do. It's that way with everyone.

I disagree.

Big deal. Disagreement isn't an argument and doesn't make a person right. Parrots can say "I disagree".

It's not that way with a thinker.

What makes you think............ah, never mind...

There's no song and dance. It really does seem as if you're just lazy.

Calling someone lazy because they won't explain something to you that you really have to sort out for yourself is lazy.

Rubish. On what basis and from what criteria do you make such judgements? That's the question.

Well it's not as if an imperfectly enlightened person has no idea what wisdom is like and what it does to a person.

That's certainly true. But you're making my argument - i.e. it takes one to know one. Further point being, if you have the capacity to judge such a person you are necessarily such a person and occupy the position of being the very subject required by your challenge. Honestly, think about it a while..

Dan,

Big deal. Disagreement isn't an argument and doesn't make a person right. Parrots can say "I disagree".

I didn't only say "I disagree". I said "I disagree. It's not that way with a thinker." Parrots generally can't say the second one.

"...It's not that way with a thinker" was my argument.

What makes you think............ah, never mind...

I could say the very same for you, but what would be the point? We both think we are thinkers. We both think the other is missing something.

Calling someone lazy because they won't explain something to you that you really have to sort out for yourself is lazy.

In a philosophical discussion, that's not the case. In your dream world where you're the alpha male sage, and everyone worships you and deciphers your cryptic one liner bullshit, that may be the case. This isn't your dream world.

That's certainly true. But you're making my argument - i.e. it takes one to know one.

Think again. I said that it could take an imperfectly enlightened person to recognize a perfectly enlightened person.

Honestly, think about it a while..

I say the same to you.

When I look at Scott's recent posts, I'm reminded of something Kierkegaard said:

Anyone who has the remotest idea of what it actually is to die to the world
also knows that this does not take place without frightful agonies. No wonder,
then, that he cries out, sometimes also rebels against God, because it seems to
him as if God has deceived him, he who from the beginning became involved
with God on the understanding that God would love him according to man's
idea of love and now sees that it is God who wants to be loved, and according
to God's idea of what love is.

Scott went into his spiritual search with the idea that enlightenment is an egotistical heaven of some kind, possibly with the view that it will automatically resolve all of his anger issues. Now that he sees that it doesn't work like this, he has decided to rail against the very concept of enlightenment itself.

Seen from this perspective, his responses are quite reasonable - although still lacking in maturity.

Jesus used to say to his followers: "Blessed is he who is not offended!" It is times like these, when you are recoiling from the realization that enlightenment is not what you initially assumed it was, that your faith in truth is severely tested.

-

Scott went into his spiritual search with the idea that enlightenment is an egotistical heaven of some kind, possibly with the view that it will automatically resolve all of his anger issues. Now that he sees that it doesn't work like this, he has decided to rail against the very concept of enlightenment itself.

Kind of. Who hasn't begun in a similar fashion? No one starts for a pure reason. Everyone starts to get something out of it.

...at least when the word "enlightenment" is used. If we used realistic words like "thinker" and "philosopher", and never used religious terms, I'm sure I wouldn't be so agitated.

But then we wouldn't catch so many fish, would we? I'm throwing down my net and using my bare hands now. Since I'm a lover of truth, why should I spread lies? To do so would be absolutely hypocritical.

Seen from this perspective, his responses are quite reasonable - although still lacking in maturity.

This is the kind of thing I find silly about you, David. That you somehow think you are able to judge another's progress when you are still stuck. How can a 10 year old tell another 10 year old that he isn't mature? It's a joke.

Jesus used to say to his followers: "Blessed is he who is not offended!" It is times like these, when you are recoiling from the realization that enlightenment is not what you initially assumed it was, that your faith in truth is severely tested.

Haha, my faith in truth isn't tested. My faith in human nature is what's been tested.

"We all fall short of the glory of God".

Scott,

If we used realistic words like "thinker" and "philosopher", and never used religious terms, I'm sure I wouldn't be so agitated.

It is pretty clear to me that you have major anger issues that have nothing to do with this forum, so I'm not sure that it would make any difference what words are used here. The forum is simply serving as a conduit for whatever is simmering there inside you.

In any case, religious words are useful. They have meanings and connotations that secular words simply don't have. Used wisely, they can be very effective.

To react negatively in knee-jerk fashion to the use of certain kinds of words is a sure sign of attachment to those words.

But then we wouldn't catch so many fish, would we? I'm throwing down my net and using my bare hands now. Since I'm a lover of truth, why should I spread lies? To do so would be absolutely hypocritical.

What is an example of a lie that I spread?

DQ: Seen from this perspective, his responses are quite reasonable - although still lacking in maturity.

S: This is the kind of thing I find silly about you, David. That you somehow think you are able to judge another's progress when you are still stuck. How can a 10 year old tell another 10 year old that he isn't mature? It's a joke.

I'm almost twice your age, so it is likely that I would have a good deal more experience in these matters.

Scott, your immaturity and anger are shining out like beacons. I'm sure most people on this forum would agree to this. It is very plain. Hopefully, one day soon you will realize this and you can move on to something more worthwhile.

Seriously, you are going to have to deal with these anger issues more squarely and stop blaming others all the time. You are only going to burn yourself out, otherwise.

-

David,

I don't have anger issues. I can see where people may assume that, because I don't back down and I use fairly harsh words. The most I feel when dealing with a lot of these posts is stress, just because I don't have the time to be doing this, and also I'm staring at a screen typing. But I don't feel anger. It's not like if I met you I'd want to hit you or something...I'd probably want to sit down and talk. So, no anger. Disapproval, yes.

That's beside the point entirely, though.

In any case, religious words are useful. They have meanings and connotations that secular words simply don't have. Used wisely, they can be very effective.

Exactly my point. The meanings and connotations are where you're fooling people. Which answers this question:

What is an example of a lie that I spread?

I've already stated enough how words like "enlightenment" or "Buddha" or "God" are misleading.

I've found none of your statements on these matters very convincing.

You don't even take the care to make sure your views are consistent, so why do you expect anyone else to care about them?

-

David,

I've found none of your statements on these matters very convincing.

Oh well.

You don't even take the care to make sure your views are consistent, so why do you expect anyone else to care about them?

I don't see any inconsistencies here.

Your thinking is riddled with inconsistencies. For example, you can't seem to decide whether the other side of the road (i.e. nirvana) exists or not. But this doesn't stop you from lashing out and making dogmatic pronouncements for either one position or the other, depending on when it suits you.

It is the sheer dogmatism with which you argue for opposing points of view which stands out in your posts.

Now I know you are not insane. I'm sure there is some intelligence in there somewhere. So I can only put your current contradictory behaviour down to a consuming anger. I think you have fallen into the habit of making views up on the spot, simply in order to feed the anger. And we are the ones here on this forum who are forced to endure this display.


-

David Quinn wrote:

To react negatively in knee-jerk fashion to the use of certain kinds of words is a sure sign of attachment to those words.

It's interesting how one can react emotionally to the very sight of a word, as if it has some sort of permanent stigma around it. I wonder why one reacts in such a way at the very sight of a word such as ‘god’, ‘Buddha’, or ‘enlightenment’?

I suspect people react emotionally to words because they associate that word with something negative without any exception, and they are not conscious of their emotional response to the word itself. However, a word on its own is just a word, it is a dead meaningless thing until conscious humans assign meaning to it.

For instance: I could define God as rationality, or I could define God as a paternalistic father figure produced by the imagination to give the believer a feeling of security, purpose, direction and comparative superiority. Another example: I could define enlightenment as a supreme mental state, where the individual is no longer controlled by conditioned unconscious activity. Or I could define enlightenment as the study of tarot cards, witchcraft, wacky postmodernism ideas, Mayan calendar doomsday prophecies and new agey horoscopes.

So a word is an ambiguous thing, until the two parties involved agree on how they each define it. And if there is an emotional reaction to the very sight of words, then one needs to step back and contemplate what has happened deeply, one needs to perceive it as the feminine knee jerk reaction that it is.

The signifier is not the signified. To think the word has only one fixed unmovable meaning, and that certain words are always inherently misleading is due to attachment, and perhaps even due to ones inability to imagine the myriad of possibilities of using language itself, and at the same time the inability to realize the limitation of all language.

David,

Your thinking is riddled with inconsistencies. For example, you can't seem to decide whether the other side of the road (i.e. nirvana) exists or not.

As I've said numerous times before (and anyone who's been paying attention can tell you this is true): I don't believe in Nirvana but admit that it could be possible. I believe it's impossible.

Perhaps you skimmed too fast over a few things I've said.

I'm admitting that my belief isn't logically sound. It's the same as when an atheist says "I don't believe in God." I'm admitting that it may be possible for a perfectly enlightened person to exist, just that I don't think it is possible.

I've been saying this for quite a while now, so I don't see where I'm inconsistent.

But this doesn't stop you from lashing out and making dogmatic pronouncements for either one position or the other, depending on when it suits you.

Well since you were wrong with the first two sentences, it also follows that this is wrong as well.

It is the sheer dogmatism with which you argue for opposing points of view which stands out in your posts.

Dogmatism is a funny word. It implies that I'm wrong about what I'm so sure of, or that I'm not even so sure of it but am just acting sure. I don't think I'd use the word to describe my own posts.

Now I know you are not insane. I'm sure there is some intelligence in there somewhere. So I can only put your current contradictory behaviour down to a consuming anger. I think you have fallen into the habit of making views up on the spot, simply in order to feed the anger. And we are the ones here on this forum who are forced to endure this display.

Well, I can't really argue against that. I disagree with it entirely, but that's how you see me. How would I possibly try to prove you wrong on that...and why would I care to?

I've already said there's not any anger driving me.

sschaula wrote:I'm admitting that my belief isn't logically sound.

Remember when I said you were similar to Christians?

sschaula wrote:I'm admitting that it may be possible for a perfectly enlightened person to exist, just that I don't think it is possible.

So you think it's possible, yet at the same time you don't think it's possible. This statement of yours is redundant. Why not just say that it's unlikely for a person to achieve enlightenment? That would be more to the point and true at the same time.

Dickhead,

So you think it's possible, yet at the same time you don't think it's possible.

Reread and rethink.

This statement of yours is redundant. Why not just say that it's unlikely for a person to achieve enlightenment? That would be more to the point and true at the same time.

Because I don't think it's unlikely. I think it's impossible.

Bestest friend in the whole wide world,

In reference to a man achieving enlightenment you said:

sschaula wrote:I don't think it's unlikely. I think it's impossible.

And you said earlier.

sschaula wrote:I'm admitting that it may be possible for a perfectly enlightened person to exist, just that I don't think it is possible.

Just because you put the words "may" and "be" before the word possible in the second statement doesn't negate the fact that the statement blatantly contradicts itself. So best friend, which is it, do you think it's possible, or impossible for an enlightened person to exist?

Like I said...I believe it's impossible. That's what all of this has been about.

Believe is definitely a key word there.

sschaula wrote:Like I said...I believe it's impossible.

Did you remember to click the heels of your ruby red slippers 3 times while you were believing?

I don't see the difference between thinking it's impossible but admitting there is a chance (however small) that it is possible, und the term "unlikely" - or maybe you'd feel better about it if you said highly unlikely.

I think you're picking nits on this one just to not look like you are giving in.
.

It's interesting how one can react emotionally to the very sight of a word, as if it has some sort of permanent stigma around it.

Like the assumed-to-be-positive phrases like "The Truth" or "The Infinite" or "The Totality" or "Masculinity", for example.

Which raises an interesting point. Is it only our pre-existing, and thus causal, emotional desire for something to be "good", that makes anything at all good.

E,

I don't see the difference between thinking it's impossible but admitting there is a chance (however small) that it is possible, und the term "unlikely" - or maybe you'd feel better about it if you said highly unlikely.

Isn't that what Nick just suggested. I like the word impossible because it's exactly what I believe.

I think you're picking nits on this one just to not look like you are giving in.

If you look back to whenever Trevor and I were discussing my opinions originally, you'll see that I said exactly the same thing to him.

I think it's an insult to say that I am trying to make it look like I'm not giving in. Do you really think I'm that stupid to sit here and waste my time covering my own tracks?

I guess quite a few people here do. I didn't think you were one of them.

Some moron wrote,

It's interesting how one can react emotionally to the very sight of a word, as if it has some sort of permanent stigma around it.

I've been at this forum for a long time. I didn't complain before. If it were an emotional reaction to a word, I would've said something sooner.

The fact is that I thought my way to despising those words, when used at this forum.

Think what you want. I'm sick of having to defend my points just because others can't quite grasp them.

sschaula wrote:Like I said...I believe it's impossible. That's what all of this has been about.

Since you are now satisfied with a mere belief then it's blasphemy for you to consider yourself a philospher or a thinker, and are in no place to pass judement on anything of this nature. Whether you recognize it or not you have thrown in the towel deeming your words are empty and worthless in regards to anything infinite, absolute, and wise.

sschaula wrote:Believe is definitely a key word there.

Indeed it is.

Scott,

My perspective is that you are 22, and full of anger.

What am I missing here? What am I not seeing?

Nick,

Since you are now satisfied with a mere belief then it's blasphemy for you to consider yourself a philospher or a thinker, and are in no place to pass judement on anything of this nature. Whether you recognize it or not you have thrown in the towel deeming your words are empty and worthless in regards to anything infinite, absolute, and wise.

So be it.

Prince,

Your perspective is false. Why did you also feel the need to chime in?