GENIUS FORUMS

Jason wrote:Unidian, this enlightenment or awakening you describe, would you say it is a realization of truth? Does, and how does, truth figure into it?

It's a realization that we can't get to "ultimate truth" with ideas, concepts, beliefs, positions, views, or any of the like. It's a dissolving of the question itself. The conceptual distinction between "ultimate reality" and "ordinary reality" no longer arises.

Could you give me an actual everyday example of how such a clouding of experience might operate? Is it something like confusing the idea of a walking with the experience of walking?

It's about confusing any idea about reality with reality itself. For example, one might be sitting outside observing nature and have the thought "it's all an undivided unity" (or whatever else), which naturally causes them to get caught up in a maelstrom of circular philosophical thought flowing from that concept. "Unconditioned experience" is the absence of such thoughts. It's a direct awareness of what is without any conceptual overlay. If a such a thought does occur, it is not pursued or clung to, because there is no attachment to concepts.

In your first reply you wrote about "experience" being clouded by thinking about what it is - that seems to relate to specific finite things. Whereas mistaking the "whole of the reality" for a conceptual model relates not to any finite thing, but rather the infinite aka everything. Do you agree with that distinction? Do you think there are different ramifications for each case?

I think it's the same in any case. Thought is a biological survival tool. Its purpose is to help the individual survive and reproduce. It is not designed to reveal "the ultimate truth about reality," nor can it do so except insofar as it can wear itself out trying and come to the realization that it has no access. This is the purpose of the Zen koan, incidentally. Taoism also leads in this direction.

I'm not sure that's what dhodges meant, but I agree with what you're saying. It is relative to expectations, and I did hope for another ending, with the bliss and the other really amazing happy happy double plus cool stuff. But I was ultimately searching for truth, and so I could only take what I found to be true. What were you hoping for? If anything?

Same thing most people are. Salvation, freedom from suffering, happiness, etc. But those things, if they exist at all, are as dependently-arisen and conditioned as anything else, and they occur in the moment, as circumstances allow. The only permanent "liberation" I found was liberation from the search itself. That's nothing to sneeze at, though. Well worth the five years or so I invested in it, because I happen to be one of those odd people who is naturally plagued by the philosophical urge. A guy can drive himself nuts that way, you know.

Jason wrote:I just get the impression sometimes(and I find it unfortunate) that your goal to spread your truth leads to some loss of integrity.

How could that be anything but that way? I believe he is being as honest with us as he is being with himself, but how truthful can he be with himself? Look at his history. He was raised in a normal, non-abusive environment, no mental illness, intelligent, was able to have normal relations including with his girlfriend Tracy, not particularly social but not antisocial either (shyness perhaps? Beyond that, many boys are not terribly social, and he went to an all-boys school), college educated but lost interest in his subject of study by the time he got his degree (and who doesn't get burned out on their major to at least some extent during college?). Then met Kevin who he admired and respected right around the time that most people have some anxiety about whether or not they can "make it" in this world, and extra vulnerable to the influence of people who seem confident about what life is for.

At that point, he abandoned his previous expectations for himself and went on this crusade. In "Letters Between Enemies" you can see that Kevin was pushing him in this direction, and it is a natural human tendency to seek the approval of those you admire. You can see much conflict in him during that time, and ultimately with his final decision to make this his way of life, he spent a period of time, as he put it, "truly in the hells." To me, it looks like he was grieving the future he had previously hoped for. In dealing with his grief, he decided to believe in the glorious type of enlightenment. In order to be a better choice than what he had available to him as a normal, highly intelligent man with all the advantages that would have afforded him the opportunity to be anything he wanted to be, enlightenment had to be better than all of that. Furthermore, it had to be the kind of enlightenment as Kevin, his admired mentor, described - which included the rejection of romantic love. Yet even in this time, he got together with Sue, and they produced a son.

Kevin, in contrast, wasn't having any luck with dating anyway. His profile claims that he'd decided he'd learned all he needed to know about women from his "last" girlfriend when he was about 10 years old. What you find in his posts, though, are that he was trying to date but had a difficult time approaching females - and resorted to sitting in coffee shops while he worked up the nerve to ask out the waitresses - and he chose the waitresses because those were the only females who spoke with him. No wonder Kevin thought it was such a good idea to reject romantic love - and sought "evidence" to confirm this by looking to monks.

Then along comes Dan who spent a number of years working, and decided he'd had enough of that. Kevin - appearantly a charismatic guy in person, recruited Dan too. Dan contributed some poetry and other short contributions, and it seems did a lot of work on the newsletter - but basically it seems he drifted into this. Dan's a really independent guy who had a repulsion for the strings attached to a committed relationship (who could blame him after witnessing his parent's marriage, with his mother ill and his father dying young), so despite his passionately romantic side, this whole rejection of the idea of women suited him well enough. He could read Nietzche while drinking beer in a strip club, and somehow he didn't see any conflict with that and Kevin's form of enlightenment (guessing from Kevin's picture of himself with beer on his profile page, there wasn't any conflict at all there. As a side note, as I understand it, beer and pretzels came from a monestary - and pretzels are the shape they are to symbolize a monk with his arms folded in prayer).

Meanwhile, David had written longer works, and despite his hesitation that Woman might not be a work he could stand behind his entire life, went ahead with it at Kevin's urgent prompting. In keeping with that he could never admit to love for Sue, and still will say that the only woman he ever loved was Tracy. He also could not allow himself too close of a bond with his son as that would have been in conflict with what he gave up all of his other prospects to devote his life to - "wisdom." David has described Sue as a passionate woman and a proper friend, but we can see that admitting anything closer than that - even to himself - would not be in keeping with his goals. He is a caring man, so he has to both see what effect that has on Sue and his son. Think for a moment what that must so to him on the inside. But he gave up everything for enlightenment, so he must stay true to his goals.

Neitzche (or was it Kierkgaard?) rejected women and broke off his engagement with Regina because he saw himself as too defective for her. In contrast, there is nothing defective about David. Scholars suspect that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife, and that Christianity suppressed that. Even if Jesus had remained celibate though, David is a good bit older than Jesus ever got. Kevin was unsuccessful at approaching women, but got close to one online and she was going to go to Australia to be with him except that he would not take down his Misogyny Unlimited and she had concerns that her family would have a problem with that. Eventually ended up in a multi-year live-in relationship with one woman and her 2 children regarded him as a father - and Kevin just dismissed all of that for years as "a bit of a sabbatical." Dan lives with a woman and has experienced shortcomings from "perfection" - yet since the time he lived with Sue about 16 years ago, David has stayed the course. Although certainly not all priests and monks stayed the course, at least the ones that did had other monks staying the course and were often in a monestary which made it easier. Beyond that, often the people who went into that line had something wrong with them or were homosexual, and used religion as an escape. David, on the other hand, is completely normal and pulling off this crusade in the real world and alone.

That alone would be testament to his strength of mind for not going completely nuts, but add to that the fact that he does not get the kind of respect that monks, buddhas, Zen masters, etc. have traditionally gotten. Even a Zen master had it easier by having many people around him much of the time, constantly looking to him as a role model. David, in contrast, has a bunch of people calling him deluded, and many more looking for chinks in his armor. He also has the respect of many people, which is good, but even of the ones that respect him, most do not see him the way he reports himself to be. He's a really strong guy to hold up under all that, but it seems that in order to do so, he must hold onto the belief of the kind of enlightenment he describes and consider that he has at least much of that - even if not "perfect" enlightenment - in order to justify to himself all that he gave up for this.

Meanwhile Kevin, his previously admired mentor who got him into all this, has gone to work and set up a normal life for himself - and where is he? He hardly ever posted, and it has been months since he has participated in a philosophy thread. He shows up every day for board administrative stuff, but has he lost interest in philosophy? If not, where is he?

I believe David tells us what he tells himself.
.

Wow, Elizabeth. You sure do like to dig up the dirt on people.

E, that was a pretty interesting read. I've got to hand it to you, you are pretty sharp with your psychology. Naturally, nobody can analyze anybody else with total accuracy, but most of the factors you mentioned are similar to my own ideas about the psychological development of the individuals who compose QRS. I think the only addition I'd make would be to mention the clinically-confirmed schizoid component in David's personality, which makes holding an anti-emotional philosophy considerably easier and more natural.

And before anybody starts waving their hands and their air and spitting at me, it's important to note that psychoanalyzing people isn't necessarily synonomous with trying to insult or belittle them. I didn't note any hostility in Elizabeth's post, and there is no hostility in my agreement with her or my subsequent remarks. As reasonable adults, it ought to be pretty much axiomatic that there are psychological reasons behind where we are in life and what we do. To discuss or speculate on these reasons is only natural.

Just in case anybody tries the obvious, I'll get it out of the way. I am the way I for reasons that are pretty similar to those Elizabeth attributes to Dan, minus some of the romantic concerns. I worked a whole bunch of jobs in my younger years and hated every minute of it. I turned to philosophy for the same reason a lot of people do, in hopes of finding that there was "more to life" than the average school-work-tv-work-retire-die formula. I found that there was, but it comes with a heavy price. There's no salvation, there's just the ability to do more interesting things than a job.

Although it involves poverty, ostracism, realtionship conflicts, and many other negative factors, that will have to be enough. I don't pretend to have the "magic solution" or the "lofty life," I just hate employment and trivial bullshit that much. And while I was siting around happily unemployed but rather bored, I discovered that philosophy was a pretty interesting thing to do. Not because it's inherently superior or a deeply rewarding pursuit, but because Nature randomly gave me a big brain and it needed to something to occupy itself.

Oh, and as for the reference to beer in regard to Kevin and Dan, I was also a heavy drinker for several years. I gave it up for reasons of health and domestic peace, although if I were single and healthier I'd still be drinking. Alcohol is a simple and effective method to do the same thing people try to do with transcendental philosophy - change our quality of consciousness. It comes at a price, but so does anything else. Everything is a tradeoff. You make the tradeoff as long as you subjectively perceive it to be in your favor.

BTW, just for the record:

Meanwhile Kevin, his previously admired mentor who got him into all this, has gone to work and set up a normal life for himself - and where is he? He hardly ever posted, and it has been months since he has participated in a philosophy thread. He shows up every day for board administrative stuff, but has he lost interest in philosophy? If not, where is he?

Kevin's still talking the talk, whether or not he's walking the walk. I did "The Reasoning Show" a couple days ago and Kevin was the co-host. He's very polite and thoughtful in his demeanor, incidentally. Most of the show is him and I discussing various philosophical issues. I see no evidence that he's backed off from any of his stated positions. When the show comes out, you'll note Kevin referring to himself as "more conscious than Gandhi," among other things.

So I have no idea what Kevin's actual life situation is, not being privvy to these things. But his statements remain consistent with those he has made all along, as far as I can tell. It's probable that he simply lacks either the time, energy, or motivation to do a lot of posting here.

Unidian wrote:clinically-confirmed schizoid

I think you got cause and effect reversed here - no problem, I did that at first too before I got to know David a little better. Schizoid Personality Disorder is sometimes called a disorder of being too mature - and any of the personality disorders are different than "real" mental illnesses in that the personality disorders manifest as a result of belief systems. David was diagnosed after he adopted this particular philosophy. I propose that the philosophy itself promotes the symptoms of schizoid personality disorder as "enlightenment."
.

Jason wrote:

David you rope in so many famous and influential old philosophers and religious-types as one of your own that I can't help but consider the possibility that you do so just as a recruitment tool. e.g. if you claim Jesus then you can more easily capture the christians who come here and so forth. Your use of the word "God" is another thing that falls under the same suspicion.

It’s impossible for a philosopher not to have investigated the most influential characters of history since a philosopher is concerned with truth, and thinking. This necessarily, but not exclusively, attracts sheep. But you do not include in your assessment that he may be keeping UG sheep, for example, out by speaking against the man. What’s the difference between one sheep and the next? Do you think he thinks Christians and Buddhists make much better sheep?

In a world full of sheep, unless you lock the doors, it’s hard to keep them out regardless of what you’re doing.

Posthumously, of course, it might be that a few come to build stone idols of him in direct contravention to the core principles of his thinking. That does not mean it’s what he intended, nor is it any sort of evidence of his own understanding.

PS: There are also Woman sheep with their noses stuck hard up his arse...

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Unidian wrote:clinically-confirmed schizoid

I think you got cause and effect reversed here - no problem, I did that at first too before I got to know David a little better. Schizoid Personality Disorder is sometimes called a disorder of being too mature - and any of the personality disorders are different than "real" mental illnesses in that the personality disorders manifest as a result of belief systems. David was diagnosed after he adopted this particular philosophy. I propose that the philosophy itself promotes the symptoms of schizoid personality disorder as "enlightenment."
.

Oh, I don't disagree, particularly with the conclusion [emphasis mine]. But I think you're rushing to minimize the personality disorder here, regardless of its genesis or nature. Disordered thinking is still disordered thinking. In this case, it manifests as the version of "enlightenment" promoted by David. But clinically speaking, it's a quantifiable maladaptive condition. David would say this is because society's thinking is disordered and his is clear, so his naturally looks disordered from society's own disordered perspective. The rest would of us would respond with "that's what they all say." And so it goes in many of these cases, to the point that it's all become cliche.

Also, where are you getting the assertion that "Schizoid Personality Disorder is sometimes called a disorder of being too mature?" I'd like to see something to that effect referenced in a reputable psychiatric publication, if you don't mind.

The presence or absence of any mental disorder does not invalidate anyone's claims. Psychiatrists treat illnesses by administering appropriate medications, and restrain those who are a danger to themselves or others. They do not treat philosophy, and any psychiatrist who thinks otherwise is a quack.

You're absolutely right, Trevor. Truth is truth regardless of who says it. It's just that not all of everything David says is necessarily true.

Jason,

DQ: If your enlightenment isn't special, amazing and infinitely liberating, then it isn't the enlightenment of the buddhas.

J: Why should I care if the buddha's enlightenment matches the realization I have had, I was after truth not the buddha's seal of approval.

Well, I wasn't really talking about the buddha's seal of approval as such. That is meaningless herd-stuff, which I am not interested in.

Instead, my intention was to point to the existence of the highest truth. I am urging you guys not to settle for second-best. Settling back into mundane, ordinary life minus philosophic thoughts isn't the enlightenment that the buddhas spoke about. Nor is it the one that I speak about. There is a mode of existence which is far greater and more interesting than this.

Scott: What buddhas?

DQ: Gautoma, Nagarjuna, Huang Po, Hakuin, Hui Neng, etc.

And also Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Diogenes, Socrates, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, etc.

These were all buddhas - or more accurately, bodhisattvas.

Jason: David you rope in so many famous and influential old philosophers and religious-types as one of your own that I can't help but consider the possibility that you do so just as a recruitment tool. e.g. if you claim Jesus then you can more easily capture the christians who come here and so forth.

Do you disagree that the men listed above had freed themselves from conventional thinking and were intimately familiar with infinite consciousness?

Your use of the word "God" is another thing that falls under the same suspicion.

Try to see it from my point of view. The word "God" is pregnant with meaning in our culture. It speaks to many people on many different levels - particularly when it comes to ultimate matters. Because of this, I see it as a well-placed tool which can be exploited for raising people's consciousness. I don't see any need to discard it.

Because it is already there in people's minds and having an influence on their thinking - even in staunch atheists, although they might deny this - it can serve as a kind of sleeper agent for someone like myself. If I can activate it and cause it to come alive in a wiser way, then that is a positive thing. It is like a Trojan Horse which just sits there silently behind enemy lines and then suddenly, if stimulated the right way, the sides of the Horse can come down and an army of wiser thoughts can pour out of it, wreaking havoc on the deluded locals.

I just get the impression sometimes(and I find it unfortunate) that your goal to spread your truth leads to some loss of integrity. But it is just a hunch, I have no proof. The truth is I have always been quite impressed by you, so it is no fun for me to have these suspicions.

That is perfectly understandable, Jason. I know why you would think this. But the fact remains that I have consciously adopted the cause of promoting wisdom in the world, and so I have no choice but to become a bit of a crusader. It goes with the territory.

This has its downsides - I become less of a regular guy, for example. But it also has its upsides, as it can stimulate young idealistic people into climbing into the first stages of independent thinking and spiritual life. So it's a question of whether the upsides are greater than the downsides.

-

Unidian wrote:where are you getting the assertion that "Schizoid Personality Disorder is sometimes called a disorder of being too mature?" I'd like to see something to that effect referenced in a reputable psychiatric publication, if you don't mind.

The exact phrasing was not in a "reputable psychiatric publication," but in general discussion/nonprofessional/quasi professional stuff. However, I did find this article in the International Journal of Psychological Therapy that proposes that schizoid personality is not a disorder, but an adaptive response to modern culture.

Here is a site that references a book written on schizoid being a solitary type rather than an actual disorder. The thing is, schizoid personality disorder is not diagnosed unless the person presents to a clinician with a problem - and the problem itself is usually only indirectly related to the schizoid itself.

Schizoids don't tend to see themselves as having a problem, so they don't usually go to treatment - and when they do, it is for depression or something. David only got diagnosed because he didn't want a job. If a "schizoid" never has a problem, he never gets diagnosed - so if most schizoids don't get diagnosed because they don't have a problem with it, how can it be a disorder?
.

Scott,

DQ: Gautoma, Nagarjuna, Huang Po, Hakuin, Hui Neng, etc.

And also Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Diogenes, Socrates, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, etc.

These were all buddhas - or more accurately, bodhisattvas.

Scott: All of them attained a special, amazing and infinitely liberating experience? You know this...how?

In most cases, by reading their words. Their discourse reflects the freedom and profundity that comes with understanding the Infinite.

Socrates is one of the exceptions, in that I judge his wisdom by the manner in which he lived his life, rather than by the words that Plato put in his mouth.

To me it seemed as if many of those men were quite different. Didn't Nietzsche go insane?

Nietzsche burned himself out. Although his understanding was profound, he did have a lot of flaws which eventually caught up with him.

Didn't Socrates hear a voice?

The inner voice of wisdom?

Do you really know what Lao Tzu was writing about half the time?

Yes, absolutely. No problem at all.

Not that all of the Tao Te Ching was wise. It is generally acknowledged by scholars that a good deal of the Tao Te Ching consists of less-inspired passages inserted at a later date, and that is my view as well. By my reckoning, around 60% of it is wise.

It would seem that the Chinese authorities at some point inserted passages that are overtly concerned with keeping the social order. The Chinese never change in this regard. Even today, the Chinese communist government habitually inserts political propaganda into texts in order to shore up its own power. The Tao Te Ching looks like it has been tampered with in the same way, by an emperor or emperors long ago.

But as far as the 60% that is untouched and wise is concerned, the meaning is crystal clear to me. Isn't it to you?

Or Kierkegaard for that matter?

Yes, no problems.

Do we know anything at all about the real Gautoma.

Only by way of legend. But there is enough wisdom in the legend to suggest that he was a fairly wise man.

What exactly is the special, amazing and infinitely liberating experience?

It opens up the centre of your being into the entire Universe.

Why should anyone believe that you've attained it?

I don't really care if people think I have attained it or not.

Why should anyone want to attain it?

Because it is there, and because it is amazing and interesting.

-

Trevor:

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:The presence or absence of any mental disorder does not invalidate anyone's claims. Psychiatrists treat illnesses by administering appropriate medications, and restrain those who are a danger to themselves or others. They do not treat philosophy, and any psychiatrist who thinks otherwise is a quack.

I don't disagree. As a person who has a personality disorder myself, it would be pretty silly of me to suggest that such a condition invalidates an argument or viewpoint. What I am suggesting, however, is that psychological factors can play a significant role in determining which arguments and viewpoints we gravitate toward in the first place, regardless of their validity.

David,

In most cases, by reading their words. Their discourse reflects the freedom and profundity that comes with understanding the Infinite.

Socrates is one of the exceptions, in that I judge his wisdom by the manner in which he lived his life, rather than by the words that Plato put in his mouth.

What was wise about his life?

How can a person tell by someone's words that those words are reflecting a free and profound understanding of the Infinite? By how detached from worldly matters they seem to have been?

Nietzsche burned himself out. Although his understanding was profound, he did have a lot of flaws which eventually caught up with him.

So he wasn't liberated?

The inner voice of wisdom?

Perhaps it was Plato being a jackass, but Socrates has been known to speak of a "voice" which tells him things. I would have to do a little reading to give you quotes, and I don't have enough time to really do that. Basically, from what I understand, he wasn't talking about his inner voice of wisdom but an actual voice that he heard which told him things.

Yes, absolutely. No problem at all.

Not that all of the Tao Te Ching was wise. It is generally acknowledged by scholars that a good deal of the Tao Te Ching consists of less-inspired passages inserted at a later date, and that is my view as well. By my reckoning, around 60% of it is wise.

It would seem that the Chinese authorities at some point inserted passages that are overtly concerned with keeping the social order. The Chinese never change in this regard. Even today, the Chinese communist government habitually inserts political propaganda into texts in order to shore up its own power. The Tao Te Ching looks like it has been tampered with in the same way, by an emperor or emperors long ago.

But as far as the 60% that is untouched and wise is concerned, the meaning is crystal clear to me. Isn't it to you?

I haven't read it in years. Perhaps I will crack it open and find the passages which eventually caused me to say, "This is just nonsense" in the first place.

It may be likely that the Chinese authorities changed it but that seems like quite a leap. I'm curious to know what evidence there is that it was changed.

You know, it may be the case that the parts which don't resonate with you were actually written by Lao Tzu.

I'm interested to know what's actually wise in that book. It's all very cryptic.

Yes, no problems.

And you really think Kierkegaard attained liberation? From what I've read he just seemed like an intense Christian, seeking understanding. The way he wrote didn't seem to me like he was liberated, but rather trapped by his religious passion.

I do need to read more of him though.

Only by way of legend. But there is enough wisdom in the legend to suggest that he was a fairly wise man.

What was wise about what he did? I'm not disagreeing with you here, since I like a few of the things attributed to him.

It opens up the centre of your being into the entire Universe.

What does that mean? The center of my being already was opened to the entire universe; how could it not have been?

That's a very magical sounding sentence. Magic tricks don't impress me so much anymore.

Because it is there, and because it is amazing and interesting.

Enlightenment is "there"? Where?

David Quinn wrote: But the fact remains that I have consciously adopted the cause of promoting wisdom in the world, and so I have no choice but to become a bit of a crusader. It goes with the territory.

This has its downsides - I become less of a regular guy, for example. But it also has its upsides, as it can stimulate young idealistic people into climbing into the first stages of independent thinking and spiritual life. So it's a question of whether the upsides are greater than the downsides.

Ok, so the upside is that you get to influence young people to become interested in the downside.

In other words, how can a person climb into the first stages of spiritual life and still be a regular guy? Being stuck in the middle is actually a terrible position. In my view, teachers of truth seduce the student into ruin. After the student realizes his efforts brought not what he thought they would, it's unbearable to turn back. He tries to be a regular guy again, but greater consciousness makes everything seem much more painful and pointless. Intolerably so.

Also, I would think that wanting to spread wisdom would be a corollary to being wise.

I'm kinda surprised here, Scott. You understand the limits of talk about "enlightenment" and "ultimate reality" but you find the Tao Te Ching "cryptic?" That strikes me as odd, because the TTC is saying a lot of the things you've been saying recently. Then again, you did say it's been years. It's just a suggestion, but you might want to give it a re-read. I think that it will make vastly more sense to you the second time around, starting with chapter 1 onward. In a sense, the TTC is a book of instructions on how to do what you've seem to have been doing lately - un-learning all of the unnecessary baggage. It's definitely not a book that has much to do with "supreme unexcelled lofty enlightenment" or any of that.

Who knows, though. Your mileage may vary.

Unidian wrote:

Who wants to get enlightened? To whom does the thought arise? That's Maharshi Ramana's question, and it is one that we should ask until we finally get tired of banging our heads into the wall and the question dissolves. At that point, we would be "enlightened," except for the pleasantly ironic fact that the thought of anybody getting enlightened no longer arises.

Does the question "dissolve" because of a breakthrough in understanding? Or is it because the weary mind can no longer summon up the energy to deal with it anymore?

The attainment delusion is comically evidenced by the typical guru satsangs, retreats, and seminars, where 30 or 40 people are sitting in a room trying to do nothing, all hoping they are going to "get enlightened." It is also evidenced here on Genius Forum by those who are "following" QRS teachings in hopes of "getting it." But when someone like Scott does "get it" on his own and behaves accordingly (by agreeing with the historical teachings that there's nothing to do and no one attains anything), the herd descends upon him.

In no way has Scott "got it". Like many before him, he has become sidetracked into believing that wisdom is ordinary life minus the striving for enlightenment. To be sure, this is a liberation of sorts - a liberation from the burden of thought - but it isn't the liberation which interests sages.

To put it another way, Scott's liberation is that of his ego being liberated from spirit. By contrast, wisdom is spirit being liberated from the ego. They are two diametrically opposed attainments, although both involve a liberation of sorts.

That is why he is still disillusioned and dissatisfied. Having pushed away spirit, all he has left is ordinary life once more. He is back to where he started. His ego is still intact and he still feels just as lacking as before.

He wasn't trying to do nothing, like the guru-deluded New Agers. He was trying to do something (get enlightened) and he reached the end of it - the same end spoken of in Taoism and Zen. The dissolving of the question. For Scott, "enlightenment" and "unenlightenment" no longer arise. And that's why in my Toilet Brush School of Zen, he gets a graduation certificate, suitable for framing in the crapper. Nagajuna and Chuang Tzu are smiling somewhere.

And yet he is just as confused as ever. His eye of wisdom remains unopened. He cannot perceive wisdom in the words of the sages. The Tao Te Ching remains a mystery to him.

It's not much of an attainment. Calling it a toilet brush attainment is pretty much on the mark.

-

OK then.

Nat,

I'm kinda surprised here, Scott. You understand the limits of talk about "enlightenment" and "ultimate reality" but you find the Tao Te Ching "cryptic?" That strikes me as odd, because the TTC is saying a lot of the things you've been saying recently. Then again, you did say it's been years.

It definitely is cryptic, no matter how much I've forgotten it. It can say one thing for someone, and an entirely different thing for someone else. For instance, a lot of people believe it's a guidebook for Taoist internal energy practices...yet it seems David doesn't believe in that stuff, and thinks it has to do with understanding reality.

In my opinion, something is cryptic when I don't understand it upon first reading or if I have to look up what specific terms and phrases mean...and when people have differing opinions on what those are referring to.

It's just a suggestion, but you might want to give it a re-read. I think that it will make vastly more sense to you the second time around, starting with chapter 1 onward.

I will. Do you have a preferred online translation?

Leyla Shen wrote:PS: There are also Woman sheep with their noses stuck hard up his arse...

Well David is a bit of a dag...

Scott,

DQ: In most cases, by reading their words. Their discourse reflects the freedom and profundity that comes with understanding the Infinite.

Socrates is one of the exceptions, in that I judge his wisdom by the manner in which he lived his life, rather than by the words that Plato put in his mouth.

S: What was wise about his life?

He was a maverick who abandoned his family and the conventional life and went around challenging people's views and attachments, encouraging them to become more rational. In other words, he was a servant of truth.

How can a person tell by someone's words that those words are reflecting a free and profound understanding of the Infinite? By how detached from worldly matters they seem to have been?

That's partly it. It is also the quality of their thoughts. If a person can speak about the Infinite with perfect clarity and simplicity; if they show that they can get to the very heart of matters with just a sentence or two; if they can challenge people's deepest attachments without hesitation or fear; if they are entirely independent in their thinking; if they display the sheer freedom of a mind which is perfectly at home in emptiness - then that is a person who fully comprehends the Infinite.

DQ: Nietzsche burned himself out. Although his understanding was profound, he did have a lot of flaws which eventually caught up with him.

S: So he wasn't liberated?

He received a very strong taste of liberation around the time he wrote Zarathustra, but his egotism couldn't really handle it. His flaws became intertwined with this great insight and gradually unbalanced him.

DQ: It would seem that the Chinese authorities at some point inserted passages that are overtly concerned with keeping the social order. The Chinese never change in this regard. Even today, the Chinese communist government habitually inserts political propaganda into texts in order to shore up its own power. The Tao Te Ching looks like it has been tampered with in the same way, by an emperor or emperors long ago.

But as far as the 60% that is untouched and wise is concerned, the meaning is crystal clear to me. Isn't it to you?

S: I haven't read it in years. Perhaps I will crack it open and find the passages which eventually caused me to say, "This is just nonsense" in the first place.

It may be likely that the Chinese authorities changed it but that seems like quite a leap. I'm curious to know what evidence there is that it was changed.

You know, it may be the case that the parts which don't resonate with you were actually written by Lao Tzu.

Let's take a couple of examples. First, here is a wise passage:

Look, it cannot be seen - it is beyond form.
Listen, it cannot be heard - it is beyond sound.
Grasp, it cannot be held - it is intangible.
These three are indefinable;
Therefore they are joined in one.
From above it is not bright;
From below it is not dark.
An unbroken thread beyond description.
It returns to nothingness.
The form of the formless,
The image of the imageless,
It is called indefinable and beyond imagination.

Stand before it and there is no beginning.
Follow it and there is no end.
Stay with the ancient Tao,
Move with the present.
Knowing the ancient beginning is the essence of Tao.

This is simple direct pointing to the nature of the Tao by someone who fully understands it. Beautiful writing.

Now contrast it with this passage:

If a country is governed wisely,
its inhabitants will be content.
They enjoy the labor of their hands
and don't waste time inventing
labor-saving machines.
Since they dearly love their homes,
they aren't interested in travel.
There may be a few wagons and boats,
but these don't go anywhere.
There may be an arsenal of weapons,
but nobody ever uses them.
People enjoy their food,
take pleasure in being with their families,
spend weekends working in their gardens,
delight in the doings of the neighborhood.
And even though the next country is so close
that people can hear its roosters crowing and its dogs barking,
they are content to die of old age
without ever having gone to see it.

This, to me, sounds like a bureaucrat or a politician trying to imitate Lao Tzu's style for the sake of pacifying the population. Granted, it could be interpreted as a psychological metaphor, but it isn't a very good one. It sounds derivative and uninspired.

I'm interested to know what's actually wise in that book. It's all very cryptic.

Well, it shouldn't be for someone who has "got it".

S: What exactly is the special, amazing and infinitely liberating experience?

DQ: It opens up the centre of your being into the entire Universe.

S: What does that mean? The center of my being already was opened to the entire universe; how could it not have been?

That's a very magical sounding sentence. Magic tricks don't impress me so much anymore.

I'm not sure what to make of that. On the one hand, you are saying that what I am describing is an ordinary thing that you already have, and then, in the very next moment, you are describing it as a magical trick that is wholly unbelievable.

DQ: Because it is there, and because it is amazing and interesting.

S: Enlightenment is "there"? Where?

In your own mind.


-

David wrote to Nat:

Does the question "dissolve" because of a breakthrough in understanding? Or is it because the weary mind can no longer summon up the energy to deal with it anymore?

I will respond, not to step onto Nat's territory, but because it was concerning me...

In my case the question dissolved because of a breakthrough in understanding. In no way is my mind weary, or lacking energy. What a crock.

In no way has Scott "got it". Like many before him, he has become sidetracked into believing that wisdom is ordinary life minus the striving for enlightenment. To be sure, this is a liberation of sorts - a liberation from the burden of thought - but it isn't the liberation which interests sages.

I definitely do believe that wisdom is ordinary life minus the striving for enlightenment. But I don't believe wisdom is simply ordinary life. I wouldn't call everyone living, "wise". In fact, as you have seen here I probably don't call anyone "wise".

I'm not liberated from the burden of thought, as I can still clearly think...and in fact, thinking is what got me out of the search. What else could have? I was desperate to find. I had an unquenchable thirst for understanding. I couldn't have just given up...no seeker can. No seeker like me falls for something stupid, like "not thinking" and considering themselves liberated.

I'm not all that interested in being interesting to "sages", who strive for things which aren't real. I would never call such a person a sage.

To put it another way, Scott's liberation is that of his ego being liberated from spirit. By contrast, wisdom is spirit being liberated from the ego. They are two diametrically opposed attainments, although both involve a liberation of sorts.

Lies on top of lies.

That is why he is still disillusioned and dissatisfied. Having pushed away spirit, all he has left is ordinary life once more. He is back to where he started. His ego is still intact and he still feels just as lacking as before.

I'm not disillusioned. It's quite clear that there's nothing for me to do. I'm not dissatisfied, except for with your false preachings. "Spirit" - I don't think I even need to address the use of this term! I think the more you use these religious phrasings, the less people will take you seriously.

Yes I am back to where I started, and yes my ego is still intact. No, I don't feel any lacking.

And yet he is just as confused as ever.

I can be confused about things. I'm not confused about the issue here.

His eye of wisdom remains unopened. He cannot perceive wisdom in the words of the sages. The Tao Te Ching remains a mystery to him.

"Eye of wisdom!" It's so strange how much you love these religious terms, David. Anyway, you are wrong...I can think very clearly. I can percieve wisdom in some of the words of some of the sages. None come close to describing the end result. A lot of them lead people down the wrong path.

The Tao Te Ching definitely does remain a mystery to me. I don't consider it to contain wisdom, or to transmit it to the reader. In my opinion all it does it make people extra religious and sparks a fire in them which makes them all hot and heavy for things which don't exist.

It's not much of an attainment. Calling it a toilet brush attainment is pretty much on the mark.

I wouldn't call it any attainment. Like you said, I'm back to where I started.

Unidian wrote:

Kevin's still talking the talk, whether or not he's walking the walk. I did "The Reasoning Show" a couple days ago and Kevin was the co-host. He's very polite and thoughtful in his demeanor, incidentally. Most of the show is him and I discussing various philosophical issues. I see no evidence that he's backed off from any of his stated positions. When the show comes out, you'll note Kevin referring to himself as "more conscious than Gandhi," among other things.

Just to return the compliment on Kevin's behalf, Unidian also came across as thoughtful and articulate in his stint on the Reasoning Show. He was an excellent guest and contributed strongly to a good-quality conversation.

The recording will probably be made available on-line next week, as well as the one with Victor Danilchenko.

-