GENIUS FORUMS

Boy, am I glad we got all those crude emotions, such as "dislike", out of the way. I much prefer the feeling of enlightenment!

Leyla Shen wrote:Boy, am I glad we got all those crude emotions, such as "dislike", out of the way. I much prefer the feeling of enlightenment!

What about the feelings of "like" or "love" etc?

Leyla, are you so afraid of "dislike" and other negative emotions that you don't think that the good ones are worth having?

They all have their causes. (:

Leyla Shen wrote:They all have their causes. (:

Which is precisely why they're invalid if you let the emotional realization of causality take over.
If you love someone for their virtuous heart, you know that it's not of their own doing.
Furthermore, you would not see their virtuous behavior as something to gain pleasure from either.

Whose own doing?

Do you believe in an autonomous "I"?

If not, how can one become enlightened? If so, then it must be caused and therefore, as you say, invalid.

Leyla Shen wrote:Whose own doing?

The doing of the person with the virtuous heart.
The person with the virtuous heart is no more important or responsible than a rock.

Leyla Shen wrote:Do you believe in an autonomous "I"?

Nope, we're just robots.

If not, how can one become enlightened?

The physical manifestation of the human can be caused to give up its emotions.

Lol. Okay. But I disagree that a human is a robot, whether or not the order of the day is to plunge the causal differences into a sea of undifferentiated unconsciousness.

(Attachment takes on a whole new meaning...)

Leyla Shen wrote:Lol. Okay. But I disagree that a human is a robot, whether or not the order of the day is to plunge the causal differences into a sea of undifferentiated unconsciousness.

I don't mean a metal robot. I mean a flesh "robot". We're just programmed by our genes and environment.

Leyla Shen wrote:(Attachment takes on a whole new meaning...)

What do you mean?

A virtuous heart is still a virtuous heart, whether or not there is attachment is a matter of the nature of causal relations. These same conditions give rise to spontaneity and drive change and transformation; what we might call the tapestry of existence; even emptiness.

Leyla Shen wrote:A virtuous heart is still a virtuous heart, whether or not there is attachment is a matter of the nature of causal relations. These same conditions give rise to spontaneity and drive change and transformation; what we might call the tapestry of existence; even emptiness.

Emptiness is right.

Leyla Shen wrote:Do you believe in an autonomous "I"? If not, how can one become enlightened? If so, then it must be caused and therefore, as you say, invalid.

Okay, we have to be very careful here Leyla. It is true that there is no such thing as enlightenment, but just saying that indiscriminately to a beginner is dangerous. It would make them give it all up prematurely and sink back down into a postmodernist or relativist view.

Getoriks,
You know how I said I value truth and emotion equally?

I should have said that I value emotion more and that I DO need the lie of emotional satisfaction.

So yes, I am a worthless liar and I don't give a fuck if any of you like me or dislike me or whatever for it.

I think that David Quinn uses knowledge in an unscrupulous manner.

No wonder his marriage failed.

Orenholt wrote:Getoriks,
You know how I said I value truth and emotion equally? I should have said that I value emotion more and that I DO need the lie of emotional satisfaction. So yes, I am a worthless liar and I don't give a fuck if any of you like me or dislike me or whatever for it. I think that David Quinn uses knowledge in an unscrupulous manner. No wonder his marriage failed.

Okay, that's fine Orenholt. I can promise you that most people here, whether they want to admit it or not, still value their emotional attachments over the Truth.

No one here dislikes you for having emotional attachments. If they did, they would be no better than you, for they would simply be persons with an emotional attachment to a world without emotionally attached persons.

Just because they are against emotional attachment and trying to overcome it, does not mean that they are against YOU. However, I understand how it seems like they are against you, since you are so close to your emotional attachments, that they are a part of your identity, so to speak, so when someone is against one of your emotional attachments, it literally feels like they are also therefore against you.

As an example, my father was very emotionally attached to his worldview, particularly his political opinions. When I showed him how George W. Bush was not a leader or even authority figure to be respected, with ample evidence, he went into a fury, felt like his world was falling apart, and felt like I was psychologically assaulting him. The embarrassment of being wrong-headed, and on top of it, the shock of his own son be more aware than he, was a major blow to his ego. Of course, I was by no means making a swing at his ego, I was simply helping him by seeing the truth. Hence the old saying, "the truth hurts" (but only at first, then it feels great -- IF one accepts it and gets over themselves).

I don't think you're a liar though. That's a bit much.

As for David's marriage, well, I don't know if he was ever married or not, so I will just call it his relationship, but as for his relationship, that is a pretty presumptuous and indeed unscrupulous claim you made there, isn't it? Why not ask David himself the details of his relationship? He need not give you private information, of course, but I'm sure he would be more than glad to share the details of his relationship with others, including you, in a manner related to the spiritual path.

What marriage?

Dan Rowden wrote:What marriage?

Well relationship or whatever with Sue.

In what sense or at what point did that "fail"? Or would you like to admit, at this point, to having made that claim up in a fit of quasi-pique?

Dan Rowden wrote:In what sense or at what point did that "fail"?

Well they're not together anymore.
I suppose I was jumping to a conclusion but it's my guess that they lost their attachments to one another or at least one of them did.

Orenholt wrote:isn't dissatisfaction an emotional state?

I don't see it as emotional state. It's just too generic as term and it can be some momentary feeling or even just a dispassionate conclusion (for example "these results are unsatisfactory"). Dissatisfaction however can lead to discontent which in the sense of "a restless craving for what one does not have" certainly would qualify as emotion.

Conscience is also the ego because it is based on expected outcomes. If you think "I shouldn't steal" it's either because you think something like A.) I'll get caught or B.) it would make me feel bad to go against my principles.

Conscience might be in the most primitive dull form just a feeling but it can develop into something way more involved.

The Buddha was onto something when he said that desire is the cause of all suffering.

Gee, you think so? And a bit more fleshed out but within the Buddhist language: the false idea of self arising out of ignorance. And with that self many types of emotions and behaviorisms manifest with it, to feed and protect that idea.

Why can we not define the ego as "the thing being dissatisfied"? Sure there is more to it than that because it can be the thing that is satisfied as well but I still see no reason not to say it is "the thing being dissatisfied".

But the ignorance was about the idea that such "thing" was not there to begin with. Pain says "go away" but that doesn't equal pain with ego. It's just what pain signals.

Explain how a negative emotion is "rewarded" or causes "pleasure" or "satisfaction" (without taking action to change the situation) because I am not aware of how that could happen.

Cruelty, high tension, scares, bloodthirstiness: all popular highs although it's mostly simulated and contained. But that doesn't change the facts of them being experienced for reward. Sociopaths (which are interesting as exaggeration of the stealthy emotional being) for example seek constantly reward through domination and control with disregard for others. It's a highly emotional situation no matter how cold and collected the sociopath might feel.

Orenholt wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:In what sense or at what point did that "fail"?

Well they're not together anymore.

And you know this, how? Remember you're talking to someone who has known them personally for 20 years. Besides, I suspect you're using "together" in a totally mundane way, which is frankly a little silly in the context.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: I don't see it as emotional state. It's just too generic as term and it can be some momentary feeling or even just a dispassionate conclusion (for example "these results are unsatisfactory"). Dissatisfaction however can lead to discontent which in the sense of "a restless craving for what one does not have" certainly would qualify as emotion.

Ok then just substitute discontent for dissatisfaction if you're hung up on the wording.

Conscience might be in the most primitive dull form just a feeling but it can develop into something way more involved.

Explain how you think the conscience works if not via expected outcomes of pleasure/pain.

Gee, you think so? And a bit more fleshed out but within the Buddhist language: the false idea of self arising out of ignorance. And with that self many types of emotions and behaviorisms manifest with it, to feed and protect that idea.

Yes, but the ego also is responsible for seeking out joy and thus causes the experience of joy as well even if it is a "false" sense of self.

But the ignorance was about the idea that such "thing" was not there to begin with. Pain says "go away" but that doesn't equal pain with ego. It's just what pain signals.

Not sure what you mean.

Cruelty, high tension, scares, bloodthirstiness: all popular highs although it's mostly simulated and contained. But that doesn't change the facts of them being experienced for reward. Sociopaths (which are interesting as exaggeration of the stealthy emotional being) for example seek constantly reward through domination and control with disregard for others. It's a highly emotional situation no matter how cold and collected the sociopath might feel.

True but it's still satisfaction of one's OWN ego even if it's at the expense of someone else's

Dan Rowden wrote: And you know this, how? Remember you're talking to someone who has known them personally for 20 years. Besides, I suspect you're using "together" in a totally mundane way, which is frankly a little silly in the context.

Someone told me they were no longer "together".

I admit I could have had a mistaken understanding of this word in this context.