GENIUS FORUMS

Let me begin by saying that 'enlightenment' is poison. A religious concept, like most religious concepts, that leads the mind away from truth and reason - while it proports to be the very essence of both - back into the realms of the nonsensical and the metaphysical, where delusion, allegory, faith and belief set the aggendas. It is the last stand of the metaphysician.

Its obvious that among many metaphysicians resides the desire to escape from contradiction, from death, from birth, from suffering...Enlightenment is a nihilistic concept, in that it negates the very elements of 'life' itself, as delusional, medocre, sinful, ignorant, evil, karma and so on.

Art, on the on the other hand, stands in contradistinction to enlightenment, because it embraces and celebrates 'life' with all of its light, darkness, madness and stupidity, which it recognises as BEAUTIFUL, TRAGIC and DRAMATIC. In the face of life, the artist is a HERO, an affirmer, not a denier...

zarathustra wrote:Let me begin by saying that 'enlightenment' is poison. A religious concept, like most religious concepts, that leads the mind away from truth and reason - while it proports to be the very essence of both - back into the realms of the nonsensical and the metaphysical, where delusion, allegory, faith and belief set the aggendas. It is the last stand of the metaphysician.

Its obvious that among many metaphysicians resides the desire to escape from contradiction, from death, from birth, from suffering...Enlightenment is a nihilistic concept, in that it negates the very elements of 'life' itself, as delusional, medocre, sinful, ignorant, evil, karma and so on.

Art, on the on the other hand, stands in contradistinction to enlightenment, because it embraces and celebrates 'life' with all of its light, darkness, madness and stupidity, which it recognises as BEAUTIFUL, TRAGIC and DRAMATIC. In the face of life, the artist is a HERO, an affirmer, not a denier...

Spoken like one who does not have the slightest idea of what the state of enlightenment entails!

First, let us agree that Man has an innate striving for life.

It may be called simply an energy, but the sophisticates of eons past insist that we call it a thing more potent than that: a soul, which is all; a spirit, which is a force. An aberration of Nature?

Perhaps, a Will. Which is called an urge to survive, but as we gain an understanding of other wills, it might become, or is understood as, a will to power. Ah, the mad German. Still, there are others who preceded him, and no matter what the protest, once the bell is rung, it is never unrung.

A will then, but a will not towards power, but towards an understanding, an aesthetic, of life as it is perceived? Beauty as an arbitration of existence?

Why not?

Well, I love women, my wife, my Mother. Yet, and I'm certain about this, in a back to back knife fight, I'll take the Mad German.

Zarathustra has precisely zero understanding of anything, enlightenment included.

windhawk wrote:First, let us agree that Man has an innate striving for life.

How does one strive for that which one already possesses? I agree with Nietzsche that this is an unsound notion and that what we really strive for is power.

A will then, but a will not towards power, but towards an understanding, an aesthetic, of life as it is perceived? Beauty as an arbitration of existence?

No, it's towards power. Aesthetic appreciation is an expression of will to power.

Well, I love women, my wife, my Mother.

Why?

As to art, this dialogue from Genius News may be of interest.

This is certainly a fertile field for discussion, but what about women?

There seem to be, to me at least, many different kinds of them: mother, sister, lover, wife, friend. I'd like to leave it at that, but I sorta' kinda' doubt that my innate understanding of women is that sophisticated.

I think I've used this line before, maybe I've evolved?

I know I've used this line before: silence can always be a proper response.

Let me just charge in with the proviso that I think Freud was so far off (on some things), that he should have been jailed.

No, stop for a minute, Jung's anima, while perhaps not essentially correct, does indeed inform our lives.

She's cute (my anima); my Mother's dead (think those words over for a minute), culture is important; and I'd like the line to start here, and end somewhere, perhaps, 1,000 miles away.

Good dialog on Art, Dan. I can see now why you held Marsha as highly in regard as you appear to in past posts. She hit the bulls-eye.

Somewhat embarrassingly, In my late teens, because I had a developed musical ability, I became inspired to write songs that inspired people toward a spiritual state of being, with lyrics that conveyed and inspired esoteric insights.

By the time I was able to write and record at a potentially lucrative, 'disciple generating' level, my ambition to make such an enterprise succeed on a level that was enlightening instead of just entertaining, lead me to uncover insights that destroyed the very notions that fueled my ambition. It was very depressing to apprehend how being a musician, no matter how hard you try, is more likely to merely summon moths, that dance mindlessly around the blinding light of your inflated, high-maintenance ego. Being just a dry, relatively more simple human being who has no flashy, emotionally arousing talent to bamboozle and charm people with, was frightening for me. It sometimes still is.

Windhawk,

I don't think you actually answered my question as to why you love women, your wife and your Mother. Is it possible you don't really know why?

The metaphysician Dan Rowden has never been able to scientifically explain his position, thus resorts to attacks on the person. Typical. But I’m willing to learn. A few questions for him to answer, reasonably and scientifically of course. If he can do that, then he has a convert, if he can answer ten, he has a convert. But I doubt it….


How do you define Enlightenment? How do you describe the Enlightened condition? Is it a state? State of mind? How is the body affected in Enlightenment? Is Awakening the same as Enlightenment? If so, what was asleep? What wakes up? Is Realization the same as Awakening or Enlightenment? Are all Realizations the same? Is Awakening a "state" of body or mind or consciousness? What is Samadhi? Ever had one? How is Samadhi different than Realization? Does one lose the sense of "I" in Samadhi? In Realization? Is everyone Enlightened and they just don't know it, or are they unenlightened? What is the relation between Awakening and desires? Do you think an Awakened person would be desireless? What would that look like? How would one know that s/he is Awake? How does the personality change with Awakening? How is the sense of identity changed in Awakening? Can emotions and thoughts that are ordinarily associated with a separate identity, such as fear, sorrow, anger, arise when one is Awake? Why or why not? If a person reacts in some way to some event, does that mean the person is not Awake? Why or why not? Does Awakening free you from the implications of being an individual in the world? Does Awakening have more to do with the body, the mind, attention or identity? How is attention affected with Awakening? Does it move? How are perceptions affected with Awakening? If you think you're Awake, then "where" are you? "Who" gets Enlightened?


Obviously, such questions cannot be answered scientifically, because they have nothing to do with science, much less reason…Dan and his cronies are nothing but snake oil salesmen…

z

zarathustra wrote:The metaphysician Dan Rowden has never been able to scientifically explain his position, thus resorts to attacks on the person. Typical. But I’m willing to learn. A few questions for him to answer, reasonably and scientifically of course. If he can do that, then he has a convert, if he can answer ten, he has a convert. But I doubt it….

Your criteria is false and therefore doomed from the start. I don't have to do anything "scientifically". If your questions ar empirical, then I can; if not, I can't.

How do you define Enlightenment?

Absence of delusions about the nature of Reality.

How do you describe the Enlightened condition?

I just did. Beyond that I can't because a non-enlightened person can only process things through deluded filters. In other words, you wouldn't understand it. Besides that, enlightenment isn't a "condition" you find yourself in.

Is it a state?

No.

State of mind?

No.

How is the body affected in Enlightenment?

It enables you to swallow turnips whole - big turnips.

Is Awakening the same as Enlightenment?

It is if you define them that way, otherwise not.

If so, what was asleep?

Your left foot.

What wakes up?

Your left foot.

Is Realization the same as Awakening or Enlightenment?

It is if you define them that way.

Are all Realizations the same?

Only the identical ones; the different ones are not the same, miraculously.

Is Awakening a "state" of body or mind or consciousness?

No, no and no.

What is Samadhi?

An enlightened cured sausage. Alternatively: One pointed concentration of the mind which is accompanied by a deep stillness of mind and body, and great power of mind.

Ever had one?

Yeah, on rye bread. Tastes great.

How is Samadhi different than Realization?

By not being Realisation.

Does one lose the sense of "I" in Samadhi?

No; if one did that would be Realisation.

In Realization?

One loses the false sense of "I".

Is everyone Enlightened and they just don't know it, or are they unenlightened?

The "everyone is enlightened and just don't know it" line is complete bollocks. The unenlightened are unenlightened.

What is the relation between Awakening and desires?

Negative. Desire ceases with awakening.

Do you think an Awakened person would be desireless?

Yes, where "desire" means manifestation of false thoughts.

What would that look like?

A frisbee.

How would one know that s/he is Awake?

It's part of what being awake is.

How does the personality change with Awakening?

Parts of the personality created by false thinking would disappear. The rest remains.

How is the sense of identity changed in Awakening?

It goes from deluded to true. Neat, huh?

Can emotions and thoughts that are ordinarily associated with a separate identity, such as fear, sorrow, anger, arise when one is Awake?

No.

Why or why not?

Because there's no basis from which they can arise. No self that experiences things in terms of gain or loss.

If a person reacts in some way to some event, does that mean the person is not Awake?

No, Buddha's react to events. Toss one a frisbee and see what he does....

Why or why not?

Because frisbees are meant to be caught.

Does Awakening free you from the implications of being an individual in the world?

Probably not, but I don't really know what you mean by the question.

Does Awakening have more to do with the body, the mind, attention or identity?

Yes.

How is attention affected with Awakening?

What was the question?

Does it move?

What do you mean by "attention"?

How are perceptions affected with Awakening?

Which ones?

If you think you're Awake, then "where" are you?

In my chair. Everywhere. Take your pick as you see fit.

"Who" gets Enlightened?

Good question.

Obviously, such questions cannot be answered scientifically, because they have nothing to do with science,

Aha! Now you admit it!

much less reason…Dan and his cronies are nothing but snake oil salesmen…

Hmm, I can see how that follows from your questions. But you're right, it certainly doesn't have anything to do with reason - something you self-evidently don't actually care about.

No, gosh Dan, I'm a newbie. I really don't know many things; the bar closed; and life still seems to have a purpose.

That is interesting, why the hell does life, not only go on, but have a purpose?

I just admitted in a public forum, that I'd like to fuck 1,000 miles worth of women; which, back to back is not only absurd, but has made me want to measure, for instance, how many women can you put in a 10 foot line?

Scientist, prophet, asshole, disciple of pseudo-Dionysius, curious if Heidegger's concept of "care" has anything to do with my own soul? After three days, I can say with certainty, that no one on this board is not worth a few beers and an afternoon's worth of my quarters in their video game.

That is important. Please, remember that.

Things happen to those you most care about when you reach a certain age, and God help you, if it happens when you're small.

Suddenly, the fight, the anger, the reaching for God; is no longer a game. You understand why the poet; why the musician, and why the wine is important.

It is odd, but there is a volume control... there is no honest off button.

Something to ponder, although many here will no doubt look dubiously at the source of this aphorism:

"Art is never decoration or embellishment; it is the very work of enlightenment. Art, in other words, is a technique for attaining liberation."

(Bruce Lee)

Art is simply catharsis. Unfortunately what most artists spew forth is the worst of themselves.

The "Geniuses" here like to denigrate Art, like they do Religion, repeatedly and quite happily throwing out the baby with the bathwater, it seems. There is a legitimate path to higher awareness, and a teaching, available in both, which they fail to acknowledge, while slinging arrows tirelessly at the admittedly wide target of the common expressions of Art, and Religion, thus indicating their emotional attachments, ignorance, or both.

Wow, Carl, way to miss an opportunity to actually make a point. If such things exist in religion and art, please point them out.

Sorry. I misspoke. Art and Religion are delusional, and only through thinking and logic can Truth be properly discerned, and thereby Enlightenment attained.

DanRowden's science = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljGiYAZcnPg
Gobbldigook!!!

Dan Dowden defines enlightenment as 'the absence of delusions about the nature of reality...' But he's defined nothing really. It's just gobbldigook, wank. In his own mind he presupposes 'delusions' and the 'nature of reality...' then sets himself up as an authority; claiming, firstly, that I zarathustra ( a research scientist ) 'have zero knowledge about anything including enlightenment'. He then - as he would like all of to believe - claims to speak from a position of authority on the subjects. But what has he told us ABOUT them. NOTHING. If a scientist was asked to define and explain the structure of DNA, he would tell you about sequences and nuclear tides, their construction, how they work and so on...

Dan Rowden, the snake oil salesman, has no hope of doing this in relation to enlightenment. Oh yeah, perhaps I should remind him remind him that empiricism was used to prove that the world was flat...

z

My definition of art is that it grabs you by the throath and Keeps you watching for longer moments.
My definition of religion is that which combine a big amount of doxata and dogmata into a conglomerate of ideas where everyone who does not want to see the bigger picture outside (heideggerian science, reference framework of beings) but does want to recognize him/her self inside, for those religion is good.

However enlightenment is a definition not definable from the definitions of science nor philosophy at the moment. Only describably sound (whatever that means) it can persist, I see it as my task to continue the Heideggerian and Wittgensteinian road to expand Occidental philosophy by searching in the esoteric/Oriental and try to extend language by doing so.

Be well,

Justin

Good luck!

z

zarathustra wrote:Art, on the on the other hand, stands in contradistinction to enlightenment, because it embraces and celebrates 'life' with all of its light, darkness, madness and stupidity, which it recognises as BEAUTIFUL, TRAGIC and DRAMATIC. In the face of life, the artist is a HERO, an affirmer, not a denier...

And at the same time, most artists don't understand life. Furthermore they aren't trying to understand life, but often marveling at what they don't understand.

Enlightenment on the other hand is understanding life. I imagine that an enlightened artist could create some interesting art, but art in itself has little value to someone who wants to understand life.

zarathustra wrote:But what has he told us ABOUT them. NOTHING. If a scientist was asked to define and explain the structure of DNA, he would tell you about sequences and nuclear tides, their construction, how they work and so on...

Dan Rowden, the snake oil salesman, has no hope of doing this in relation to enlightenment. Oh yeah, perhaps I should remind him remind him that empiricism was used to prove that the world was flat...

This whole forum is telling you about enlightenment, the nature of reality, and how to remove delusion. David and Kevin have written and extensively compiled writings on the topic. Enlightenment isn't a scientific model so I'm not sure how else you want it described. Perhaps you could stop spamming the forum and go read some of the stuff on theabsolute.net.

In my reply to Zarathustra I gave a mixture of serious and joke replies. He challenged me to answer his questions. He did not specify the type of answer he required. I challenge him to tell the jokes from the serious answers. He should be able to do this based on what he said in his challenge.

Z: If a scientist was asked to define and explain the structure of DNA, he would tell you about sequences and nuclear tides, their construction, how they work and so on...

What kind of science do you research?

Wtf are nuclear tides? They sound way cooler than boring old nucleotides.