GENIUS FORUMS

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It appears David values "making society a better place" as a goal. There's logic to that as well, considering one is never really isolated from the womb of society: the creature is one. Perfecting oneself can only mean perfecting the world as well.

Yes, wanting wisdom to flourish.

-

When wisdom is fully revealed, there will be no society left to seek wisdom. This is wisdom's purpose, to bring an end first, to the world, and then, to itself.

movingalways wrote:When wisdom is fully revealed, there will be no society left to seek wisdom. This is wisdom's purpose, to bring an end first, to the world, and then, to itself.

This can only mean that wisdom hasn't fully revealed itself to you .....

-

Bobo wrote: You are reaproaching Bob in terms of conventionality. But you too are a tool in the hands of a conventional society.

I am completely useless to society as far as its conventional goals are concerned, so if I am a tool I'm not a very good one. No one in conventional society ever asks for my help in anything.

Or do you think you have somehow reached the bottom line of unconventionality?

Well, the bottom line for unconventionality is Buddhahood - i.e. pure individuality which neither seeks to conform to convention, nor defines itself in opposition to it. I can't say that I have permanently reached that stage yet, although I have my moments.

Bobo wrote: Don't you engage daily with the deaf to the infinite. Don't [they want a glimpse of the infinite and don't] you take part with their deaf behaviour and give them a 'silent approval'?

That's an interesting question. There is undoubtedly a degree of "silent approval" going on, as I don't nit-pick and act contrarily in every single interaction I have. Mostly I ignore people and they ignore me, but if I do interact I prefer to get chummy with them and then, from that basis, introduce a little reasoning, or provide some philosophical humour, or a point out a novel perspective on things, or whatever. In other words, I tend to shy away from "arsehole" mode.

On the other hand, my "outsiderness" shines through in everything that I do, so my very presence tends to make people uncomfortable. I don't slip into the scripted behaviour which is expected of everyone.

You are saying that only the enlightened can make ethical considerations. If the unenlightened cannot know who is enlightened, the only option left is to disregard all judgements passing off as ethical (or unethical), no?

Yes, if you are able to. It takes a rare strength of mind, though, to disregard all ethical judgments, whether it be from sages, or from one's mentors, or from the media, or from women, or from the herd.

-

David Quinn wrote:

movingalways wrote:When wisdom is fully revealed, there will be no society left to seek wisdom. This is wisdom's purpose, to bring an end first, to the world, and then, to itself.

This can only mean that wisdom hasn't fully revealed itself to you .....

-

Wisdom exists because of ignorance. If there is awareness of wisdom, then one has not yet shed the totality of their ignorance. I have not yet shed the totality of my ignorance, nor has anyone who yet relies on wisdom shed the totality of their ignorance.

The infinite is not logical, the infinite is not mystical, the infinite is not wise, the infinite IS. This is a truth, so tell me how wisdom can fully reveal itself to you and not refer, in some way, to your finite awareness?

Well, the bottom line for unconventionality is Buddhahood - i.e. pure individuality which neither seeks to conform to convention, nor defines itself in opposition to it. I can't say that I have permanently reached that stage yet, although I have my moments.

David, I read this after I posted my response to you above.

First,the bottom line for Buddahood is not unconventionality, Buddhahood is the attainment of nirvana, the extinguishing of desire, even eventually, beneficial desire for Buddahood/Nirvana. The road to Buddhahood may begin as an attachment to unconventionality so that one can begin the process of becoming detached from conventionality, but neither conventionality or unconventionality are of the deeper things of the wisdom of liberation from consciousness of birth and death. Conventionality, being of the realm of flesh awareness, is of consciousness of birth and death.

The Buddha spoke of the two aspects of Nibbana, or Nirvana:

Bhikkhus, there are these two Nibbāna-elements. What are the two? The Nibbāna-element with residue left and the Nibbāna-element without any traces of substrate left.

What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbāna-element with residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahat, one whose mental fermentations is silenced,
who has fulfilled the Noble life, who has done all what was to be done, who has laid down the burden, attained the goal, who has destroyed thebondages of being, who is completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense abilities remain unimpaired. Through these he stillexperiences what is agreeable and disagreeable, and feels both pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, aversion, & confusion in him, that is called this Nibbāna-element with residue left.

Now what, bhikkhus, is the Nibbāna-element with no residue remaining? Here a bhikkhu is an arahat, one whose mental fermentations is silenced, who have fulfilled the Noble life, who has done all what was to be done, who has laid down the burden, attained the goal, who has destroyed thebondages of being, who is completely released through final knowledge. For him, here in this very life, all that is experienced, not being delighted in, will grow cold right there and cease. That is called Nibbāna-elementwith no residue left. These, bhikkhus, are the two Dimensions of Nibbāna...

Source: Itivuttaka II.17; Iti 38

Second, you acknowledged that you "have moments of Buddhahood" according to your definition of Buddahood being related to conventionality and unconventionality. Since you admit to only partial Buddahood to what I understand to be your surface view of Buddhahood, on what are you basing your statement to me above with regards to wisdom being fully revealed to you, but not to me? Would you not have to be fully enlightened to make such a judgment about wisdom?

movingalways wrote:Wisdom exists because of ignorance. If there is awareness of wisdom, then one has not yet shed the totality of their ignorance.

Good weather exists because of bad weather. Distinctions and judgements do not absolve as long as consciousness remains: bad weather after all can still be bad for health, crops or housing no matter how one regards or disregards "weather". In the same way ignorance still causes suffering.

I think I wrote it to you before: it appears like you are preferring the false liberation that comes with carving out a false position for yourself where the world falsely disappears by eclipsing it with some other world.

I think I wrote it to you before:

You think, you don't know?

it appears like you are preferring the false liberation that comes with carving out a false position for yourself where the world falsely disappears by eclipsing it with some other world.

I have no idea what this means.

I am clear above as to my definition of liberation. No mental fermentations, consciousness of senses has grown cold and is ceased. Of this definition, anything else is a sense of freedom, which is not the same thing as liberation. Also of this definition, I am not yet liberated, nor do I consider anyone posting here liberated. Free of conventions, yes, liberated from reliance on wisdom, no.

David, I post this link for your benefit: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... .html#rupa

As you can see, the "bottom line" of Buddhahood is not the attainment of transcendence of conventionality, nor is it the attainment of the wisdom of logic and reasoning; the "bottom line" or "highest state" of Buddhist practice is attainment to, or entrance into, the 31st plane of the Immaterial World. As it is stated in the link, this World is attained only by those who pass away while meditating, and for those familiar with meditation, while one is meditating, there is no consciousness of society or its conventions, there is no awareness of finite things at all. Nor is there consciousness of the wisdom that is needed to form, create or "manage" these finite things.

Wisdom of cause and effect, and of stepping beyond cause and effect is used in the reach to attain to the Buddhia's Immaterial World of Final Nibbana, but is not, itself, the attainment of this final release. The Buddha's Immaterial World of Nibbana, final release, is Christ's Immaterial World of the Father of Genesis 1, final ascension. Note on the chart of the 31 planes, that the 14th plane, just about half way "home" to Nibbana and Ascension, is that of the Great Brahma, the Lord God of Genesis 2. It is my understanding that logic and reason is of "his" realm, which is considered of the realms of the Fine Material World.

Very few attain to go beyond the Fine Material World, for obvious reasons.

movingalways wrote:I am clear above as to my definition of liberation. No mental fermentations, consciousness of senses has grown cold and is ceased.

Of course you're not liberated but that's because no one can be following your definition. And even if someone would be liberated in that sense, how would she know, or how could anyone tell?

That's exactly what I meant with eclipsing: you are overlaying the world of "mental fermentation" and "consciousness of senses" with a world without fermentation and senses.

But reliance on this trick needs to go, too. You are creating just another schism which doesn't exist either.

David Quinn wrote:I am completely useless to society as far as its conventional goals are concerned, so if I am a tool I'm not a very good one. No one in conventional society ever asks for my help in anything.

They give you money, you give them money, and I bet they say 'thank you'.

David Quinn wrote:Well, the bottom line for unconventionality is Buddhahood - i.e. pure individuality which neither seeks to conform to convention, nor defines itself in opposition to it. I can't say that I have permanently reached that stage yet, although I have my moments.

You were using some more fixed goalposts to talk to Bob eg: Work and woman. But Buddhahood is more of a psychological thing. As is unentangled from 'the world'. Would a Buddhahooder reaproach you on your conventionality?

David Quinn wrote:Yes, if you are able to. It takes a rare strength of mind, though, to disregard all ethical judgments, whether it be from sages, or from one's mentors, or from the media, or from women, or from the herd.

-

Everyone would have to disregard, or incurr in blind faith. Making ethics not logical though.
You are making ethics into enlightenment. Besides sounding more mystical then logical. If ethics has anything to do with reason you would be saying more or less that "only when you are free from delusions you can make rational considerations". Which sounds irrational.

Pam,
true nature is what it is and isn't what it isn't.
what it is when it turns on is warm, spontaneous, free.

what it isn't.
Jesus and Christianity are virtually opposites
Buddha and Buddhism are virtually opposites

Buddhism and christianity are scripture or scripts for the seeker to squeeze itself into as a role play for the Imitation of Christ or Imitation of Buddha

Winning formulas in order to for the sake of.

How to sit, what to wear, what to say, when to say it, having a trillion scriptural quotes present at hand to drop into conversations at opportune moments in a conversation to look good.
Basically what that's about is an actor in a movie trying to look good.

Same in the secular world.
Winning formulas.
Nice body, nice face, cosmetic surgery.
nice clothes
how to sit. what to say
nice career,
chubby kids,
blue chip stocks


Throw out the machine-like scripts and all the sets of rules.
winning formulas don't win and are prisons.
It's empty and meaningless

Come alive!

True nature is absent all that.
not self-conscious
not walking around on eggshells looking for a formula to fit in to.

Bobo wrote:

David Quinn wrote:I am completely useless to society as far as its conventional goals are concerned, so if I am a tool I'm not a very good one. No one in conventional society ever asks for my help in anything.

They give you money, you give them money, and I bet they say 'thank you'.

That sort of thing doesn't bother me.

Bobo wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Well, the bottom line for unconventionality is Buddhahood - i.e. pure individuality which neither seeks to conform to convention, nor defines itself in opposition to it. I can't say that I have permanently reached that stage yet, although I have my moments.

You were using some more fixed goalposts to talk to Bob eg: Work and woman. But Buddhahood is more of a psychological thing. As is unentangled from 'the world'. Would a Buddhahooder reaproach you on your conventionality?

The problem with Bob is that he allows his egotistical attachments to shape his thinking and prevent true realization. He tries to pretend that his attachments are integral to the spiritual path. And they're not even unusual attachments, but the commonest and most widespread of them all.

Bobo wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Yes, if you are able to. It takes a rare strength of mind, though, to disregard all ethical judgments, whether it be from sages, or from one's mentors, or from the media, or from women, or from the herd.

Everyone would have to disregard, or incurr in blind faith. Making ethics not logical though.
You are making ethics into enlightenment. Besides sounding more mystical then logical. If ethics has anything to do with reason you would be saying more or less that "only when you are free from delusions you can make rational considerations". Which sounds irrational.

Well, I was responding to Alex and his emphasis on "ethical considerations". He was criticising GF for its lack of attention on the matter. I had answered this by saying you have to clean up your own mind first, otherwise you can't really make clear judgments about anything. All your judgments will tainted and distorted by your own delusions.

"Ethics", in its broadest sense, basically refers to how we should be living in the world. How to make the best use of our time. There is nothing mystical or illogical in considering this. But my point to Alex still remains - namely, that a person can't really decide how to best spend his time until his mind is free of delusion.

-

movingalways wrote:

David Quinn wrote:

movingalways wrote:When wisdom is fully revealed, there will be no society left to seek wisdom. This is wisdom's purpose, to bring an end first, to the world, and then, to itself.

This can only mean that wisdom hasn't fully revealed itself to you .....

Wisdom exists because of ignorance. If there is awareness of wisdom, then one has not yet shed the totality of their ignorance. I have not yet shed the totality of my ignorance, nor has anyone who yet relies on wisdom shed the totality of their ignorance.

The infinite is not logical, the infinite is not mystical, the infinite is not wise, the infinite IS. This is a truth, so tell me how wisdom can fully reveal itself to you and not refer, in some way, to your finite awareness?

The thing to understand is that there is no wisdom in the first place. It is an illusion. It is part of the ignorance that has to be given up. When you do this, you will have transcended your finite awareness (while remaining finitely aware).

-

David Quinn wrote:I don't hold such a bleak and ...um ... biblical point of view. There are many fine qualities in the human race which can be encouraged and developed.

While it may indeed parallel the Biblical point of view in certain fundamental respects, my point of view springs from my own 70 years of life's experiences, struggles, and sufferings, and the resultant deep insights into myself, life, and the human condition. Christ's view that "many are called, but few are chosen" is also part of my view, though unlike him, I clearly understand the reason for this fact. And also how very, very 'few' people there are who can fully overcome both themselves and the ways of the world.

David Quinn wrote:There are many fine qualities in the human race which can be encouraged and developed.

Yes, this is true. However there is also an enormously overwhelming amount of downright rotten qualities in the human race. Greed, parasitism, power-mongering, and prestige or status seeking to name but a few. But unless a person is himself free of these (and other) things, which will most definitely bar him from having a 'living' relationship with the Infinite, or he is consciously and earnestly striving to become totally free of these defects of character, he will not clearly see the tragically "bleak" nature of the human condition. And he will also continue to remain a part of the problem rather than living joyfully and productively in the solution.

I might add here that unless a man is himself fully-human, fully-alive, fully-spirit or has at least touched on this wonderous, blissful, and timeless state of being many, many times over many, many years, he won't realize with certainty that virtually everyone around him is dead. Spiritually and humanly dead. Nor will he understand the reason for this tragic fact of life or have the slightest clue as to how to effectively awaken some of his fellows who are fast asleep "in the dust of the earth", as it's also been said of old.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It appears David values "making society a better place" as a goal. There's logic to that as well, considering one is never really isolated from the womb of society: the creature is one. Perfecting oneself can only mean perfecting the world as well.

Indeed a person must himself be a perfectly shining example of what he wishes others and the world to be. Or in other words, he must completely abandon all of his conditioned self-centeredness and ways of error and thus become a Light unto the world. However, and here lies the problem, the world and its people (the darkness) by and large hates the Light (the Truth). And if the Light persists too long or too glaringly in shining its Light upon it, as was the case for instance with Christ, the world will sooner or later be very likely to extinguish or silence this Light in some manner. Therefore the Light, if he's to remain a true Light and remain in perfect obedience to the Infinite or the Truth, must and will create an entirely New World (or city) somewhere away from the old dead, dark, and decaying (and soon to very largely self-destruct) world. A 'New and Wonderful World' in which the darkness cannot and will not enter therein with its highly and negatively infectious self-centered human insanity.

Biblically speaking, I would parallel my view (and dream) here essentially with the one in the book of Revelation Chapter 22, Verses 14-15. Though I find it a poor, overly harsh, cruel, discompassionate, and non-understanding manner of getting the point across.

"Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie."

Historically, and to date, I find that nearly all enlightened men, who overcame the world to at least a considerable extent, sooner or later weakened and became cowardly, complacent, lacking the courage for the full truth of things (and especially regarding themselves), and self-satisfied, and thereby they were void of right action and direction. As a result, and to varying degrees, the world then again overcame them. And I have David's name high up on my long and ever increasing list of such crippled and backslidden followers of God or the Infinite. Even J. Krishnamurti, who's been my best mentor among many, is now on the list as a result of my eventually having surpassed him on the journey up that terrible, but glorious, mountain of Truth.

Though I find it a poor, overly harsh, cruel, discompassionate, and non-understanding manner of getting the point across.

Don't use it then.
Such poison reduces you to a desperate gringo.

Dennis Mahar wrote:Don't use it then. Such poison reduces you to a desperate gringo.

I am not the least bit 'desperate', Dennis. And I clearly pointed out the 'poison'.

Check out Nagarjuna Bob.
The sanest Man who ever lived.

The most important Man was the guy who invented venetian blinds.
If it wasn't for him,
It would have been curtains for us all.

Bob,
those Bible Stories,
lead you up to the 'Wailing Wall',
and leave you there,
Wailing.

That's where you're at Bob.
Wailing about this and that.

You've got a great poetic sense and oratory skill.
You just have to stop talking shit and start making sense.
Get another Story.

Bobby doesn't want to confront the ghastly reality that he wasted his fearful little life serving Mammon (god concept) and then it spat him out the other end like a piece o' trash.

I almost feel a twinge of compassion for the schmuck, infected with the virus (as we all are collectively in danger of being obliterated by, lest we , (species) fight it)

True Christianity

True Christianity are those who believe in the almighty Jesus Christ, the son of God. Christianity doesn't say you must go to church, it says have fellowship in Jesus name, which simply means acknowledge Christ in your conversations with others.

True Christianity is righteous living through knowing The Ten Commandments! Your Holy Temple is not mentioned in The Ten Commandments, therefore, God gave you wine to drink but only to moderation not to drunkeness, and marijuana was given for man to think it up in his head to smoke, otherwise, man wouldn't have thought it up. God wants man to have pleasure, but, not be lustful of the flesh. God is not coming to Judge man but to save man!

True Christianity know their Lord and Heavenly Father intuitively, the light of God is within them, I am a premium example, for the light of our Heavenly Father resides in me.

True Christianity is knowing Jesus through their Father's WORD--The Bible.

True Christianity is living righteously through learning and living The Ten Commandments.

^^The Virus rears its ugly head

Bob Michael wrote:Historically, and to date, I find that nearly all enlightened men, who overcame the world to at least a considerable extent, sooner or later weakened and became cowardly, complacent, lacking the courage for the full truth of things (and especially regarding themselves), and self-satisfied, and thereby they were void of right action and direction.

So for an enlightened man, to be written down down on that list "of crippled and backslidden followers" would be the most fearsome judgement possible? I think this theatrical item could indicate that this actually might have happened to yourself: after some important self-realizations which have set you apart from the herd, you have become weakened, complacent, lacking courage to face truth more deeply and shattering. But instead of facing your own limits truthfully, you have conceived this grand story of justification with the intention of showing how your dear attachments "are integral to the spiritual path".

This forum can serve as a grinder for the ego just as it can serve as a booster or castle for it. How are you going to use it?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

jupiviv wrote:The value of anything depends on the individual who values it.

But especially depending on the availability to the individual.

Assuming this isn't a joke - that would imply the opposite of David's conjecture that scarcity equals greater value.

If I value chocolate bars, having 10000's of them around will decrease my valuing of one or a few of them

The value that you put on chocolate bars isn't affected by the quantity of them that you perceive around yourself. If it does get affected, then you probably don't value chocolate bars, but something else(satisfaction of hunger perhaps.) Also, the greater availability of chocolate bars doesn't mean the value of some other, rarer articles will go up.

It appears David values "making society a better place" as a goal. There's logic to that as well, considering one is never really isolated from the womb of society: the creature is one. Perfecting oneself can only mean perfecting the world as well.

David said that wisdom would become less valuable if it became more available in society, which is a contradictio in adjecto. The opposite is true - the more wisdom there would be, the more it would be valued in favour of other things. Of course, I am assuming that by "wisdom" here he means consciousness.