GENIUS FORUMS

Enlightenment is the booby prize.

I've PMed NOX with some of my thoughts on what he is going through.

For the record, I think that David's statements about feeling no emotion at the hypothetical painful death of his own child and leaving his wife to a rapist are apalling. If that is "enlightenment," NOX is being far too generous in his attitude toward it. Any state of mind which produces such views is certainly not nonexistent - it is very real, very dangerous, and very reprehensible.

Fortunately, I don't think David's pronouncements in this regard have much to do with "enlightenment" one way or the other. I've been spending a lot of time with Dan Rowden in recent months, and I'm clueless as to why he identifies with David or what he feels they actually have in common. I've certainly never heard such talk from Dan and do not expect to. If I did, I'd have to take him to task as well.

Recognizing a lack of inherent existence does not mean that we should behave as though conditioned existence is irrelevant. The fact that there is no separate child dying of cancer and no separate rapist does not mean that there is no dependently-arising appearance of such a child or such a rapist - and the children and wives who thusly appear would do well to avoid individuals like David, who would disregard their well-being entirely.

Emptiness is form, form is emptiness. To disregard form and the concerns it engenders is to utterly misunderstand emptiness, and to miss the point of the whole thing, IMO.

David Quinn wrote:

This doesn't mean that the converse is necessarily true, of course. The absence of emotional reactions in a person might simply be due to his skills in mental suppression, and not to any wisdom he might have. The fully-enlightened sage doesn't engage in any kind of suppression, and yet he still never experiences any emotion. There are no emotions inside him to either express or suppress.

Nat,

I’m not sure why that would appal you. Obviously, David would also allow himself to be raped for the benefit of wisdom if fighting such a rapist could mean losing his life and missing out on speaking to people about the nature of reality and genius.

It’s high time women began to understand rapists and enlightened sages alike.

As for the kid and septic rat thing: there is no benefit to the child in any parent’s emotional suffering over their ability to think rationally. Though I agree in that I think David’s response to the question was severely lacking--emotional, in fact.

A sage who does not have emotions inside him to express or suppress could not possibly feel glorious about not having any emotions inside him to express or suppress.

Nat,

Emptiness is form, form is emptiness. To disregard form and the concerns it engenders is to utterly misunderstand emptiness, and to miss the point of the whole thing, IMO.

I agree with your whole post, and the above part sums it up, but I think some things need to be cleared up. You wrote:

For the record, I think that David's statements about feeling no emotion at the hypothetical painful death of his own child and leaving his wife to a rapist are apalling.

It seems apalling, but if a sage has no emotion then it automatically follows that they won't feel anything about anything. I think this is where David's getting hung up on ideals, though. As long as the sage has wisdom, there's no need to toss aside emotions...only analyze them in light of his wisdom.

Just because you're angry, doesn't mean you shouldn't be angry. If you value truth, then you should merely anaylze...not try to change.

But I do believe there may come a point for the thinker where they don't have the same rules as the rest of society. They've been in truth so long that human life is lost to them. They wouldn't care about human life, in this state. It's just an illusion to them, therefore, they don't feel anything (sadness, anger, bitterness) if something horrible happens to someone. At the same time, they wouldn't feel any need to do anything horrible.

I haven't been in that state, and I don't seek it out...but I see it as a possibility for a thinker. Someone would ask the thinker why they don't care that the victim was hurt and the thinker would probably answer "There is no one who was hurt".

Yes, it's a dangerous and real state.

Leyla,

A sage who does not have emotions inside him to express or suppress could not possibly feel glorious about not having any emotions inside him to express or suppress.

Funny statement. I wonder if you meant it the way it came out. The point is that the sage is egoless, and doesn't care if they're egoless or not. It's an extinguished flame. Fully enlightened sages don't have emotion.

Unidian wrote:For the record, I think that David's statements about feeling no emotion at the hypothetical painful death of his own child and leaving his wife to a rapist are appalling. (...) Any state of mind which produces such views is certainly not nonexistent - it is very real, very dangerous, and very reprehensible.

Why is that dangerous? You mean for him, for his wife or for you? He didn't say he would in all cases stand by and that nothing would ever be done by the way. The assertion was that such enlightened being has the ability to know best, act right, without effort. No fear, no rage, not anything to hinder doing the 'right' thing. What that specific action actually is, that depends. But it does not depend on some flimsy foundation at least, where most people act upon thereby creating indescribeable suffering all around without anyone realizing.

Recognizing a lack of inherent existence does not mean that we should behave as though conditioned existence is irrelevant.

So what really changed from the previous situation, when we at least got some inherent existence? Do we only feel better now - comfortably detached - doing the same stuff? And if something more has changed, can you describe it?

Unidian wrote:

For the record, I think that David's statements about feeling no emotion at the hypothetical painful death of his own child and leaving his wife to a rapist are apalling. If that is "enlightenment," NOX is being far too generous in his attitude toward it. Any state of mind which produces such views is certainly not nonexistent - it is very real, very dangerous, and very reprehensible.

Why? Why do you think it is sane or desirable to have one's mind flooded with irrational feelings and distorted perspectives at the sight of certain select phenonema?

Why do you insist that the sage bind himself into the hive-like mentality of the collective and demand that he react in the same way to the same things that everyone else does?

You say that it is wrong to feel no emotions for my son or wife. But what about the cancers cells eating up my son? Shouldn't I also feel happiness and excitement that they are thriving in such a fantastic new environment? And what about the rapist? Shouldn't I be overjoyed that he is gaining so much pleasure from my wife?

Why do you side with only some forms of life and not others? Isn't this rather selective and arbitrary on your part? Doesn't it ignore the great reality that all things are manifestations of the Tao and should be equally celebrated as such?

Where is your faith in the Tao, Unidian?

Recognizing a lack of inherent existence does not mean that we should behave as though conditioned existence is irrelevant.

No one is saying that. In fact, I consider conditioned existence to be extremely relevant, which is why I devote myself to the furtherance of wisdom, enlightened knowledge, purity, non-attachment, etc, and other conditioned existences of this kind.

However, becoming emotional over things is an entirely different matter. This does reveal a lack of insight into the mirage-like nature of all things, including sons and wives.

The bottom line is, the expression of an emotion, in whatever situation, is literally an expression of one's hatred of the Tao. It is as though one is giving the Tao the finger and saying, "I couldn't give a fig about what you really are, Tao. I want to have a trantrum over my attachments instead."

Emptiness is form, form is emptiness. To disregard form and the concerns it engenders is to utterly misunderstand emptiness, and to miss the point of the whole thing, IMO.

So what is the point of the whole thing, in your view?

-

Leyla wrote:

A sage who does not have emotions inside him to express or suppress could not possibly feel glorious about not having any emotions inside him to express or suppress.

I was thinking more about the glorious nature of Reality in this instance. The emotional joy in discerning the nature of Reality is the last snippet of imperfection and weakness before one goes through the gates.

-

Enlightenment is the booby prize.

Once claimed by the Human 'enlightenment' produces effects like,

-grows beard

-no job

-no money

-no assets

-no chicks (generally despises Women)

-speaks in reverential tones

-grows serious

-feels smug and superior

-becomes Welfare dependant (lives off the efforts of Others)

-critically judgemental of most everything else

-role plays 'the Role'

It 'arrives' in a package

It's a joke...a gentle joke, but a joke nevertheless.

If you get it...it's hilarious.

A Divine Comedy....

You wouldn't miss it for quids...the only point is to smile benignly and warmly upon our own Self and our own Antics.

frank.

When Soren Kierkegaard was little, his father used to show him pictures of famous men in history - Julius Caesar, Napolean, Alexander the Great, etc, all of them decked out in splendid garb and looking very powerful and successful. After showing him a few of these, he would then give Soren a picture of Jesus hanging pitifully on the cross with a crowd taunting and mocking him, and he would say, "This is the greatest man who has ever lived".

As you can imagine, this had a huge impact on young Soren and opened up his mind to the deeper ironies of the spiritual life.

-

DavidQuinn000 wrote:Unidian wrote:

For the record, I think that David's statements about feeling no emotion at the hypothetical painful death of his own child and leaving his wife to a rapist are appalling. If that is "enlightenment," NOX is being far too generous in his attitude toward it. Any state of mind which produces such views is certainly not nonexistent - it is very real, very dangerous, and very reprehensible.

Why? Why do you think it is sane or desirable to have one's mind flooded with irrational feelings and distorted perspectives at the sight of certain select phenomena?

Unless one is attempting to remove themselves from humanity, it is natural to retain a capacity for certain emotional states. If Neolithic man had been a sage (as you use that term), his tribe would have been in a lot of trouble, for he would have felt nothing when it was overrun and destroyed by wild animals or enemies.

Chuang-Tzu says that the wise man watches his emotions come and go. Clearly, CT thinks that the wise man still experiences emotions. Do you think he is mistaken?

Why do you insist that the sage bind himself into the hive-like mentality of the collective and demand that he react in the same way to the same things that everyone else does?

In most cases, I don't. However, I think that we can become so preoccupied with contradicting the herd mentality that we end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. When rejecting the herd mentality allows us to see things in a way which liberates us while causing no harm to others, it is advantageous. But when it results in extreme, bizarre attitudes like feeling nothing toward our wives or children, we've gone too far.

You say that it is wrong to feel no emotions for my son or wife. But what about the cancers cells eating up my son? Shouldn't I also feel happiness and excitement that they are thriving in such a fantastic new environment? And what about the rapist? Shouldn't I be overjoyed that he is gaining so much pleasure from my wife?

That kind of reasoning is indicative more of a personality disorder than philosophical insight, IMO.

As someone who also has "clinical" personality problems, I have to make an effort to stay aware of where my thoughts are coming from. It's easy to confuse pathological ideas with philosophical ones. That is what I think you are doing here.

Why do you side with only some forms of life and not others? Isn't this rather selective and arbitrary on your part? Doesn't it ignore the great reality that all things are manifestations of the Tao and should be equally celebrated as such?

The Tao gave me human form. I am a human being. If I were to behave as if basic human concerns were irrelevant to me, I would be giving the Tao the finger. I am what I am, and for the human being, there are some baseline concerns and values which must be recognized.

Where is your faith in the Tao, Unidian?

See above.

Recognizing a lack of inherent existence does not mean that we should behave as though conditioned existence is irrelevant.

No one is saying that. In fact, I consider conditioned existence to be extremely relevant, which is why I devote myself to the furtherance of wisdom, enlightened knowledge, purity, non-attachment, etc, and other conditioned existences of this kind.

But you don't mind your own child dying or your wife being raped. Why do you arbitrarily privilege your own values (wisdom, etc) over the value of others? It sounds like a massive abdication of ethical reasoning to me - and the ethical dimension is an indispensable part of what it is to be human.

However, becoming emotional over things is an entirely different matter. This does reveal a lack of insight into the mirage-like nature of all things, including sons and wives.

Nonsense. One can fully understand the ephemeral nature of things and also (simultaneously) understand that one is engaged in that same ephemeral flow. To claim that "enlightenment" entails the total cessation of all emotion indicates either a poor understanding of enlightenment, or an intentional reworking thereof. You are not presenting the insight of Lao and Chuang, you are preaching something else entirely.

The bottom line is, the expression of an emotion, in whatever situation, is literally an expression of one's hatred of the Tao. It is as though one is giving the Tao the finger and saying, "I couldn't give a fig about what you really are, Tao. I want to have a trantrum over my attachments instead."

I am the Tao. A dying child is the Tao. My compassion for a dying child is the Tao. This conditional, impermanent life with all of its trials and joys is the Tao. David Quinn telling us he would leave his wife to a rapist and go preach is the Tao. My view that David is talking crazy is the Tao, as is his view that I don't get it.

I care a lot about what the Tao "really is." And it is all of those things, everything else, and the transcendence of things and thinglessness. It is the universal dialectic.

Emptiness is form, form is emptiness. To disregard form and the concerns it engenders is to utterly misunderstand emptiness, and to miss the point of the whole thing, IMO.

So what is the point of the whole thing, in your view?

Insight, wisdom, and freedom - within the context of this limited and conditioned human life of which I am a part.

What you are preaching is inhumanity.

After showing him a few of these, he would then give Soren a picture of Jesus hanging pitifully on the cross with a crowd taunting and mocking him, and he would say, "This is the greatest man who has ever lived".

As you can imagine, this had a huge impact on young Soren and opened up his mind to the deeper ironies of the spiritual life.

Blessed Irony.

Wasn't the Jesus/God thing something they 'cooked up' between themselves.
Like Jesus 'knew' his fate before he came on the scene and his only problem thereafter was to 'deliver a convincing performance'..
How could little Soren fall for a scam like that.
The guy who got the 'bum role' was Iscariot...poor bastard...he needs a break or maybe a good PR Firm...

frank

Unidinian,

What you are preaching is inhumanity.

In a way, yes. I don't think you appreciate just how inhuman the sagely mind is. Why do you think sages have been persecuted, and even put to death, down through the years? It was primarily because the wider population could not stand the inhumanity of their life and teachings.

As Lao Tzu stated in the Tao Te Ching:

Heaven and earth are ruthless.
They see the ten thousand things as dummies.
The wise are ruthless;
They see the people as dummies.

U: For the record, I think that David's statements about feeling no emotion at the hypothetical painful death of his own child and leaving his wife to a rapist are appalling. If that is "enlightenment," NOX is being far too generous in his attitude toward it. Any state of mind which produces such views is certainly not nonexistent - it is very real, very dangerous, and very reprehensible.

DQ: Why? Why do you think it is sane or desirable to have one's mind flooded with irrational feelings and distorted perspectives at the sight of certain select phenomena?

U: Unless one is attempting to remove themselves from humanity, it is natural to retain a capacity for certain emotional states. If Neolithic man had been a sage (as you use that term), his tribe would have been in a lot of trouble, for he would have felt nothing when it was overrun and destroyed by wild animals or enemies.

I agree that the emotions were useful in the past, during our evolution as a species. But times have changed. We don't really need the emotions anymore in order to survive. Our intellects have become sufficently developed that we can now respond to situations in a more intelligent, clear-sighted manner. The emotions are little more than destructive hindrances now, as we can see with all the madness happening in the world around us.

Chuang-Tzu says that the wise man watches his emotions come and go. Clearly, CT thinks that the wise man still experiences emotions. Do you think he is mistaken?

Yes. I recently studied Chuang Tzu's material quite closely and even made a compilation of his best passages, and I have come to the conclusion that it was composed by more than one author - possibly dozens. I definitely sense different voices speaking. There is some geniune wisdom there, which we can assume was composed by a fellow called "Chuang Tzu". But it also contains a lot of uninspired dross, most likely inserted into the original text by later writers. I would include your paraphrasing of Chuang Tzu's views on emotions above in this latter category.

DQ: Why do you insist that the sage bind himself into the hive-like mentality of the collective and demand that he react in the same way to the same things that everyone else does?

U: In most cases, I don't. However, I think that we can become so preoccupied with contradicting the herd mentality that we end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. When rejecting the herd mentality allows us to see things in a way which liberates us while causing no harm to others, it is advantageous. But when it results in extreme, bizarre attitudes like feeling nothing toward our wives or children, we've gone too far.

Why? What is the problem with causing harm to others?

DQ: You say that it is wrong to feel no emotions for my son or wife. But what about the cancers cells eating up my son? Shouldn't I also feel happiness and excitement that they are thriving in such a fantastic new environment? And what about the rapist? Shouldn't I be overjoyed that he is gaining so much pleasure from my wife?

U: That kind of reasoning is indicative more of a personality disorder than philosophical insight, IMO.

In this day and age, to have philosophic insight is a personality disorder. So I'm not exactly sure what you point is.

Don't the spiritual texts consistently advise us to drop all favouritism and give up all discrimination between "this" and "that". So why are you suddenly discriminating between my son and cancer cells? Why are you favouring one over the other?

As someone who also has "clinical" personality problems, I have to make an effort to stay aware of where my thoughts are coming from. It's easy to confuse pathological ideas with philosophical ones. That is what I think you are doing here.

No, you are merely projecting your own fragility onto these issues. It has nothing to do with me or the spiritual path.

Trying to change the nature of the spiritual path so that it fits in with one's weaknesses is very dishonest and foolish, and causes immeasurable harm to the world. Christians and other religious people have been killing off wisdom and truth in this way for centuries. It's part of the reason why we live in such a mess of a world.

DQ: Why do you side with only some forms of life and not others? Isn't this rather selective and arbitrary on your part? Doesn't it ignore the great reality that all things are manifestations of the Tao and should be equally celebrated as such?

U: The Tao gave me human form. I am a human being. If I were to behave as if basic human concerns were irrelevant to me, I would be giving the Tao the finger. I am what I am, and for the human being, there are some baseline concerns and values which must be recognized.

What about things like consciousness of Reality, rationality, the absence of delusion, non-attachment, purity, etc? Aren't these a part of being human as well? Why are you ditching them in favour of the herdish emotions?

It is always stark choice between the herdish emotions and wisdom/rationality. It has to be one or the other. It is impossible to choose both.

Where is your faith in the Tao, Unidian?

See above.

It is failing at a critical point. "Blessed is he who is not offended!", Jesus used to have to say to his wavering disciples.

U: Recognizing a lack of inherent existence does not mean that we should behave as though conditioned existence is irrelevant.

DQ: No one is saying that. In fact, I consider conditioned existence to be extremely relevant, which is why I devote myself to the furtherance of wisdom, enlightened knowledge, purity, non-attachment, etc, and other conditioned existences of this kind.

U: But you don't mind your own child dying or your wife being raped. Why do you arbitrarily privilege your own values (wisdom, etc) over the value of others? It sounds like a massive abdication of ethical reasoning to me - and the ethical dimension is an indispensable part of what it is to be human.

We evidently have different ethical systems. My ethical system is based around the valuing of wisdom, which I have determined to be the most important thing in life. Lao Tzu agrees with me when he says: "The greatest virtue is to follow the Tao and the Tao alone.

DQ: However, becoming emotional over things is an entirely different matter. This does reveal a lack of insight into the mirage-like nature of all things, including sons and wives.

U: Nonsense. One can fully understand the ephemeral nature of things and also (simultaneously) understand that one is engaged in that same ephemeral flow.

Yes, a sage is fully aware that his mirage-like existence is interacting with the mirage-like objects of his mirage-like environment. Very true. But what has this to do with the issue of the emotions? If a sage sees that everything is essentially a mirage, and if he has no attachment to anything at all, by what process does he experience emotion?

DQ: The bottom line is, the expression of an emotion, in whatever situation, is literally an expression of one's hatred of the Tao. It is as though one is giving the Tao the finger and saying, "I couldn't give a fig about what you really are, Tao. I want to have a trantrum over my attachments instead."

U: I am the Tao. A dying child is the Tao. My compassion for a dying child is the Tao. This conditional, impermanent life with all of its trials and joys is the Tao. David Quinn telling us he would leave his wife to a rapist and go preach is the Tao. My view that David is talking crazy is the Tao, as is his view that I don't get it.

I care a lot about what the Tao "really is." And it is all of those things, everything else, and the transcendence of things and thinglessness. It is the universal dialectic.

I think you are trying to mangle a very important issue here. Yes, it is true that everything is a part of the Tao, but what of it? It doesn't mean that deluded people don't exist. The fact that the deluded person is part of the Tao doesn't make him any wiser. He can be as part of the Tao as much as he likes, but it still doesn't mean that he will experience any of the rewards that comes with being wise.

-

R. Steven Coyle wrote:bert,

It is good to see you again.

Word is bond.

hi steven,

yeah,word is bond,and is bondage,and govern our lives.
man believes ,and looses himself in widely different doctrines and religions,and whatever.. .
yet ,realize that:we make words ambiguous(doubtful) by adding our meanings;qualifications become endless and only few understands themselves or others.
springing forth that what we make factual ceases to have abstract value and becomes its own antithesis.
only impacts have meaning:their consequences are true and real. we believe only as deeply as we have experienced of the believed.


therefore I ask"is it the 'otherness' in ourselves that makes us loathe others?"

yeah,word is bond,and is bondage,and govern our lives.
man believes ,and looses himself in widely different doctrines and religions,and whatever.. .
yet ,realize that:we make words ambiguous(doubtful) by adding our meanings;qualifications become endless and only few understands themselves or others.

Yes, but by transposing our own meanings onto words, that have lost their meaning, we define new languages, and enter into new worlds.

A myriad conjunction, should never be sand in the hand.

springing forth that what we make factual ceases to have abstract value and becomes its own antithesis.
only impacts have meaning:their consequences are true and real. we believe only as deeply as we have experienced of the believed.

Yes.

Meaning is a bullet: verbs, adjectives, and nouns, gunpowder.

R. Steven Coyle wrote:

yeah,word is bond,and is bondage,and govern our lives.
man believes ,and looses himself in widely different doctrines and religions,and whatever.. .
yet ,realize that:we make words ambiguous(doubtful) by adding our meanings;qualifications become endless and only few understands themselves or others.

Yes, but by transposing our own meanings onto words, that have lost their meaning, we define new languages, and enter into new worlds.

A myriad conjunction, should never be sand in the hand.

springing forth that what we make factual ceases to have abstract value and becomes its own antithesis.
only impacts have meaning:their consequences are true and real. we believe only as deeply as we have experienced of the believed.

Yes.

Meaning is a bullet: verbs, adjectives, and nouns, gunpowder.

indeed,I recognize what you say.
when you remove the conjunctions from a sentence,it almost becomes meaningless.

we built that bridge ;borders are crossed invisibly.
we must retire in our imagination if we want to accomplish anything of worth.

:)

Diebert van Rhijn

And it's hard to imagine that 'nothing has changed' for you. Following seriously a spiritual path, any such path, upsets and uproots all of our life. Even the 'erroneous' ones. If you'd really had crashed and burned, in some tangible way, it would prove at least you lived what you believed to be true, beyond intellectualizing.

Well first there’s a mountain, then there’s no mountain and then finally there’s that mountain again.

sschaula

Which is exactly why I think it's pointless talking to you. If I had the patience, I'd go back through this thread and count the times for you that you said enlightenment doesn't exist/it's bullshit. Go back and reread your posts, moron.

Okay, one more time now.
It is NOT my intention to prove that enlightenment does not exist, but to declare that enlightenment is invalid. Hence the title of this thread.

Like the removal of suffering? I don't believe you are enlightened enough to have a contention. If you were enlightened you wouldn't suffer, period. You want me to discuss the logic of that?

Okay, sure. But now remember....Unless YOU are enlightened, your so-called logic is nothing more than a dogmatic assumption based on your ignorant faith.

You think I haven't? I don't have any semblence of hope. You think I hope enlightenment exists? Why would I hope that, since I don't care if I suffer or not?

Well if you don’t care if you suffer or not, why even seek enlightenment? What are you doing here?

..your position is pretty easy to dismiss. "I'm enlightened. Enlightenment doesn't exist." Are you trying to be cute or something? You're trying to dismantle what everyone has TAUGHT YOU about enlightenment, and yet you claim that you are that?

Nope. I’m as serious as a heart attack.
But yours and David's feeble attempt to force my position into your narrow and ignorant perception is some-what cute.

What makes you enlightened? Answer that one question, instead of just quibbling with me, N0X. Stop being an intellectual prick and be honest with someone for once.

I have already answered that question several times throughout this thread. You’re just being lazy and argumentative.

I have never been anything but honest. As a matter of fact, it would seem that my blunt honesty IS the issue with you

:)

DavidQuinn

Exactly right. Only the enlightened person is in a position to verify whether enlightenment exists or not. Everyone else is too ignorant to do it, by definition.

Why am I not surprised. You are supporting his ignorant assumptions. Again, I am NOT trying to prove that enlightenment does not exist.
Yup that all seeing eye of logical perfection that you’ve got there is working out real good for you, David.
What does that mean when a sage, such as yourself, who has dedicated his entire existence to wisdom, is promoting asinine ignorance.....?!

It's glorious!

Nice attempt at not addressing the issue. Your tactics lacks the shock-value that you were hoping for, though, its transparent.

When he's old enough and he comes onto this forum, you can ask him yourself. As the moment, he is a happy, intelligent, well-adjusted 14 year old. He has certainly benefited from my lack of love towards him.

I don’t believe you, at all!
Either he is ignorant of what a loving parent is and will realize your ineffectual parenting when he matures, or he is a maladjusted introvert, and due to your psychological defect you are incapable of recognizing this. And considering the studies of feral children and primates raised in insolation and considering how love and affection imprints the developing child’s mind for life, if he is in fact happy, intelligent and well-adjusted, your theoretical bullshit only extends to discussion and you ( or some one close to him) have actually shown your child the affection, compassion and the selfless Love of a competent and involved parent.

I may well do. Socrates used to neglect his family every day and leave them fending for themselves in great poverty as he went out into society and engaged in philosophical teaching. You can't measure something like that. His heart was overflowing with love.

That is what is know as a worth less dead-beat. A selfish, ego-driven, incompetent. His heart was over flowing with narcissistic megalomania. And just how has mankind benefitted from the desertion of his Family?
Did he abolish poverty, disease, prejudice, crime, injustice, suffering, anything? Or was he just another pretentious, loud mouth asshole, who by denying the support of the family that HE created, perpetuated poverty and misery?

Why do you have this sudden need to apply herdish, Oprah-style morality to the behaviours of an enlightened person? Why do you suddenly give it more weight than the Truth? You don't think this could be the source of your suffering?

Because I don’t trust God. Nature is a cruel and an indifferent monster!

If you're saying that non-attachment is dependent upon attachments being absent, I agree with you.

No, that would be saying that non-attachment is dependent on non-attachment. But regardless, how does this circular bullshit eliminate human suffering?

Becoming enlightened and shedding attachments is a stage of irreversible growth. When a butterfly sheds its cocoon and flies off into the air, it leaves behind its cocoon forever. It will never live inside another cocoon again, not even when it dies. Similarly, when a person breaks free of all attachments, he does so forever.

Ah yes, more metaphorical subterfuge. Enlightenment and the brain are nothing like a butterfly and a cocoon, David

Again, how do impermanent factors support a permanent state?

[deleted]

bert writes:

therefore I ask"is it the 'otherness' in ourselves that makes us loathe others?"

Whether a rhetorical question or not, it brings to the surface a vital truth:

It is the assumed, and factual 'otherness' in others, which leads to nausea. To overcome ourselves, continually, through others/with others -- should be the true philosopher's aim.

The philosopher is the greatest human.

Nox,

DQ: Only the enlightened person is in a position to verify whether enlightenment exists or not. Everyone else is too ignorant to do it, by definition.

N: Why am I not surprised. You are supporting his ignorant assumptions. Again, I am NOT trying to prove that enlightenment does not exist.

You have been saying all along that the enlightenment of the buddhas, which transcends all suffering, doesn't exist. You even reckon to have proved this to yourself. Are you now disowning all this?

DQ: When he's old enough and he comes onto this forum, you can ask him yourself. As the moment, he is a happy, intelligent, well-adjusted 14 year old. He has certainly benefited from my lack of love towards him.

N: I don’t believe you, at all!
Either he is ignorant of what a loving parent is and will realize your ineffectual parenting when he matures, or he is a maladjusted introvert, and due to your psychological defect you are incapable of recognizing this. And considering the studies of feral children and primates raised in insolation and considering how love and affection imprints the developing child’s mind for life, if he is in fact happy, intelligent and well-adjusted, your theoretical bullshit only extends to discussion and you ( or some one close to him) have actually shown your child the affection, compassion and the selfless Love of a competent and involved parent.

He has received what he needed - affection, companionship, consistency, security, a sense of belonging, a peaceful environment with no undercurrents of violence, a stimulating education, intelligent interaction, etc. What he hasn't received (at least not very much) is the smothering impact of possessive love. Kids don't need that. No one needs it. It's only those already addicted to it who think they need it.

DQ: I may well do. Socrates used to neglect his family every day and leave them fending for themselves in great poverty as he went out into society and engaged in philosophical teaching. You can't measure something like that. His heart was overflowing with love.

N: That is what is know as a worth less dead-beat. A selfish, ego-driven, incompetent. His heart was over flowing with narcissistic megalomania. And just how has mankind benefitted from the desertion of his Family?
Did he abolish poverty, disease, prejudice, crime, injustice, suffering, anything? Or was he just another pretentious, loud mouth asshole, who by denying the support of the family that HE created, perpetuated poverty and misery?

You'll have to read the dialogues by Plato and decide for yourself. To my mind, Socrates performed a wonderful service to humanity by openly upholding the values of wisdom, rationality and nobility, and by removing a lot of ignorance in people's minds.

The benefits of this have been massive and are still being felt today. For example, it was through his high-powered valuing of rationality, and the efforts of those like him, that the grip of medieval religion was finally loosened from Western society and science was able to flourish into being.

DQ: Becoming enlightened and shedding attachments is a stage of irreversible growth. When a butterfly sheds its cocoon and flies off into the air, it leaves behind its cocoon forever. It will never live inside another cocoon again, not even when it dies. Similarly, when a person breaks free of all attachments, he does so forever.

N: Ah yes, more metaphorical subterfuge. Enlightenment and the brain are nothing like a butterfly and a cocoon, David

Again, how do impermanent factors support a permanent state?

Do I have to do all your thinking for you? There are countless examples of this happening. When a cloud disappears, for instance, it does so forever. That particular cloud will never come back. So here is an example of impermanent factors creating a permanent state.

It is the very nature of impermanency to constantly create permanent states.

-

Meaning is a bullet: verbs, adjectives, and nouns, gunpowder.

Meaning is Meaning.

Verbs, adjectives and nouns are verbs, adjectives and nouns.

'Bullet' and 'Dynamite' point to possible Human Reaction to these things.

Meaning/Words........Human reaction to Meaning/Words are separate things.

Genius cannot say:

Meaning is a bullet: verbs, adjectives, and nouns, gunpowder.

frank

Meaning is Meaning.

Verbs, adjectives and nouns are verbs, adjectives and nouns.

'Bullet' and 'Dynamite' point to possible Human Reaction to these things.

Meaning/Words........Human reaction to Meaning/Words are separate things.

Genius cannot say:

Meaning is a bullet: verbs, adjectives, and nouns, gunpowder.

I was attempting to combine the two ideas for effect: I see the error in semantics now. Thanks for the clarification.

.

David writes:

To my mind, Socrates performed a wonderful service to humanity by openly upholding the values of wisdom, rationality and nobility, and by removing a lot of ignorance in people's minds.

Yes. And also what do you make of Nietzsche's criticism to Socrates for inventing Theoretical Man; for insisting the world's worth is not in the world nor the man in it. This great downgrade of the ephemeral and the appearance, the material of the world. It makes me think in general of the big articulated human value placed on the lasting things, when we already know ourselves in the falling away of moments.

.

But the most pointed statement about this new and unheard of high opinion of knowledge and reason was uttered by Socrates, when he claimed that he was the only person to assert that he knew nothing; whereas, in his critical wandering about in Athens conversing with the greatest statesmen, orators, poets, and artists, everywhere he ran into people who imagined they knew things. Astonished, he recognized that all these famous people had no correct and clear insight into their occupations and carried out their work instinctually. "Only from instinct"— with this expression we touch upon the heart and centre of the Socratic project.

Wherever he directs his searching gaze, he sees a lack of insight and the power of delusion, and from this he infers the inner falsity and worthlessness of present conditions. On the basis of this one point, Socrates believed he had to correct existence. He, one solitary individual, stepped forward with an expression of contempt and superiority, as the pioneer of a brand new style of culture, art, and morality, into that world, a scrap of which we would count it an honour to catch.

A key to the heart of Socrates is offered by that amazing phenomenon indicated by the term Socrates's daimonon. Under special circumstances in which his immense reasoning power was stalled in doubt, he resolved his irresolution firmly with a divine voice which expressed itself at such times. When this voice came, it always sounded a cautionary note. In this totally strange character instinctive wisdom reveals itself only in order to confront the conscious knowledge now and then as an impediment. Whereas in all productive men instinct is the truly creative and affirming power, and consciousness acts as a critical and cautioning reaction, in Socrates the instinct becomes the critic, consciousness becomes the creator—truly a monstrous defect.

excerpted Birth of Tragedy #13

.

This is the kind of thing I am meaning when I estimate highly the sense of intelligence (the non-rational if we must) - where knowledge becomes instinct and is felt, in this world, in the immediate, in bright response. Too often too many think this a retrograde deal, in frightened need of a distance from their animalhood, their corporeal reality. I'd say the Tao itself asks for this other kind of immediate attention to the flow of things. I'd say the best-cutting Zen does as well.

When I can look at this like Nietzsche's doing and then see swarming masses of instinctually anemic individuals worldwide and millennia old, all the inheritance of reason and its governments, temples, families and faiths, all sick, all deluded, en masse. The devaluation of ephemera and appearance; the millennia of dreaming on our feet, our sicknesses. This great necessity to define the Self in rational terms; or to address the problem with a No-self; to struggle with the isolation of consciousness under the reasonable world, to define, define, and then become hyperdrunk in our awareness . . . . It isn't reason I've been taking to task here, but reason as pathology; and it is the development - the conscious development - of highly refined instincts needs greater estimation. The kind of thing that demands our immersion in and attention to these falling moments themselves.

.