GENIUS FORUMS

Sher,

Not even to say something like: David Quinn says he is _____________ ?

Can us laymen and laywomen use some other word instead?

If you are using quoting someone, certainly. It's only a rule of thumb. However, you are less likely to confuse people (and yourself), if you just use more conventional words like "sage", "philosopher", "wise man", etc.

Enlightenment has a particular meaning, and doesn't really allow for as much leeway as people think it does. It's one of those weird words, like "transcendent", that are so rarely used correctly that you tend to accidentally figure out the proper meaning to them... say, by happening to use it properly in the regular course of speech.

It isn't an issue, and basically I said that as a point of humor. Anyway, sure - if you don't mind using a picture of yourself in your avatar, I think it would be nice to see who I'm talking to.

Scott,

I would be willing to bet that Trevor is enlightened, in the way he defines the word. It's kind of funny how everyone's claim to it here is tested. I contest David's claim. He contests mine. You contest Trevor's.

To me, that kind of tells us about everyone's high interpretation of the word. That maybe we shouldn't call ourselves enlightened until we're perfectly enlightened, because until then, we are still capable of much delusion and error.

Thanks for being a voice of reason here.

I avoided the word for years, and only started using it for reasons I've already explained above: to remain consistent in an argument, I had to say I was enlightened.

The members of Thomas Knierem's forum, where I made the claim, eventually realized that it actually didn't matter what I was claiming. After a long argument that eventually turned into a pleasant discussion, I parted from the forum amiably -- only certain that I had to consider myself enlightened to keep my beliefs logically consistent, not that I "actually" was so and deserved some kind of weird medal. Enlightenment is, fundamentally, a personal thing.

That is not the same as saying it is whatever we want it to be, though. I can pretty easily tell if someone is not describing something even remotely similar to Gotama's accomplishment.

Trevor, thanks for changing your avatar. This one is about 100 times better.

.

There is no “enlightenment experience”. The search for it is a game.

We each want to be closer to G d than the next, as if we’re playing ‘King of the Hill’, but there is nothing one can be, think, or do to be closer to G d. There is nothing one can believe or experience to be closer to G d. And no one is closer to G d than the next.

We are all made of the same substance, whatever that is, we are composed of it. No one is made of some special substance and we are made of common substance. There is only one substance.

No experience changes that substance, but some experiences are fun to share. Unfortunately, some one, probably a man, proclaimed his experiences bigger and better. Of course, some one else had to proclaim his experience bigger and better still. And the game began.

Of course, the biggest and best experience is to KNOW that there is no experience that changes the substance of our being.

And, in the end, we all die. Whatever happens at death, we all share.

We should comfort one another.

Do no harm,
clyde

Shahrazad wrote:Trevor, thanks for changing your avatar. This one is about 100 times better.

I agree that it is much better than comic-book man. That avatar kept reminding me of booklets dentists give out to children.

It's nice to have a more real representation on a philosophy board.
.

We're all going to die!

-

clyde,

There is no “enlightenment experience”. The search for it is a game.

So Gotama was playing a game?

There is nothing one can believe or experience to be closer to G d. And no one is closer to G d than the next.

I agree, but only because we're all automatically, by virtue of our existence, as close to Reality (in a spatio-temporal sense) as is possible.

We are all made of the same substance, whatever that is, we are composed of it. No one is made of some special substance and we are made of common substance. There is only one substance.

Yes, Reality is technically one substance.

Unfortunately, some one, probably a man, proclaimed his experiences bigger and better. Of course, some one else had to proclaim his experience bigger and better still. And the game began.

Of course, the biggest and best experience is to KNOW that there is no experience that changes the substance of our being.

So you have proclaimed your experience the biggest and best of all? I'd ask you to prove it, but I don't actually want to see the size of your experience.

And, in the end, we all die. Whatever happens at death, we all share.

I thought you just said that we all already share everything? Why did you make a special note about death? I thought it was included.

We should comfort one another.

But what if we all want large experiences?

---

By the way, I don't think in any way you have disproven enlightenment through this post. I believe you started out trying to disprove enlightenment, but got distracted somewhere [ie. immediately] after the first sentence, so by the end I have no idea what you actually ended up proving or disproving.

Does anyone other than David know where clyde ended up? (Holy elementary school flashback. "Does anyone other than Trevor have a question?")

Trevor;

I wasn’t attempting to prove or disprove anything, nor was I making any claim. That said, I'm glad that we agree on so much.

clyde

[edit]p.s: The ‘size’ of our experience is the same. Since we agree that reality is one substance, no one’s experience of reality is bigger.

clyde, I hate to do this, but I do have to call you out on technicalities.

I wasn’t attempting to prove or disprove anything, nor was I making any claim.

First, you claimed that there's no enlightenment. The entire post, in fact, was a series of claims: the motivation for wanting to understand Reality being a pissing contest, the futility of the quest, the reason for this futility being explained by monism, and the relevance of death.

Maybe you weren't trying to prove any of this, but you certainly were claiming it.

I'm glad that we agree on so much.

We don't, unfortunately, agree on quite as much as you think. You were being a little too nihilistic in your post for my taste. Well, not even taste -- ethics.

The ‘size’ of our experience is the same. Since we agree that reality is one substance, no one’s experience of reality is bigger.

I agreed with you on a technicality; the word substance, however, is very difficult to apply to all of Reality in any meaningful sense. Making deductions based on conventional definitions of substance become tricky. There are certainly those who are capable of understanding reality far better than others.

Trevor;

Yes, I made some claims. When I wrote, “nor was I making any claims”, I meant “personal claims” in response to your writing,

So you have proclaimed your experience the biggest and best of all?

I apologize for not being clearer.


In what way was I “being a little too nihilistic in [my] post for [your] taste”?


You wrote,

Yes, Reality is technically one substance.

What did you mean? I believe we do agree on this, but you may prove me wrong.

And I agree with you that,

There are certainly those who are capable of understanding reality far better than others.

But how does this change our actual situation?

clyde

Clyde wrote:

There is no “enlightenment experience”. The search for it is a game.

He pushes the Buddha down to the ground and kicks him in the head.

We each want to be closer to G d than the next, as if we’re playing ‘King of the Hill’, but there is nothing one can be, think, or do to be closer to G d. There is nothing one can believe or experience to be closer to G d. And no one is closer to G d than the next.

Salivating at the mouth, he tears apart Buddhism and smashes all of its temples to pieces.

We are all made of the same substance, whatever that is, we are composed of it. No one is made of some special substance and we are made of common substance. There is only one substance.

No experience changes that substance, but some experiences are fun to share. Unfortunately, some one, probably a man, proclaimed his experiences bigger and better. Of course, some one else had to proclaim his experience bigger and better still. And the game began.

Laughing, he urinates on the corpses of the Buddha, Nagarjuna, Huang Po, and Hakuin. Blowing a kiss towards his girlfriend, he starts hacking into them with an ax.

And, in the end, we all die. Whatever happens at death, we all share.

We should comfort one another.

He grabs a spear and starts poking the crucified Jesus. He taunts, "Where is your God now, eh? You reckon you're immortal? You'll be dead in a few hours." Having finished mocking and killing the wise ones, he gives his girlfriend a big hug, and together they wander off into the sunset and practice "doing no harm".

-

The only thing Clyde killed in the wise ones were their egos.

clyde,

In what way was I “being a little too nihilistic in [my] post for [your] taste”?

You made hugs as important as truth-seeking. That's about as nihilistic as a person can get.

me: Yes, Reality is technically one substance.

you: What did you mean? I believe we do agree on this, but you may prove me wrong.

Again, it was the deduction you were making. We're all made of the same substance, therefore nobody's better than anyone else. We shouldn't debate and argue: we should share!

These are your ethics. They have nothing to do with the true statement you were making.

Reality is one substance. End of ontology lesson.

But how does this change our actual situation?

By understanding reality, we are in a different situation. Specifically, we are in a situation that understands reality.

Trevor;

It was many years before I began to understand why certain Buddhist traditions speak of wisdom and compassion as the two fundamental skillful means.

What does it mean to you that “reality is one substance”? What are the consequences of that truth and how does that truth effect how you live? I wrote what that truth means to me; i.e., no one is closer to G d than another and that we should be compassionate.

clyde

Clyde,

You're essentially making the same mistake that Hades did, which is to confuse enlightenment with Reality. It is true that no one person is closer to Reality than anyone else. But at the same time, there is a vast difference between awakened people who fully comprehend the nature of Reality and those who aren't awakened.

Ignorance and wisdom are real things. It isn't wise to discard them because of an attachment to your current conception of compassion.

-

David;

I do not deny that there is ignorance and wisdom.

What did I write that confused enlightenment and reality?

clyde

clyde,

G d

What is the meaning of this?

Leyla;

It is a Jewish tradition intended to show respect to the name of God. I do it as a personal reminder of my heritage and for mindfulness.

Do no harm,
clyde

But at the same time, there is a vast difference between awakened people who fully comprehend the nature of Reality and those who aren't awakened.

Only in the minds of the "awakened".

sschaula wrote:

DQ: But at the same time, there is a vast difference between awakened people who fully comprehend the nature of Reality and those who aren't awakened.

Only in the minds of the "awakened".

As opposed to in the minds of the unawakened. Naturally. There would be no difference for an unawakened person because no concept of full comprehension exists with which to create the contrast.

Carl,

I'm sure you understood the point I was trying to make. If not:
If you think you're wise you need to get off your high horse and actually get wise.

Oh.

In other words, one who thinks he is wise cannot be wise, and one who is wise would never think he is wise? This makes sense to you?

No, that wouldn't make sense to me. Stop playing games...I know you get the point.

Scott, I can't see how he'd miss it: namely, that a person hardly needs an excuse to feel special. Calling yourself awake and everyone else asleep is a huge temptation.