GENIUS FORUMS

jup wrote: It's rock-like in that it is not much nearer enlightenment than a rock.

Nice answer. Now you're the one who sounds stoned.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

jup wrote: It's rock-like in that it is not much nearer enlightenment than a rock.

Nice answer. Now you're the one who sounds stoned.

I'll elaborate - enlightenment is not about thinking in more "abstract" ways, imagining what people may do in the future, seeing things as formless gaseous masses, or anything like that. Enlightenment is not any state of mind that you can think of as separate from your own mind at this present moment.

The difference between the enlightened and deluded(but conscious) mind is quantitative and not qualitative - one of the degree of consciousness only. So the more you use your mind, i.e, the more you apply logic to every single aspect of your life, the closer to enlightenment you will be. You can think of things whichever way you want, as long as you're being logical. The point is not to imagine how things are in different ways. The point is to simply know that things are the way they are.

If you think that a particular way of looking at things is the one which will get you to enlightenment, you're as far removed from it as a rock, and have equally as much potential for reaching it.

jupiviv wrote:The difference between the enlightened and deluded(but conscious) mind is quantitative and not qualitative

Wrong. Enlightenment is entirely qualitative in nature.

Ie: you possess a low quality mind, and haven't been caused to enlightened.

Sorry chump, them's the breaks ya!

prince wrote:

jupiviv wrote:The difference between the enlightened and deluded(but conscious) mind is quantitative and not qualitative

Wrong. Enlightenment is entirely qualitative in nature.

Low quality minds are bound to believe that, because they'd like to think of themselves as special and a world apart from other people. Reality is different. There is no qualitative element in enlightenment or genius when you are comparing two conscious beings.

jupiviv wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:

jup wrote: It's rock-like in that it is not much nearer enlightenment than a rock.

Nice answer. Now you're the one who sounds stoned.

I'll elaborate - enlightenment is not about thinking in more "abstract" ways, imagining what people may do in the future, seeing things as formless gaseous masses, or anything like that.

It involves an understanding of the subjectivity of appearances, that things gain their attributes through limited perspectives, and from other perspectives become entirely different things. Samsara is slavery to the visceral, an attachment to mundane perspectives. Abstract thinkers see things as they are, entirely subjective, created by the mind, and ultimately empty of objective reality and essence.

Enlightenment is not any state of mind that you can think of as separate from your own mind at this present moment.

If I, in the present moment, am distraught by an appearance, then I am not in an enlightened state of mind. If I can see through an appearance, seeing that it's existence is entirely subjective and empty of inherent existence, then I am in Nirvana, or going in that direction.

The difference between the enlightened and deluded(but conscious) mind is quantitative and not qualitative - one of the degree of consciousness only.

I don't separate the two opposites like that. With increased quantity there is a new quality, and with a new quality a change in quantity. They cause each other.

So the more you use your mind, i.e, the more you apply logic to every single aspect of your life, the closer to enlightenment you will be.

Part of using your mind, or applying logic, is seeing the subjectivity and boundlessness of things, and by that means, understanding their emptiness.

You can think of things whichever way you want, as long as you're being logical. The point is not to imagine how things are in different ways. The point is to simply know that things are the way they are.

The point is not entirely to imagine things how they are in different ways, but that is an important part of consciousness. The crux of the issue is to realize the formless and infinite nature of things, but I find a good way to get me in that mind state is to first see how things change depending on your perspective, e.g, to see humanity as bacteria having a feeding frenzy, a woman as a bag of blood, organs and worries, or a highway as a 15 amp cable with each person like electrons powering a city that is a processor. Abstracting away from the mundane into a more poetic vision, to me is part of mysticism, and while I realize mystic experience is not Nirvana, they help me to easily realize emptiness. Basically, a particular perspective of a thing is not how a thing actually is beyond the mere appearance, that perception is subjective and hence not Truth. This is important.

If you think that a particular way of looking at things is the one which will get you to enlightenment, you're as far removed from it as a rock, and have equally as much potential for reaching it.

I made it quite clear that none of my abstract perspectives were actually truth, I was not attaching myself to any particular way of looking at things, but sharing my insight into the subjective nature of things, and stressing that the ultimate was to realize the empty nature of things. You did mention you were lazy in another thread, and I have no doubt about that, you don't seem to have the energy to listen, which is a lot harder than to talk.

Cory Duchesne wrote:It(enlightenment) involves an understanding of the subjectivity of appearances, that things gain their attributes through limited perspectives, and from other perspectives become entirely different things. Samsara is slavery to the visceral, an attachment to mundane perspectives. Abstract thinkers see things as they are, entirely subjective, created by the mind, and ultimately empty of objective reality and essence.

Saying that things are empty of objective reality is an objective statement about things.

jupiviv wrote:Enlightenment is not any state of mind that you can think of as separate from your own mind at this present moment.

If I, in the present moment, am distraught by an appearance, then I am not in an enlightened state of mind.

Yes, but you can't be distraught by an appearance and know that you are distraught by that appearance at the same time. In the same way, you can't know what enlightenment is and not be enlightened, because the enlightenment is of your own mind.

jupiviv wrote:The difference between the enlightened and deluded(but conscious) mind is quantitative and not qualitative - one of the degree of consciousness only.

With increased quantity there is a new quality, and with a new quality a change in quantity. They cause each other.

I was using the terms in the scientific sense - i.e, different degrees of the same thing vs. different things - and not to mean the value put on the degree to which something exists.

Part of using your mind, or applying logic, is seeing the subjectivity and boundlessness of things, and by that means, understanding their emptiness.

It may be part of using your mind, but not necessarily so. You may easily look at the objectivity and boundedness of things(and yourself.) Your mind does not have to look at things like that to become enlightened, but you have to be enlightened to validly look at things like that.

Ultimately, it depends on what you mean by things like subjectivity, objectivity, boundlessness, boundaries, emptiness, etc. To the enlightened person they're all the same thing, or different things, depending on the situation.

EDIT: I'm reminded of a brilliant piece of philosophical writing from "Poison from the heart":

Kevin Solway wrote:Progressive pitfalls

One: Complete attachment to name and form.
1+2=3

Two: The belief that things do not exist.
0=1 1=0

Three: The belief that something exists, but there are no defined boundaries.
1x0=0 100x0=0

Four: The belief that boundaries do exist, but that these are completely arbitrary and up to the individual.
1+2=3000 100x1000=4

Beyond all these: Complete non-attachment
1=1 0=0 3x3=9

jupiviv wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:It(enlightenment) involves an understanding of the subjectivity of appearances, that things gain their attributes through limited perspectives, and from other perspectives become entirely different things. Samsara is slavery to the visceral, an attachment to mundane perspectives. Abstract thinkers see things as they are, entirely subjective, created by the mind, and ultimately empty of objective reality and essence.

Saying that things are empty of objective reality is an objective statement about things.

Objective truths are about the logical underpinnings governing subjectivity. In other words, the view we take of the sensory world is personal and hence subjective, however there are objective truths that apply to all views, no matter how unique and personal. (e.g., that the unique, subjective manifestation a person sees is caused, is an objective truth, as it applies to all things).

jupiviv wrote:Enlightenment is not any state of mind that you can think of as separate from your own mind at this present moment.

If I, in the present moment, am distraught by an appearance, then I am not in an enlightened state of mind.

Yes, but you can't be distraught by an appearance and know that you are distraught by that appearance at the same time.

Really, how so? A person who goes and sees a therapist about their PTSD is conscious (not fully conscious, of course) of things they are distraught by.

In the same way, you can't know what enlightenment is and not be enlightened, because the enlightenment is of your own mind.

In the same way? No, I'm sorry, you aren't making much sense. Being introspective about the appearances that frighten or anger you is not unusual nor is it contradictory. But I agree that you can't be enlightened and not enlightened at the same time, but you can realize enlightenment but slip out of it back into delusion. Nirvana generally cannot be sustained at all times.

Part of using your mind, or applying logic, is seeing the subjectivity and boundlessness of things, and by that means, understanding their emptiness.

It may be part of using your mind, but not necessarily so. You may easily look at the objectivity and boundedness of things(and yourself.) Your mind does not have to look at things like that to become enlightened, but you have to be enlightened to validly look at things like that.

Your mind has to realize the subjectivity of appearances to be enlightened, that's part of it.

jupiviv wrote: There is no qualitative element in enlightenment or genius when you are comparing two conscious beings.

Oh "believe" me, there is. To be caused to enlightenment is an immense privilege, one which you will never know. Just suck it up though, sorry life isn't fair, but you are not alone, there are six billion other bags of nerves and neurons floating around on the earth who don't get it either.

Quantity is a useless concept to an enlightened mind, since it is understood that all is boundless, therefore beyond measurement (and time).

Cory Duchesne wrote:Objective truths are about the logical underpinnings governing subjectivity. In other words, the view we take of the sensory world is personal and hence subjective, however there are objective truths that apply to all views, no matter how unique and personal. (e.g., that the unique, subjective manifestation a person sees is caused, is an objective truth, as it applies to all things).

Why do you people keep on chewing cud like this? A thing in a particular place in my room, at a particular time, is as objective a truth as anything else. Subjectivity and objectivity are determined on their being or not being another point of view. But A=A is the same for all points of view.

A person who goes and sees a therapist about their PTSD is conscious (not fully conscious, of course) of things they are distraught by.

They are conscious that they have a PTSD syndrome if they consciously go to see a therapist because they think they have it. It's irrelevant here whether or not they are conscious of how to get rid of the PTSD.

Being introspective about the appearances that frighten or anger you is not unusual nor is it contradictory.

You can't be introspective about the emotions relating to those appearances and have those emotions at the same time.

you can realize enlightenment but slip out of it back into delusion.

Yes, but in the moment that you know what enlightenment is, you also have to be enlightened yourself. If you fall into delusion the next moment, you will no longer clearly know what enlightenment is. It's all a matter of the degree of consciousness you possess at any moment.

Your mind has to realize the subjectivity of appearances to be enlightened, that's part of it.

No, your mind has to be enlightened to realise the subjectivity of appearances. Otherwise it's just words.

jupiviv wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:Objective truths are about the logical underpinnings governing subjectivity. In other words, the view we take of the sensory world is personal and hence subjective, however there are objective truths that apply to all views, no matter how unique and personal. (e.g., that the unique, subjective manifestation a person sees is caused, is an objective truth, as it applies to all things).

Why do you people keep on chewing cud like this? A thing in a particular place in my room, at a particular time, is as objective a truth as anything else.

The fact that it appears is an absolute truth, but most people assume that because something appears and can be confirmed to appear reliably at different angles and times means that the thing exists independently apart from the mind. This is wrong, a thing appears as it does because the mind is filtering out reality and carving reality to largely reflect the capacity of ones mind, rather than reflect the actuality of what one is perceiving.

"Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly." John 7: 24

Subjectivity and objectivity are determined on their being or not being another point of view. But A=A is the same for all points of view.

A=A is an objective Truth, hence it's true from all points of view. On the other hand, to say a car is big, India is in the east, water is cold, or a marble is smooth - none of these statements are invariably true from all perspectives, they are subjective. This is not to deny that all subjective statements/views are generated by logical, absolute principles (A=A, causation, emptiness, etc).

A person who goes and sees a therapist about their PTSD is conscious (not fully conscious, of course) of things they are distraught by.

They are conscious that they have a PTSD syndrome if they consciously go to see a therapist because they think they have it. It's irrelevant here whether or not they are conscious of how to get rid of the PTSD.

The issue of being conscious of "how to get rid of their PTSD" is actually entirely irrelevant to what we were discussing. You made the erroneous statement that it's impossible to be conscious of a thing you are distraught by, and I was showing you why your statement was wrong. People with PTSD are generally very clear about what it is they are afraid of.

Being introspective about the appearances that frighten or anger you is not unusual nor is it contradictory.

You can't be introspective about the emotions relating to those appearances and have those emotions at the same time.

That's not my experience of emotions at all. If I feel hate, I can place awareness on both the emotion of hate and the appearance that, in part, causes that hate, without the emotion entirely dissipating. For me, the way to diffuse any emotion is to change the view I take of the appearance causing the emotion.

you can realize enlightenment but slip out of it back into delusion.

Yes, but in the moment that you know what enlightenment is, you also have to be enlightened yourself. If you fall into delusion the next moment, you will no longer clearly know what enlightenment is. It's all a matter of the degree of consciousness you possess at any moment.

Ok, I agree with that.

Your mind has to realize the subjectivity of appearances to be enlightened, that's part of it.

No, your mind has to be enlightened to realise the subjectivity of appearances. Otherwise it's just words.

I would say, especially in this instance above, it's you who is playing superficial word games, and this has been your tendency in the past as well.

Cory Duchesne wrote:The fact that it appears is an absolute truth, but most people assume that because something appears and can be confirmed to appear reliably at different angles and times means that the thing exists independently apart from the mind. This is wrong, a thing appears as it does because the mind is filtering out reality and carving reality to largely reflect the capacity of ones mind, rather than reflect the actuality of what one is perceiving.

This is one of those truths which may be perceived in different ways, and I think the way you are perceiving it is wrong.

Saying that the mind is a necessary cause of things is another way of saying that a mind must necessarily be conscious of everything else except else. It doesn't mean that the mind literally creates the things it sees, because then there would be only the mind.

A=A is an objective Truth, hence it's true from all points of view. On the other hand, to say a car is big, India is in the east, water is cold, or a marble is smooth - none of these statements are invariably true from all perspectives, they are subjective. This is not to deny that all subjective statements/views are generated by logical, absolute principles (A=A, causation, emptiness, etc).

A=A is only true for a person who affirms it to be true. It's not true for a tree, or Britney Spears.

The fact that India is in the east from your perspective is true regardless of any perspective.

The issue of being conscious of "how to get rid of their PTSD" is actually entirely irrelevant to what we were discussing. You made the erroneous statement that it's impossible to be conscious of a thing you are distraught by, and I was showing you why your statement was wrong. People with PTSD are generally very clear about what it is they are afraid of.

If you are fully conscious of exactly what it is you are distraught by, you will not be distraught by it. People with PTSD may know what they are afraid of, but do not why they are afraid, which is why they go to therapy(imo - to no avail.)

If I feel hate, I can place awareness on both the emotion of hate and the appearance that, in part, causes that hate, without the emotion entirely dissipating.

Then you are not being fully aware of what it is you hate. It is impossible to hate anything once you understand what it is, viz., itself. I'm saying this from experience.

jupiviv wrote:No, your mind has to be enlightened to realise the subjectivity of appearances. Otherwise it's just words.

I would say, especially in this instance above, it's you who is playing superficial word games, and this has been your tendency in the past as well.

As I said before, enlightenment is not a qualitative phenomenon(amongst conscious beings). It doesn't involve achieving a particular state of mind, but merely using logic to the fullest degree. A person who realises the subjectivity of appearances may be unable to think about the objectivity of appearances, or he may go home and beat up his wife everyday.

jupiviv wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:The fact that it appears is an absolute truth, but most people assume that because something appears and can be confirmed to appear reliably at different angles and times means that the thing exists independently apart from the mind. This is wrong, a thing appears as it does because the mind is filtering out reality and carving reality to largely reflect the capacity of ones mind, rather than reflect the actuality of what one is perceiving.

This is one of those truths which may be perceived in different ways, and I think the way you are perceiving it is wrong.

Saying that the mind is a necessary cause of things is another way of saying that a mind must necessarily be conscious of everything else except else. It doesn't mean that the mind literally creates the things it sees, because then there would be only the mind.

It depends what you mean by "thing."

All we ever know through the senses are appearances, and appearances should be defined as that which impress upon the mind. You can't speak of appearances apart from the mind, it's incorrect to do so.

As for things... you can only equate them to appearances or to the infinite(formlessness). There is no in between.

A=A is an objective Truth, hence it's true from all points of view. On the other hand, to say a car is big, India is in the east, water is cold, or a marble is smooth - none of these statements are invariably true from all perspectives, they are subjective. This is not to deny that all subjective statements/views are generated by logical, absolute principles (A=A, causation, emptiness, etc).

A=A is only true for a person who affirms it to be true. It's not true for a tree, or Britney Spears.

A=A is true for anything that is conscious, whether they know it or not. When Britney Spears is groggily trying to focus on her I-phone app that helps her find the 7-Eleven she left her kids at, she is obeying the laws of identity, she is making distinctions. A being with some degree of awareness, and hence can make distinctions, is obedient to A=A, they just aren't aware of it. They aren't aware of the principles that make their consciousness possible.

This is why Socrates spoke of Truth as something that is within all people already, they just have to become conscious of what is already True in them.

The fact that India is in the east from your perspective is true regardless of any perspective.

But the fact that India is in the east from my perspective in Canada, does not mean that India is in the east from another persons perspective, say, in Thailand. East and West are created by the mind, and do not exist as things outside of the mind. Surely you understand this.

The issue of being conscious of "how to get rid of their PTSD" is actually entirely irrelevant to what we were discussing. You made the erroneous statement that it's impossible to be conscious of a thing you are distraught by, and I was showing you why your statement was wrong. People with PTSD are generally very clear about what it is they are afraid of.

If you are fully conscious of exactly what it is you are distraught by, you will not be distraught by it. People with PTSD may know what they are afraid of, but do not why they are afraid, which is why they go to therapy(imo - to no avail.)

Ok, you're right about that, being fully conscious of an appearance is different than being aware of of an appearance. So we can agree on that.

If I feel hate, I can place awareness on both the emotion of hate and the appearance that, in part, causes that hate, without the emotion entirely dissipating.

Then you are not being fully aware of what it is you hate. It is impossible to hate anything once you understand what it is, viz., itself. I'm saying this from experience.

That's true.