GENIUS FORUMS

Dan Rowden wrote:The transition is seamless and just is when and what it is. The path to it can be roughly delineated, that's all.

How do you know when you've hit it?

If I told you you, it would be wrong. You just know, and you just know because of the intellectual groundwork that led you to that place. It's like Nietzsche's "abyss". If you step into it there's no mistaking it.

But, Katy, your question, though welcome, is really very premature. You have to gain a really solid insight into reality before your question can really be meaningful, and the irony of that is, when that happens, you won't have to ask that question. You'll know why you don't have to ask. This is why we don't ask money like cunts like Adya do. Why demand money just to wake people to what they have yet to see? It doesn't take money to do that.

That'll be $70.

Dan Rowden wrote: But, Katy, your question, though welcome, is really very premature.

I know. I didn't say I thought I was close or anything - just very curious. *shrugs* As I mentioned before, it's hard to believe in something without some idea of what that thing is. And even harder to believe one should work towards a goal if they don't know what the goal is. Oh, well.

Why demand money just to wake people to what they have yet to see? It doesn't take money to do that.

That'll be $70.

lol
oh, sure, just come over to Atlanta and I'll be glad to pay up...

And even harder to believe one should work towards a goal if they don't know what the goal is.

Absence of ignorance is not a "nebulous" goal for someone who suffers - specifically - for their ignorance. Philosophy is a thing only for such people.

This is the path to Nietszche's abyss.

Dan Rowden wrote: Absence of ignorance is not a "nebulous" goal for someone who suffers - specifically - for their ignorance. Philosophy is a thing only for such people.

This is the path to Nietszche's abyss.

Well, we all suffer for our ignorance (either that or I do it so much I've just decided that everyone else does, too). Is that to say then that philosophy should be for everyone, but only a select few take it up? Maybe just the ones who are un-ignorant enough to realize that ignorance is their problem?

Oh, well, I never took up philosophy in any academic sense, so what is this abyss thing?

Katy,

Well, we all suffer for our ignorance (either that or I do it so much I've just decided that everyone else does, too).

No, we don't suffer for our ignorance at all. We suffer for our lack of an empowering belief system. Those two things [truth v empowerment] need to be separated before "thinking" can begin.

Is that to say then that philosophy should be for everyone, but only a select few take it up?

As things stand, thinking is for the few. I'd like to change that stat for the better if possible. Such is my .............

Maybe just the ones who are un-ignorant enough to realize that ignorance is their problem?

Yes, those who are lucky enough to be born into the "human realm" (decent self consciousness) are the only ones who can suffer for the truth - which is, for their having been born.

Oh, well, I never took up philosophy in any academic sense, so what is this abyss thing?

The threshold between intellect and realisation. The door that somene like Naturyl is too afaid to open.

Dan said,

No, we don't suffer for our ignorance at all. We suffer for our lack of an empowering belief system. Those two things [truth v empowerment] need to be separated before "thinking" can begin.

Do you mean that the suffering begins when you see through the belief systems, realize they are false, and that you don't actually know a fucking thing and no one else does either?
Or what?

The threshold between intellect and realisation. The door that somene like Naturyl is too afaid to open.

Hah! I bet he says the same about you. And in what way do you find him lacking?

Anna,

Dan: No, we don't suffer for our ignorance at all. We suffer for our lack of an empowering belief system. Those two things [truth v empowerment] need to be separated before "thinking" can begin.

Anna: Do you mean that the suffering begins when you see through the belief systems, realize they are false, and that you don't actually know a fucking thing and no one else does either? Or what?

Katy's premise was that people suffer for their ignorance in the sense of knowing they are ignorant. Whilst it is likely true in her case it is not true in a general sense. Most people suffer unconsciously for their ignorance. Those born into the "human realm" suffer consciously for their ignorance. In short, they wake to the fact that they're ignorant and deluded. This is the only kind of suffering that has the capacity to propel people towards Truth. For everyone else suffering just propels them towards anything at all that acts as a balm to that pain.

Dan: The threshold between intellect and realisation. The door that somene like Naturyl is too afaid to open.

Anna: Hah! I bet he says the same about you. And in what way do you find him lacking?

No, he doesn't say the same about me; well, not entirely at least. Nat is well aware that his understanding and realisation don't match. That sets him apart from most people with a strong intellectual understanding of things. But, he is nevertheless a good example of the difference between understanding and realising.

Katy,

Oh, well, I never took up philosophy in any academic sense, so what is this abyss thing?

It just means the emptiness of Reality. It's one thing to understand this intellectually, to stand at the edge of that abyss; it's another thing to step out into it.

Hi Dan,

I understood the part about suffering for one's ignorance. It was the suffering over a lack of an empowering belief system I was questioning.

I would have to say that my understanding and realisation don't match. But it gets slowly closer.

Iolaus wrote:Hi Dan,

I understood the part about suffering for one's ignorance. It was the suffering over a lack of an empowering belief system I was questioning.

Oh, ok. Unfortunately I didn't mean anything especially interesting by it, just that belief systems tend to be incomplete and/or restricting rather than empowering. If belief systems really worked, everyone would be happy.

I am disappointed. I asked,

Without debating who is enlightened and what is enlightenment, but accepting the “who” and “what” of those who proclaim their enlightenment and their understanding of enlightenment, my inquiry to those who make such proclamations is this: Does your enlightenment effect how you live your life and if so, in what way(s); i.e., how do you relate to and act in the world and [how] do you relate to and act toward others?

So few enlightened human beings responded.
So few sincere answers offered to my questions.

Dan answered,

No, enlightenment doesn't really effect these things.

When I asked,

What does enlightenment effect?

Dan answered,

It stops ignorant behaviour.

I then asked Dan,

Isn’t that a change in behavior?
Isn’t that the principle of an ethical system?

. . . Stop Ignorant Behaviour!

How do you discern ignorant behaviour?

I am disappointed that Dan has not replied.

Do no harm <http://donoharm.us/>,
clyde

Clyde,

I would have given different answers, but I don't claim to be enlightened.

Dan Rowden wrote: Katy's premise was that people suffer for their ignorance in the sense of knowing they are ignorant. Whilst it is likely true in her case it is not true in a general sense. Most people suffer unconsciously for their ignorance. Those born into the "human realm" suffer consciously for their ignorance. In short, they wake to the fact that they're ignorant and deluded. This is the only kind of suffering that has the capacity to propel people towards Truth. For everyone else suffering just propels them towards anything at all that acts as a balm to that pain.

Well, what I was trying to get at is that ignorance is the cause of suffering for everyone, but only a few will realize that, and that because of this philosophy could help anyone, but only a few will actually use the resource.

Iolaus;

While my question was directed at those who have proclaimed their enlightenment, I am interested in your thoughts on this and anyone else who wishes to share their thoughts.

Do no harm <http://donoharm.us/>,
clyde


p.s: Katy, if by “philosophy” you mean the literal love of wisdom and not a particular set of beliefs, then I agree with you, though I would say "some" instead of "few".

Oh, well, I never took up philosophy in any academic sense, so what is this abyss thing?

It just means the emptiness of Reality. It's one thing to understand this intellectually, to stand at the edge of that abyss; it's another thing to step out into it.

Now why would you deliberately mislead a nice girl like Katy?

"I have an intellectual understanding of Ultimate Reality (emptiness)"

Dan Rowden

You weren't claiming any "stepping out" previously so why are you doing so now with the implication that you have personal experience in the area?

Oh, great, another smartarse. Is there a limit to their population? I wasn't being asked about my personal experience. I was being asked about the meaning of a term.

If this is you, Namsto, let me tell you I will not tolerate your presence here for a single minute. The full quote, which you omitted for reasons only an arsehole would know, is:

I have an intellectual understanding of Ultimate Reality (emptiness) and embody that understanding to the degree that lingering bad mental habits and karma allow me.

Dan Rowden wrote:Oh, great, another smartarse. Is there a limit to their population? I wasn't being asked about my personal experience. I was being asked about the meaning of a term.

Yup, there is a limit - 99.9% of the human population.
Fortunately for us that still leaves like 60,000,000 nice people.
Unfortunately for us, the statistical likelyhood is that most of them will not be rich enoguh to own a computer.

Dan Rowden wrote: It just means the emptiness of Reality. It's one thing to understand this intellectually, to stand at the edge of that abyss; it's another thing to step out into it.

Oh, hmm. emptiness of reality has seemed sort of intuitively obvious since I gave up on the whole Christianity thing. It's why I like the beach at night so much...

I guess the point is to come full circle and make that a logical thing instead of intuitive?

Katy wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Oh, great, another smartarse. Is there a limit to their population? I wasn't being asked about my personal experience. I was being asked about the meaning of a term.

Yup, there is a limit - 99.9% of the human population.
Fortunately for us that still leaves like 60,000,000 nice people.
Unfortunately for us, the statistical likelyhood is that most of them will not be rich enoguh to own a computer.

.1 % of 6 billion is only 6 million, but hey, that's still good.

Carl G wrote: .1 % of 6 billion is only 6 million, but hey, that's still good.

Oh, well I can't be expected to do math at 7am when that's late at night instead of early in the morning. :)

Sapius wrote:Well, what use is “enlightenment” if it means simply ‘to really know’, and do nothing reasonable through the knowledge acquired? What would ‘really know’ mean? From which absolute (un-shadier) position, would one confirm the concept of ‘enlightenment’? How less of a formula is ‘enlightenment’?

Why do you introduce usefulness as measurement suddenly? On what understanding do you have based the idea of 'use'?

Why do you imply that really knowing does not contain any doing? On what understanding you have based the ideas of knowing and doing?

Regarding all the fuzz about 'confirmation' and 'formula', perhaps enlightenment should not be taken so damn personally.

Clyde,

Clyde: What does enlightenment effect?

Dan: It stops ignorant behaviour.

Clyde: Isn’t that a change in behavior? Isn’t that the principle of an ethical system?

Yes, it's a change in behaviour. But then so is sanity, rationality. Most of the changes that occur to one who attains enlightenment happen on the way. Enlightenment is the fulfillment of that promise; it is the completion of it. And yes, one could say it is the basis of an ethical system if one cared about sanity and the consequences of ignorance and insanity. Most people don't, however, until such time as it negatively effects them, and even then they don't really care about the issue per se, they just don't want to have to experience those effects. What people want is an insane world in which they can frolic and play and pretend ignorance is always the other guy's problem, the bad manifestations of which they are somehow miraculously isolated from. That's stupid, of couse, but that's insanity for you...

How do you discern ignorant behaviour?

Anything drived of ego.

I am disappointed that Dan has not replied.

Feel better? I hear Prozac works wonders for that sort of thing :)

Dan;

Thank you for your reply. If I may follow-up, in response to my question,

How do you discern ignorant behaviour?

You answered,

Anything drived of ego.

My question was not about the process, but how you discern the behavior of an enlightened human being from the behavior of an ignorant (unenlightened) human being; i.e., what characteristics of the behavior (not the human being) would discriminate ignorant behavior from non-ignorant behavior. For example, what behaviors would you ascribe to an enlightened human being and what behaviors would you ascribe to an ignorant (unenlightened) human being?

Do no harm <http://donoharm.us/>,
clyde

Well, it's not really an easy thing for an ignorant person to distinguish between the two. In fact, it's impossible to do with sureity until such time as one is wise (even then one cannot do so with complete certainty). But really, the answer to your question ought be somewhat obvious. The wise person is everything the ignorant person is not. Here's a general list of things, some of which won't mean anything to an ignorant person because he has no way to properly judge them:

Ignorant person: spontaneously inconsistent, emotional, insecure, selfish, vindictive, moralistic, given to belief in fantasies, believes in and desires love and happiness, is driven by desire per se, herdly, follows trends and fashions and barracks for a football team, highly anthropomorphic (talks to dogs), possessive, materialistic, superficial, romantic, myopic, tends to think he exists.

Wise person: spontaneously consistent, rational, calm, carefree yet purposeful, non-attached, magnanimous yet judgemental, logical rather than moralistic, has no concern for love and happiness, desireless, mechanical, individualistic, unherdly, unfashionable, realistic, ghostlike.

Kevin wrote a little piece a while ago that you may find interesting:

Characteristics of the Sage