GENIUS FORUMS

Unidian wrote:

DQ: Enlightenment is not simply a matter of recognizing and accepting these basic truths. Rather, it is an experiential reality which can arise after one has implemented these truths to transform one's entire existence.

U: Then why do you call it "Rational Enlightenment," David? "Experiential realities" and "transformational experiences" have nothing to do with rational deduction.

Alas, my experience tells me otherwise.

I don't recall ever calling it "rational enlightenment". It isn't something I would normally do, because I know that it would create the misleading impression that enlightenment is nothing more than being in possession of a bunch of intellectual truths.

As I say, it is the giving of one's entire life over to these intellectual truths which generates the transformative process and opens the mind to the Infinite.

U: They then superimpose their own values on the whole thing and declare that "if you truly have the realization of enlightenment, you will behave and believe in such-and-such a manner. If you aren't behaving and believing that way, you don't have it." Fascinating, Mr. Spock. If pressed, they will appeal to their own authority and declare that only they can pronounce people enlightened or unenlightened, because they are enlightened themselves. I'll take self-referential circular logic for $1000, Alex. Oh goody, that's today's Daily Double!

DQ: It's no different to what you are trying to do here. You are judging my own behaviour negatively on the basis of your own understanding of truth.

U: Incorrect. I'm not judging your behavior negatively. I think you have every right to practice as you see fit; to have your own value system and to apply it in your own life. What you do not have a right to do, IMO, is present that value system as the only one consistent with an understanding of the ideas presented in traditions like Zen and Taoism - particular when Zen and Taoism themselves disagree with you.

In other words, you are judging my behaviour negatively on the basis of your own understanding of truth.

You can't be lacking this much insight into your own behaviour, surely.

Both Zen and Taoism are vigorously anti-intellectual in their approach to insight, and Taoism in particular extensively praises the feminine aspect of human consciousness. There is nothing in the Zen or Taoist traditions to suggest either "Rational Enlightenment" or anti-feminism. And yet, you preach both of these as if they were not only consistent with Zen and Taoism, but required by them.

This shouldn't be a surprise. As with any religion, the primary aim is to put out pleasing teachings and garner lots of followers. Zen and Taosim is no different in this regard. These traditions, for the most part, are very cowardly. They shy away from dealing with the uncomfortable, deeper aspects of the ego, and focus instead on the more pleasing superficial aspects. It is an easy way for gurus to have adoration and honour showered upon them.

There have been a few exceptions. For example, Hakuin consistently spoke against the "do nothing" form of Zen that you and Hades and most modern Buddhist/Taoists preach. He wrote, for example:

The Zen priests of today are busily imparting a teaching to their students that sounds something like this:

"Don't misdirect your efforts. Don't chase around looking for something apart from your own selves. All you have to do is to concentrate on being thoughtless, on doing nothing whatever. No practice. No realization. Doing nothing, the state of no-mind, is the direct path of sudden realization. No practice, no realization - that is the true principle, things as they really are. The enlightened ones themselves, those who possess every attribute of Buddhahood, have called this supreme, unparalleled, right awakening."

People hear this teaching and try to follow it. Choking off their aspirations. Sweeping their minds clean of delusive thoughts. They dedicate themselves solely to doing nothing and to making their minds complete blanks, blissfully unaware that they are doing and thinking a great deal.

When a person who has not had kensho reads the Buddhist scriptures, questions his teachers and fellow monks about Buddhism, or practices religious disciplines, he is merely creating the causes of his own illusion - a sure sign that he is still confined within samsara. He tries constantly to keep himself detached in thought and deed, and all the while his thoughts and deeds are attached. He endeavors to be doing nothing all day long, and all the while he is busily doing.

-

Taken from The Importance of Kensho

So there is a line of Zen Buddhism which completely disagrees with your conception of spirituality.

At root, you follow the populist, watered-down version of Zen/Taoism, the version favoured by Western hippies. And in doing so, you are ignoring the deeper, more concentrated, more stringent version which comprises the true teachings.

DQ: To go around the place mindlessly bantering these nonsensical responses in the belief that it is an expression of the highest wisdom is deluded to the extreme. The Zen Masters of old would be rolling around in the grave at such foolish behaviour.

U: I have no "belief" that it is "an expression of the highest wisdom" or in the concept of "the highest wisdom" itself. That's the whole point.

You are being dishonest. It is obvious you believe that your understanding of the Tao, such that it is, is authentic and reflects the highest wisdom. If you didn't believe this, you would have no reason to argue with me.

This goes back to what I was saying about how you compartmentalize your conception of the Tao so that it doesn't interfere with the other attachments in your life. The lack of insight into the dynamics of your own behaviour indicates the existence of some serious mental blocks.

DQ: At bottom, it's a case of conventional people with ordinary worldly attachments trying to dismantle the mechanism and power of reason in order that they might continue enjoying their worldly attachments in peace. That is the true purpose of mindless Zennish banter. It is an attempt to throw a spanner in the process of truthful thinking and bring it to halt.

U: O RLY? Since halting all thinking about the nature of Reality in order to make room for an intuitive, non-conceptual, experiential transformation is also the entire point of Zen, would you like to finally remove the Zen and Taoist references from your QRS materials?

It may be the point of the westernized, watered-down version of Zen, which hippies and women find so pleasing. But this has nothing to do with the superior Zen of Hakuin, Bodhidarma, Buddha, and others.

I don't mind if you keep the traditional Buddhist references, Jnani yoga, Advaita, or whatever, since all of these approaches do place some value on philosophical enterprise. But Zen and Taoism don't. Their whole purpose is to help people throw out and "unlearn" everything they have learned from teachers like QRS.

You don't unlearn things by trying not to think - all that does is push unresolved issues out of the mind, where they continue to fester. Rather, you unlearn things by using reason to dismantle all delusion. Only when all of the dismantling is complete can the experiential freedom of Infinite living take place.

Blocking out things by trying not to think is a fake form of spontaneity, a fake form of freedom. It is the fake freedom of unconsciousness. It is no different from taking drugs.

DQ: Actually, the complete opposite is the case. It is you who is constantly reintroducing "inherent existence" through the back door, via your attachment to women, pleasure, love, etc. These things can only be enjoyed if one has a belief that they are real and significant in some way, which is inconsistent with the knowledge and experience of emptiness.

U: I disagree. How does it follow that one must have "a belief that they [things] are real and significant in some way" to enjoy them? A small child has no such belief, and enjoys things quite naturally. A dog has no such belief, and yet it is thrilled to play Frisbee in the driveway.

They both believe in inherent existence unconsciously. Evolution has programmed it into them, as a survival aid.

A person who "gets" Zen and Taoism has no such belief, but they have a smile and a ready laugh, as both traditions stress repeatedly (particularly in the Chuang Tzu and some of the Zen anecdotes).

Smiling and laughing is hardly a reliable indicator of wisdom. Drunks and teenage girls smile and laugh a lot.

In my experience, it is only the desperately unhappy who place so much emphasis on smiling and laughing.

DQ: This is our real point of difference. I demand that people be consistent with the truth at all times, whereas for you truth is still a tradeable commodity. Because you are still strongly attached to all these others worldly pleasures, you are only willing to place value on truth to the degree that it doesn't interfere with them.

U: No. For me, "Truth" is nothing but a word.

That much is obvious.

I have no belief or faith in it.

I know.

Like Socrates, I know nothing.

Again, you're being dishonest. Your entire participation on this thread, and on this forum generally, has been driven by what you think you know about life.

I am not interested in "The Truth." I'm interested in the Tao.

In other words, you're only interested in a false Tao, one that is pleasing to the untruthful part of your mind.

-

Hades wrote:

DQ: Only Nature itself is unconditional - i.e. beyond all possibility of being conditioned by something else, and therefore beyond life and death.

Everything else within Nature is conditional, including enlightenment. For example, one of the conditions of enlightenment is the absence of ignorance.

H: You speak of basically, an academic enlightenment. When one gathers certain information(wisdom), and experiences, and rejects other information(delusions)...he will pass the test and get his enlightened-diploma. This isn't authentic, this is more ego, its kinda funny actually.
This will come and go.

You are doing precisely the same thing - namely, rejecting some information and accepting others, favouring some conceptions and dismissing others. We all do it as matter of course, even Buddhas.

So obviously, there is a little bit more to the issue than this.

Nature itself, is an idea, and so is the idea that there are things "within" nature. Things that aren't exactly "nature". So you already have various degrees of separation and distinction that are products of your imagination....

There is nothing within or beyond Enlightenment, because it is unconditional, complete, and always present.

Would you say that everyone is beyond ignorance and fully enlightened about the nature of Reality?

-

David Quinn wrote: You are doing precisely the same thing - namely, rejecting some information and accepting others, favouring some conceptions and dismissing others. We all do it as matter of course, even Buddhas.

I do this, but I do not label this sort of behaviour as the way to enlightenment. You do.

So there is a difference.

Would you say that everyone is beyond ignorance and fully enlightened about the nature of Reality?

-

I don't know.
There are too many concepts in your question that could mean different things.

Philosophaster wrote:"David Quinn and Kevin Solway have developed a new version of pantheism, which they term "mantheism."

I don’t think that is entirely true. Essentially, what Nat and David are pointing to is exactly the same, but the argument itself is about the fingers. But either way, that would not be beyond what already is - existence.

I am not saying one should not strive, but only that the answer that satisfies one the most, will quench that thirst.

Most probably, David as well as Nat may have quenched their thirst, but I’m sure that both must have necessarily strived frantically.

...except Hades, of course.

Sapius wrote:

Philosophaster wrote:"David Quinn and Kevin Solway have developed a new version of pantheism, which they term "mantheism."

I don’t think that is entirely true. Essentially, what Nat and David are pointing to is exactly the same, but the argument itself is about the fingers. But either way, that would not be beyond what already is - existence.

I am not saying one should not strive, but only that the answer that satisfies one the most, will quench that thirst.

Most probably, David as well as Nat may have quenched their thirst, but I’m sure that both must have necessarily strived frantically.

...except Hades, of course.

Lol "mantheism" =[




whats up sapius?

:]

hades wrote:

Sapius wrote:

Philosophaster wrote:"David Quinn and Kevin Solway have developed a new version of pantheism, which they term "mantheism."

I don’t think that is entirely true. Essentially, what Nat and David are pointing to is exactly the same, but the argument itself is about the fingers. But either way, that would not be beyond what already is - existence.

I am not saying one should not strive, but only that the answer that satisfies one the most, will quench that thirst.

Most probably, David as well as Nat may have quenched their thirst, but I’m sure that both must have necessarily strived frantically.

...except Hades, of course.

Lol "mantheism"



whats up sapius?

:]

Hahahaha..... :D That's all that is up... Hehehehh.... :D

I must say that this thread has been quite enlightening.

(Did you edit the icon at the end of your post? Well, happy discussion.)

Okay, a couple more replies won't kill me. First, to Hades:

You speak of basically, an academic enlightenment. When one gathers certain information(wisdom), and experiences, and rejects other information(delusions)...he will pass the test and get his enlightened-diploma. This isn't authentic, this is more ego, its kinda funny actually.

Yes, that's the way I see it also. It's "enlightenment by numbers" - solve the right problems and you pass the test. But that kind of thing, as you point out, is all about ego. Get enlightened and get your wallet-sized Genius ID card today!

Nature itself, is an idea, and so is the idea that there are things "within" nature. Things that aren't exactly "nature". So you already have various degrees of separation and distinction that are products of your imagination....

Right. That's the point of "katz," "buns," "dung-stick," and all of that, as you clearly realize. Those nonsense words point to the fact that where an understanding of Reality is concerned, all words are nonsense words. "Nature" is dung-stick. "Buddha" is buns. "Enlightenment" is three pounds of flax. Words are not what they signify, they are just words. The Diamond Sutra, which Trevor refers to somewhere above, makes this point extensively. So does the Tao Te Ching, in the opening lines of chapter one. So do the Zen masters of tradition.

The next reply will be to David's latest.

Unidian wrote:

Okay, a couple more replies won't kill me. First, to Hades:

Oh, stop your fucking whining, Jeez!

How condescending. The implication here is that I only parrot other people's words with no genuine understanding of my own, while heroic David has done the work of thinking it through for himself.

Completely wrong, but I don't think I'm going to convince anyone here of that.

Ironic, considering:

Just ask Thomas Knierim, Robert Larkin, or others who have studied these matters more thoroughly than David has, and who regard him as a laughing stock. Note that I don't regard David quite so dismissively, despite the best efforts of some of his loyal followers (namely Trevor, Nick, and Layla) to dismiss my own viewpoint at every opportunity.

Yes, Naturyl, we have crossed panties before. (Apparently, you have conveniently missed the times when I have challenged Quinn, Solway and Hindmarsh. They're just not cry-babies like you.) But, it’s inevitable when what you appreciate about females slips out unconsciously as their cooking ability, apparently to show your appreciation of and solidarity with the sex as a whole. And the ability back of this cooking skill you call “grounded”; a “connectedness” you think you lack as a male.

This was so unconscious, in fact, that you even tried the ol’, “Well, anybody who’s anybody knows what I mean!” number.

Take a bloody cooking class, for God’s sake. It really isn’t that hard, unless you're into french pastries--now there’s a challenge!--in which case, I’d be absolutely worthless to you. Tried it once (éclairs). Couldn’t get the choux pastry to rise, ya know….much more complicated workings than a dick.

Man, from where I stand, I reckon you're so connected you don't have to speak your mind or think---anyone who's anyone already gets it.

.

Note to self: "connected" people use a lot of quotation marks...

.

Leyla Shen wrote:Yes, Naturyl, we have crossed panties before. (Apparently, you have conveniently missed the times when I have challenged Quinn, Solway and Hindmarsh. They're just not cry-babies like you.) But, it’s inevitable when what you appreciate about females slips out unconsciously as their cooking ability, apparently to show your appreciation of and solidarity with the sex as a whole. And the ability back of this cooking skill you call “grounded”; a “connectedness” you think you lack as a male.

Honestly, for anyone who can get over their insecurities and understand the purpose of the useful gereralizations made about both sexes on this board, they might see how the proponents of this philosophy are in fact, true feminists. Afterall, when all is said in done the result ends up being absolute equality of the sexes. Isn't this the supposed goal of feminism?

The real problem most people have with this is that it takes the fun out of courting the opposite sex, or at least cause him to cook his own meals. I mean what man wants to court a female who thinks and acts like a man, aside from a gay one?

Leyla Shen wrote:This was so unconscious, in fact, that you even tried the ol’, “Well, anybody who’s anybody knows what I mean!” number.

If he sticks around we might be treated to even more of his subconscious revelations. I look forward to it.

Nat,

Okay, a couple more replies won't kill me.

Well, good, in that case, a query.

Right. That's the point of "katz," "buns," "dung-stick," and all of that, as you clearly realize. Those nonsense words point to the fact that where an understanding of Reality is concerned, all words are nonsense words. "Nature" is dung-stick. "Buddha" is buns. "Enlightenment" is three pounds of flax. Words are not what they signify, they are just words.

True, and it is perfectly clear as to what your words actually signify; don’t they?

Neither this staunch approach may actually help any one, nor do the extremities otherwise, as in taking words at face value. Since it is absolutely necessary that the significance be realized through words, so how insignificant are words after all? I do understand that the actual words are not what they signify, but aren’t words a reflection of what is being signified in the first place?

David,

I don't recall ever calling it "rational enlightenment". It isn't something I would normally do, because I know that it would create the misleading impression that enlightenment is nothing more than being in possession of a bunch of intellectual truths.

As I say, it is the giving of one's entire life over to these intellectual truths which generates the transformative process and opens the mind to the Infinite.

Okay, it was Dan who used the term "Rational Enlightenment" at Future Philosophy, so you're off the hook on this one.

But I think that while giving one's life over to "intellectual truths" may lead to "enlightenment" as it is concieved here, it doesn't have much to do with what Zen and Taoism are talking about. I see nothing in either of these traditions about "giving one's life over to intellectual truths," but I do see a great deal of advice to the opposite effect.

This shouldn't be a surprise. As with any religion, the primary aim is to put out pleasing teachings and garner lots of followers. Zen and Taosim is no different in this regard. These traditions, for the most part, are very cowardly.

Then why do you promote them and associate your own doctrines with them? If Zen and Taoism are good enough to lend you credibility on your self-inflating web pages, why are they suddenly worthless when it is pointed out that their approach is largely inconsistent with your own?

They shy away from dealing with the uncomfortable, deeper aspects of the ego, and focus instead on the more pleasing superficial aspects. It is an easy way for gurus to have adoration and honour showered upon them.

Ah, yes - but you don't have to worry about that, since you're the heroic, wild-west maverick sort of guru, perpetually misunderstood and courageously alone at the loftiest heights. You see yourself as authentic and alienated from the ignorant mob of numbskulls who shower other gurus with adoration and honor.

I dunno, though - it looks like Genius is starting to pick up quite a bit of steam in terms of people getting on board with your approach. What are you going to do with all this acceptance? Just yesterday, somebody here put Jesus, the Buddha, and you in the same sentence. How are you going to be heroically isolated from an uncomprehending world in light of that kind of "adoration and honor?"

Just curious. :)

There have been a few exceptions. For example, Hakuin consistently spoke against the "do nothing" form of Zen that you and Hades and most modern Buddhist/Taoists preach. He wrote, for example:

The Zen priests of today are busily imparting a teaching to their students that sounds something like this:

"Don't misdirect your efforts. Don't chase around looking for something apart from your own selves. All you have to do is to concentrate on being thoughtless, on doing nothing whatever. No practice. No realization. Doing nothing, the state of no-mind, is the direct path of sudden realization. No practice, no realization - that is the true principle, things as they really are. The enlightened ones themselves, those who possess every attribute of Buddhahood, have called this supreme, unparalleled, right awakening."

People hear this teaching and try to follow it. Choking off their aspirations. Sweeping their minds clean of delusive thoughts. They dedicate themselves solely to doing nothing and to making their minds complete blanks, blissfully unaware that they are doing and thinking a great deal.

When a person who has not had kensho reads the Buddhist scriptures, questions his teachers and fellow monks about Buddhism, or practices religious disciplines, he is merely creating the causes of his own illusion - a sure sign that he is still confined within samsara. He tries constantly to keep himself detached in thought and deed, and all the while his thoughts and deeds are attached. He endeavors to be doing nothing all day long, and all the while he is busily doing.

If you think that applies to me, your presumption of my ignorance is really getting you in trouble. Preaching "do nothing" as a path is an obvious error of a "Zen 101" nature. "Do nothing" clearly does not mean "do nothing as a means of doing something" (attaining enlightenment).

Instead, I suggest that the whole notion of "path" and "goal" must be thrown out wholesale. There is no way to get to what we already are. Even the realization that we are what we are is not an attainment, because it doesn't take us anyplace we weren't already at. One should not stop trying to get enlightened in order to get enlightened, but rather to throw out the whole concept of "enlightenment" once and for all. No thought, idea, belief, or position is anything more than a concept. Zen master Seung Sahn puts it this way:

In this world, becoming tight is just tight, becoming loose is just loose. If we read the Heart Sutra, we finally come to Anuttara Samyak Sambodhi, unexcelled supreme enlightenment. This is the area where tightening is just tightening, loosening is just loosening. First I talked about opposites world. Here everything is very distinct—becoming tight, becoming loose—very clear. Then I talked about nirvana world: no tight, no loose. Then I talked about truth world: tight is tight, loose is loose. Of these three worlds, which one is the real world? Form is emptiness, emptiness is form; is that world the correct world? No form, no emptiness—nirvana world; is that the correct world? Form is form, emptiness is emptiness; is that the correct world? If somebody says that they found the correct world, this stick will hit them thirty times. If they cannot find the correct world, this stick will also hit them thirty times. Why is that?

KATZ!

So there is a line of Zen Buddhism which completely disagrees with your conception of spirituality.

At root, you follow the populist, watered-down version of Zen/Taoism, the version favoured by Western hippies. And in doing so, you are ignoring the deeper, more concentrated, more stringent version which comprises the true teachings.

I disagree. I think you are ignoring the true teachings as given by nearly every legitimate Taoist and Zen master throught history in order to borrow the credibility of these traditions for the sake of your own intellectualized distortion of spirtuality. You are trying to launch your own doctines by piggybacking them on these venerable foundations, but people like myself, Hades, Sapius, Robert Larkin, and Thomas Knierim are crying foul.

You are being dishonest. It is obvious you believe that your understanding of the Tao, such that it is, is authentic and reflects the highest wisdom. If you didn't believe this, you would have no reason to argue with me.

I'm not concerned about "the highest wisdom" and neither is Taoism. Lao-Tzu and Chuang-Tzu admonish us to forget such things - for example in the Tao Te Ching, chapter 19:

Give up perfection, renounce wisdom,
And it will be a hundred times better for everyone.

What I am concerned with, and which is the reason I am arguing with you, is the authenticity of the teaching presented as being consistent with Taoism and Zen here at Genius Forum. For the most part, Genius teachings are not in fact consistent with Taoism and Zen, as I have attempted to show. I am concerned that you are playing a bait-and-switch game with your audience - you promise authentic Eastern philosophy and deliver something rather different.

This goes back to what I was saying about how you compartmentalize your conception of the Tao so that it doesn't interfere with the other attachments in your life. The lack of insight into the dynamics of your own behaviour indicates the existence of some serious mental blocks.

Yes, I understand that it is important for you to keep insisting that this is the case. If I am criticizing your approach, there must be something wrong with me. The more deeply and/or effectively I criticize you, the more serious my "mental blocks" must be. This is a textbook "guru" response - criticism of the guru figure indicates a defective and/or malevolent psychology on the part of the critic. This defense mechanism is painfully transparent to any critical thinker, but follower-types eat it up.

Nat: O RLY? Since halting all thinking about the nature of Reality in order to make room for an intuitive, non-conceptual, experiential transformation is also the entire point of Zen, would you like to finally remove the Zen and Taoist references from your QRS materials?

DQ: It may be the point of the westernized, watered-down version of Zen, which hippies and women find so pleasing. But this has nothing to do with the superior Zen of Hakuin, Bodhidarma, Buddha, and others.

Ah. The "No True Scotsman" fallacy in all its glory. Because I have been critical of your approach, it follows that my Zen is false, distorted Zen, while yours is the true and superior variety. Superior Zen is defined as Zen with which David Quinn agrees.

But what will David's response to this be? I predict he will try his well-worn "table-turning" manuever by insisting that I am implicitly proclaming my own Zen superior to his by taking the liberty of criticizing it. But if the reader has been paying attention, they will realize that I couldn't be doing that, since I deny that David has any Zen at all. His Zen isn't superior or inferior, it's simply non-existent.

What is taught at Genius Forum may or may not be of value to various individuals, but it has little or nothing to do with Zen and Taoism. That is my thesis.

Also, it's important to note that I am speaking of "my Zen" only for purposes of argument, to establish certain points. In reality, the words "Zen" and "Tao" are just more "buns" and "toilet brush" - just words. My real concern here is honesty and authenticity - whether or not the terms Zen and Taoism and their meanings are important to any particular individual, what is not Zen and Taoism should not be represented as if it were.

You don't unlearn things by trying not to think - all that does is push unresolved issues out of the mind, where they continue to fester.

There you go again. "Trying not to think?" Perhaps utter neophytes to Eastern ideas do things like that. Experienced persons should all understand that to "try not to think" is about as counterproductive as anything could be. It's not that you don't think about "Ultimate Reality" because you are intentionally trying not to. Rather, you don't think about it because you have unlearned the question. The question "What is Reality" does not arise because you understand that thought has no way of answering it.

If no issues arise, nothing "festers."

Rather, you unlearn things by using reason to dismantle all delusion. Only when all of the dismantling is complete can the experiential freedom of Infinite living take place.

But you make a big heroic hairy deal of this when in fact there is virtually nothing to it. We only need to realize that mental concepts are simply that, concepts, and they therefore exist only on the mind. Me, you, and the fencepost as individual entities are concepts - distinctions drawn in the mind for various pragmatic purposes. Therefore, we have only mind-dependent, conditioned existence. What exists of itself, the unconditioned, cannot be conceptualized and therefore cannot be apprehended by thought and language. Dismantle the delusion that things have inherent existence and you dismantle all delusions in one swipe. Unlearn the mind's grasping and clinging to concepts and you unlearn everything - including "enlightenment."

This can be taught to any attentive person of average or better intelligence in a matter of minutes. But that wouldn't make for a very heroic saga of doggedly striving against all odds to reach lofty, windswept pinnacles of Perfect Wisdom and other such psychologically-comforting conceptual trinkets, would it?

Blocking out things by trying not to think is a fake form of spontaneity, a fake form of freedom. It is the fake freedom of unconsciousness. It is no different from taking drugs.

Of course. That you would think I would advocate or endorse such a silly, sophomoric approach is disappointing. Will you continue to insist on imagining such things?

Nat: I disagree. How does it follow that one must have "a belief that they [things] are real and significant in some way" to enjoy them? A small child has no such belief, and enjoys things quite naturally. A dog has no such belief, and yet it is thrilled to play Frisbee in the driveway.

DQ: They both believe in inherent existence unconsciously. Evolution has programmed it into them, as a survival aid.

I disagree. They may behave as if they had such a belief, but it is not possible to hold a belief "unconsciously." Beliefs, by definition, are consciously considered positions. Evolution may have programmed organisms to behave as if they existed inherently, but this does not mean they have a belief to that effect prior to developing the capacity to form beliefs. Infants and animals lack belief in inherent existence for the same reason they can be accurately described as atheists. The capacity to form beliefs does not exist.

Furthermore, if we consider the fact that an illusionary entity within an illusionary world is empirically incapable of distinguishing his surroundings from those which would be experienced by a real entity within a real world, it is difficult to see how creatures functioning only in an unconscious stimulus-response manner on the basis of sensory data would or could be concerned with inherent existence at all. Evolution did not program animals with a sense of inherent existence so much as it programmed them for survival within their environment - real or illusionary.

Smiling and laughing is hardly a reliable indicator of wisdom. Drunks and teenage girls smile and laugh a lot.

The idea of a habitually stone-faced, grave Taoist or Zen master is inconsistent with the message of these traditions, for reasons that should be obvious. To take a transient, conditioned world too seriously is to miss the point in a big way. The Taoist laughs because there's no reason not to.

In my experience, it is only the desperately unhappy who place so much emphasis on smiling and laughing.

Oh? In my experience, the opposite is the case. Quixotic, struggling philosophers wrestling strenously with Nietzsche's abyss are some of the least happy people out there, and they have little time or use for smiling and laughing. I know, because until recently, I was one of them.

Then I "got it." Enlightenment, you ask? Nah. Nothing. I got nothing. And it's better than anything else. Am I suggesting that I have found "salvation," "liberation," or any of the like? No way. Those are just more words, more concepts, and more traps. The question no longer arises. That's all. I'm free of nothing but the thought that I can think my way to freedom.

I didn't gain or attain anything, I unlearned the whole problem.

Nat: Like Socrates, I know nothing.

DQ: Again, you're being dishonest. Your entire participation on this thread, and on this forum generally, has been driven by what you think you know about life.

I'm not being dishonest, I'm being human. That's the irony of it all, and it's really quite funny. None of us know anything, yet in order to communicate at all, we must behave as if we do. However, the fact that we must behave as if we know things does not entail that we must believe that we do. It is possible to behave without belief, as infants and animals prove. It is also possible for adults to do so in an adult manner. Behavior without interference from the mind is what Taoism is all about, as the central concept of wu-wei (actionless action) demonstrates.

Nat: I am not interested in "The Truth." I'm interested in the Tao.

DQ: In other words, you're only interested in a false Tao, one that is pleasing to the untruthful part of your mind.

On the contrary. I'm interested in the one described in the first two lines of chapter one in the Tao Te Ching:

The Dao that can be told is not the essential Dao.
The name that can be named is not the essential name.

I'm not interested in the Tao that is a name - whether that name is "Nature," "Enlightenment," "God," "Reason," "Truth," "Buns," "Purple People Eater," or whatever else. I'm interested in the Tao that is Tao - not the word "Tao" but the unconditioned experience which words can only point to.

Once one follows the pointer to what is being pointed at, the pointer has no further use and is forgotten.

Sapius,

True, and it is perfectly clear as to what your words actually signify; don’t they?

Neither this staunch approach may actually help any one, nor do the extremities otherwise, as in taking words at face value. Since it is absolutely necessary that the significance be realized through words, so how insignificant are words after all? I do understand that the actual words are not what they signify, but aren’t words a reflection of what is being signified in the first place?

The Taoists have a saying about this. I will paraphrase it as "words are folly, but necessary folly."

At bottom, we have nothing else to work with if we want to communicate. If we don't want to communicate, there's no problem. Likewise, if we communicate without concern for the results (without a goal of "teaching" anyone), there is also no problem. Either option is consistent with the Taoist approach.

Unidian wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: Yeah, I get it that he is just saying his view, which he believes because it is supported by old texts and lots of people, whereas David said what he said because that was the extent of his own thinking it through.

How condescending. The implication here is that I only parrot other people's words with no genuine understanding of my own, while heroic David has done the work of thinking it through for himself.

Completely wrong, but I don't think I'm going to convince anyone here of that.

If you highlighted how you understood Reality to work rather than just citing "what everybody else says" or pointing to Robert and Thomas instead of the Truth, then you'd have a shot at convincing people that you personally had an understanding, rather than just a conviction that the majority must be right.

If you understand It well enough and can explain It well enough, you might also change some minds here about what It actually is. The people here point at the moon. You're pointing at the rocket-ship.
.

I'm not interested in convincing anyone here that I "have an understanding." There are any number of reasons various individuals might conclude that I do or do not have one, very few of which would have much to do with whether or not I actually do. In fact, this place is practically a museum of bizarre psychology. That, rather than anything having to do with philosophy, is the primary motivation for much of what is said and done here, and it's plain to most casual observers. That is why Genius Forum is considered a laughing stock.

If you understand It well enough and can explain It well enough, you might also change some minds here about what It actually is. The people here point at the moon. You're pointing at the rocket-ship.

Minds are rarely changed by anything as impotent as reason. A better way to change minds is to undermine the psychological motivations people have for holding an opposing belief. But I'm not here to do that. I'm just here to talk. If you want to insist that I have no understanding, go for it.

I hope that this hasn't come off as too harsh. Please note that I'm no longer even responding to the people who are calling me "a woman" and such. Such pathological outbursts cannot be taken seriously and do not merit a response, whereas your comments did contain substantive argument.

Unidian wrote:Minds are rarely changed by anything as impotent as reason. A better way to change minds is to undermine the psychological motivations people have for holding an opposing belief. But I'm not here to do that. I'm just here to talk. If you want to insist that I have no understanding, go for it.

I'm not insisting that you don't have an understanding - if you read this post I wrote about you, you understand that. What I am trying to do is explain what many people here, including myself, understand - and trying to get you to explain your concepts in a way that I could understand. I'll agree that minds are rarely changed by reason, but my mind appearantly is one of those rare cases.

If there is something I don't understand, the only way I'll understand it is if someone explains it to me in a logical and rational fashion. Background and supporting material can be helpful, but exactly where it came from is not so relevant to me as whether or not it makes sense to me. I take whatever concepts - whether they come from Christianity, QRS, you - anywhere - and chew them myself. Whether I spit or swallow the concept depends on how the chewing goes.

I do want to understand. BTW, I did not understand until this thread what the significance of "sticky buns" as a response was. I did not have enough background to know that it was zennish, and for the months I heard that over at FP, rather than prompting me to understand the nature or Reality, it prompted me to desire confectionaries. The combination of frequent repeating of "sticky buns" and "poo" - coincidentally I now see with the general decision of members there to become retired philosophers and give up thinking - caused me to think they were just silly comments born out of a desire not to think. I don't have the 10 years of background in philosophy that you do. I have always naturally thought, and took some philosophy classes around 15 years ago, but it was only in September that I started directionally looking at philosophy. Don't let that I'm intelligent and a natural thinker fool you - as far as the formalized concepts go, I'm still at the intro to philosophy level (but that doesn't make me an idiot either).

You can think Nat, I recognize that. It just seems sometimes that you don't want to, or you're still retired or something.
.

Nat.

The Taoists have a saying about this. I will paraphrase it as "words are folly, but necessary folly."

I understand, and essentially I agree.

At bottom, we have nothing else to work with if we want to communicate. If we don't want to communicate, there's no problem. Likewise, if we communicate without concern for the results (without a goal of "teaching" anyone), there is also no problem. Either option is consistent with the Taoist approach.

In a way, I find the former quote inconsistent. Not to the Taoist approach as such, because I don’t know much about it, but from within.

I don’t think words are meant only for communication, because most of the real thinking that leads to proper understanding is done as self-reflection within the head, so to speak, and that requires words. In fact, it is not actually the words, but the meanings they signify, and the same might be said about communications. What do we really convey communicatively; the words, or their meanings?

As for the latter half, one can never really know with what intentions does another communicate. Any real intentions do not necessarily reflect in his immediate words, so I could only speculate, or take his word for it. I can never really know anything other than “I”.

Mind you, I’m not against Zen or Taoist or any approach, nor do I concern myself with WHO said what, but I rather focus on WHAT is said, (as in WHAT they signify), without loosing the over all context.

BTW, why are you not worried that someone might learn something from you any ways, although it is not your intent to teach?

Unidian wrote:Then I "got it." Enlightenment, you ask? Nah. Nothing. I got nothing. And it's better than anything else. Am I suggesting that I have found "salvation," "liberation," or any of the like? No way. Those are just more words, more concepts, and more traps. The question no longer arises. That's all. I'm free of nothing but the thought that I can think my way to freedom.

I didn't gain or attain anything, I unlearned the whole problem..

This is similar to my position, the original problem of delusion and freedom by enlightenment is simply more imagination...I would say that it has lost its impact because I don't identify with any thinking process and so there is no problem, no idea to attain, etc..


Hey Unidian, what other "wisdom" related forums do you post on?

My visits to Genius-forum are usually short and spontaneous for obvious reasons....

Hey Unidian, what other "wisdom" related forums do you post on?

None, really. But I do post at Future Philosophy, which is pretty much what the name says (and where we have an Eastern philosophy area), and Steel Woods, which is a fun place for friendly dialogue.

prince

You visit a Golf forum, and try to convince every poster there that they don't know how to play golf, because you don't understand the rules.

More along the lines of: You visit a golf forum, and try to convince every poster there that they don't know how to play golf, because the rules they are giving apply to baseball.

Leyla

I just love it when women with penises come onto this forum and claim to be defending men with cunts!

Been into self-loathing long, or is this a recent development brought on by the desire to be accepted by men who find your gender contemptible?

Nick

I'm absolutely sure you are using terms like "Katz", "toilet brush", and "sticky buns" in an effort to be "Zennish". It's the perfect defense mechanism for you.

Much the same as the words Truth, Ultimate Reality, God and The Absolute are used by QRS in an effort to appear enlightened? Is it a perfect defense mechanism for them as well? Maybe if Unidian had said Katz, Toilet Brush and Sticky Buns, the concept wouldn't have flown over your head.

DQ

It is also unlikely that he would behave maliciously to others, as he would be fully aware that people are caused to be the way they are and that they are fundamentally blameless. God is the doer of all things, so to hate a person for what they do is to hate God himself.

Blame God. Whoa Nelly, what a concept.

DQ

If I do express any empathy outwards, it usually confined to those who genuinely strive and struggle to lead a truthful life.

By withholding your empathy to those who you do not believe genuinely strive and struggle to lead a truthful life, are you not holding these people responsible for this choice and not fundamentally blameless? Why the discrimination?

DQ In my experience, it is only the desperately unhappy who place so much emphasis on smiling and laughing. One would think it wise if you experienced a different circle of people before making such a bold statement. It is my experience that the oposite is true. So what does that make of your remark, other than the fact that your experience is limited?

[And now a short break to enrich our minds with the thoughts of an woMAN]

Leyla

Oh, stop your fucking whining, Jeez!

Couldn’t get the choux pastry to rise, ya know….much more complicated workings than a dick.

Why do I suspect that (in your case), getting choux pastry to rise is the less complicated of the two?

[Now, back to the knee-jerk attacks]

Elizabeth

If there is something I don't understand, the only way I'll understand it is if someone explains it to me in a logical and rational fashion. Background and supporting material can be helpful, but exactly where it came from is not so relevant to me as whether or not it makes sense to me. I take whatever concepts - whether they come from Christianity, QRS, you - anywhere - and chew them myself. Whether I spit or swallow the concept depends on how the chewing goes.

So, essentially, you don't do much independent thinking on subjects that are over your head, you aren't too concerned with where the information comes from as long as it makes sense to you, and you only accept the information as valid if it suits your taste? Is that a close summation?

hades:

me: what is enlightenment?

hades: The same as who you are.

Why would I need to debase a valuable word to say that I'm the same as myself?

I'm sure I can use the word "identity" for what you are describing, and save the word "enlightenment" for something that is different than the ordinary unenlightened mindset that the average unthinking herd member finds adequate to their purposes (getting a job and getting laid).

There is nothing within or beyond Enlightenment, because it is unconditional, complete, and always present.

Using your definition of enlightenment, this translates to:
"There is nothing within or beyond [who you are], because [such] is unconditional, complete, and always present."

Is that what you meant to say?

Pyro, are you certain you want your second post in this forum to be a bunch of short uninspired knee-jerk attacks against 4 separate posters? It makes you look more emotional than Unidian (who, by a process of elimination, I've established you have already taken sides with), and doesn't exactly benefit his cause.

Pyro, are you certain you want your second post in this forum to be a bunch of short uninspired knee-jerk attacks against 4 separate posters? It makes you look more emotional than Unidian (who, by a process of elimination, I've established you have already taken sides with), and doesn't exactly benefit his cause.

I can handle it, if you can. And I, unlike the I-wish-I-had-a-dick-not-a-vagina women and the I-have-a-dick-so-I-am-enlightened men that post here, I don't find emotion something to be dismissed as harmful and reasonless.

Oh, and I didn't get to finish the second post, so I am going back to edit and add more knee-jerk attacks. :)

pyro,

I can handle it, if you can.

It's not a question of whether I can handle it, since I doubt there is anything you can throw at me that would disturb me, but whether I'll take it seriously. It was entirely for you benefit that I suggested you don't attack so many posters so quickly in such an early post -- it makes you look thoughtless, which is hardly how you want to appear on a forum for geniuses.

I was also implicitly suggesting you don't take sides, since they are not as clearly demarcated as you might think. Some Genius forum members make errors as critical as Nat, and Nat occasionally speaks accurately. Even if you have no interest in truth, it would be nonsense to stick it to everyone but him.

I don't find emotion something to be dismissed as harmful and reasonless.

An emotional response can't be reasoned with, which is a pity since such responses are usually inaccurate. That sounds like the definition of "harmful and reasonless".

Lol pyroslyph, you're funny.

Trevor wrote:Why would I need to debase a valuable word to say that I'm the same as myself?

No need to. Just works well if you know what it means.

I'm sure I can use the word "identity" for what you are describing, and save the word "enlightenment" for something that is different than the ordinary unenlightened mindset that the average unthinking herd member finds adequate to their purposes (getting a job and getting laid).

Enlightenment has nothing to do with thoughts, thinking or the mindsets of smart people or even stupid people.