GENIUS FORUMS

WOW! I really don’t know what to say, Unwise. I really wish you good eternal existence from the bottom of my heart.

If I decipher and question all that you have said, it will be the first response on this forum that will most probably continue on the next page, but instead what I will do is use your own understanding and say that ultimately it really doesn’t matter if one is enlightened, enjoys the state of Samadhi, personally lives forever through realization of an eternal soul, or not. Right? The sun will always be there irrelevant of anyone realizing it, so no worries I guess.

On the other hand, alas! I have yet to find a soul in my bucket… then look for that elusive sun in the sky… O! Pray for me… please… You are right… I think I’m beginning to tremble in fear… Hell !!! I can’t even find my soul itself ! O! Lord! What will become of me??? Eeeeeeek!

suergaz wrote:If one has not loved life to ones limit, fear of dying may enter.
Our lives are finite, but we live them infinitely in this infinity.

I think I know what you say, but let me put it this way…

If one has realized the essence of existence one cannot help but utterly appreciate being, be it for a moment, and thenceforth lives this finite life consciously knowing every moment as infinity. How does it matter not being in the next causal moment then?

Sapius wrote:

suergaz wrote:If one has not loved life to ones limit, fear of dying may enter.
Our lives are finite, but we live them infinitely in this infinity.

I think I know what you say, but let me put it this way…

If one has realized the essence of existence one cannot help but utterly appreciate being, be it for a moment, and thenceforth lives this finite life consciously knowing every moment as infinity. How does it matter not being in the next causal moment then?

what about:

am I all things?are all things in me?all things become emanations of Ego ,but first I must forsake my parents and walk alone.

Hi Bert,

what about: am I all things?

Not in my opinion. How does that happen?

are all things in me?

Hmm... I don’t think they would fit in.

all things become emanations of Ego,

As in: 1 a : the action of emanating b : the origination of the world by a series of hierarchically descending radiations from the Godhead through intermediate stages to matter.

My English is not good so I had to look it up, but I don’t think “ego”, which according to me is just self-realization through differentiation, that is experiencing A=A, has any such powers. “I” inherently exist, that is, unattached, having or will have permanency of any kind, is false ego according to me, and I don’t know if that could do any such thing.

but first I must forsake my parents and walk alone.

Who said so? Jesus? But he also said something about giving Caesar that belongs to Caesar, and giving God that belongs God. You don’t have to necessarily abandon the world to seek God, unless you think that sitting alone under a tree in absolutely necessary for you.

unwise, you do yourself and the entire world a disservice by misunderstanding the enlightened teachings. Very few people are actually enlightened. But, I'm not one of them so I'll let you figure it out yourself.

Unwise,

Observe people in a mental ward. I have. Then observe me living my life and doing things. If you see no difference, then you have a nice point.

The only relevant difference I've noticed is that the ones in the ward could not care for themselves on the most basic level or were threatening in a direct way to others. And even that difference is debatable, depending on the type of ward you'd visit.

Spend a day in a mental ward - it's instructive. In fact, it's quite a blessing to simply be normal and functioning.

Only if that's the ideal: to be normal and functioning according to mostly subconscious agreed upon rules.

Now for your list of qualifications that a person can check himself for delusional states of mind. I'll split the list in two and left out "provide for himself" because that would exclude too many less physical able folks for no reason.

able to complete tasks
functioning
has a good memory
demonstrates good learning ability
mindful of his own health and needs

Well, that's the absolute minimum to do or be almost anything, depending how you'd qualify 'good' (memory & learning ability). Many clinical psychotic people would qualify as well easily. "Mindful of his own health" is quite circular because the means to do such thing is what we're discussing here after all, if we're talking also about mental health.

content
displays a sense of humor
being aware of the needs and expectations of those around him
respects societal agreements

You seem to describe here a well-adjusted community person, or what sometimes is called a sheep. You forgot to mention: ability or increased chance to breed. No doubt there's a rewarding bliss involved being fully integrated in the group added to some deeply entrenched egocentric perspective to prevent any real anxiety about the absurd situation to arise! Humor is another popular way out.

ability to comprehend others and new situations

Ability to comprehend, others, self, reality, that sounds promising. But we are full circle here again. How do you determine you have comprehended correctly. Ask someone else in the herd if they'd agree? Having a vote? Go with how much reward you feel?

S. -what I will do is use your own understanding and say that ultimately it really doesn’t matter if one is enlightened, enjoys the state of Samadhi, personally lives forever through realization of an eternal soul, or not. Right? The sun will always be there irrelevant of anyone realizing it, so no worries I guess.

Enlightenment does not matter to you people - it is not important or necessary for you. If I were Brad Pitt, enlightenment would not be important or needed or wanted or necessary or any of that in this life. Enlightenment WAS necessary for me, however, because I was on course to receive it - it was the only solution to the sort of pain I had that is not experienced by other people.

Here is my teaching:

1. enlightenment is not necessary to enjoy life
2. enlightenment is inevitable to a person who has it coming
3. if enlightenment is in your cards or the stars for you, the first signs will be obsession with it, unbearable pain, and hanging out with someone who is enlightened.

The level of bullshitting, sarcasm, pride and self satisfaction that I see here show me that this thing you seek is a hobby for you. That's fine. There are many fun hobbies. This is one of them.

SS - unwise, you do yourself and the entire world a disservice by misunderstanding the enlightened teachings. Very few people are actually enlightened

Really, the world? How would you know how many people are enlightened? Government survey? You do yourself a disservce by striking out at an enlightened person. It is bad karma. I just showed you there are two types of samadhi and that an enlightened person can travel in both types - otherwise he would have no teaching and would not pretend to be talking to people or taking them seriously. It is YOU who arrogantly think that you understand. You understand nothing.

DVR - You seem to describe here a well-adjusted community person, or what sometimes is called a sheep. You forgot to mention: ability or increased chance to breed. No doubt there's a rewarding bliss involved being fully integrated in the group added to some deeply entrenched egocentric perspective to prevent any real anxiety about the absurd situation to arise! Humor is another popular way out.

Someone asked me how I could tell I was even sane. I gave you a general answer or description of a well-adjusted person. You will seldom, if ever, find a real insane person who has the above qualities of character. People who know would say that I have this nature. Now, can a person be a 'genius' or even 'enlightened' and be a sheep? Would you say that Einstein was able to comprehend people and community expectations? You don't have to be a sheep in order to live among them and understand them. A shepherd understands the sheep quite well. A shepherd is a sheep expert; an enlightened man is a people expert. Crazy people are not people experts at all. They are people failures. The sage's knowledge comes from a deep life of experience and observation - not isolation and nervous mentation that creates illusion and deception and grandiose privilege and hostility.

You understand nothing.

I'll admit that I'm not Self (God) realized. I do understand the path, and that you're misunderstanding it. I don't care about your different definitions of samadhis, where someone said that Tathagatas move between them. How do I know that they do or don't do that, until I am one myself? I don't know about that and neither do you.

You prove that you're a beginner by the way you act.

It's easy to talk about Vedanta. Everyone does it nowadays. They think it's easy to find the truth just because someone wrote that the truth was in them...that it IS them. I used to feel the same way you do. I would tell this girl I talked to, "I'm so lucky to know what I do, so that I don't go doing this stupid shit like walking to the ganges and becoming an ascetic." I prefer to not listen to Vedanta people anymore, because they have nothing to offer but words.

You have nothing to offer but words!

There will be no karmic repercussions for me telling you this. I don't believe that telling you you're full of it is wrong...that it'll bring me bad luck or anything. I don't think it will cause any more time to come in between myself and Yoga. I truly believe I'm doing you a favor by letting you know you're being a moron. I only hope you become aware of this fact sooner than later...because a person feels like a fool if they waste their whole life in a delusion.

Each time you say you're enlightened, you are bringing more karmic debt upon yourself. Every time you think about your true nature, you load yourself up with a thousand more lives of misery.

Speaking of misery, you say you went through some hard times? Buddy...life is suffering. Who doesn't go through the shit! Yeah, some have it harder than others...but usually the ones that bitch about it have it the easiest, and are just soft.

You do seem soft to me. Harden up and stop lying to yourself and others about what you are. You're just a regular human being who's heard some Vedanta. As if that were special.

As if your suffering were special.

What a fool.

Uniwse wrote,

Mr. Quinn, if what I say has any bering on 'tired Hindu scripts,' it is only because it is my own personal experience, and the ancient discussions of enlightened people concerning their situation is very familiar to me.

I know you like to think this. But it's more to do with the fact that you keep repeating what you want to believe in, while shielding it from any kind of rational analysis. You have turned your personal experience (of an altered state) into a form of fundamentalism, and now nothing or no one can challenge it. This is why you keep shying away from the logical points I raise.

In any case, it has become plain that what you mean by "enlightenment" is very different to what I, and others here, mean by it. In my view, the "enlightened people" that you refer to weren't really enlightened, but suffered from the same kind of delusions that you are currently suffering from - that of mistaking a particular kind of altered state for enlightenment. Your delusions are being reinforced by their delusions. It's a form of mutual backslapping amongst insane people.

You always have an interesting defense of your unassailable opinion, but I doubt that what I experience is 'child mind.' The reason I say this is because my 'state' is a constant condition with me. If it were a 'state' it would have come - and gone. But it does not go away. It is always there in the background - this view, this perspective.

Christians believe that Jesus is always there in the background for them, but this doesn't mean that they are enlightened. That is a very poor argument on your part.

A person who has the audacity to claim he is enlightened is either incredibly wise with great clarity of mind, flawless rationality and far-sighted vision, or he is a very ignorant person with an overactive imagination and an inability to think coherently. I wonder which category you belong in?

There is far more to enlightenment than simply swallowing a pre-packaged doctrine and having your imagination shaped by it.

This is why I said I am in samadhi NOW even as I write his or go to work.

Why don't you give us an account of your life? I don't like it when people make grandiose claims while hiding behind a pseudonym. It makes their claim seem hollow. They give the impression they are hiding something.

So - what is your real name? Where do you live? What do you do for a living? Are you married? Do you have kids? What do you do in your spare time? Do you take drugs? Have you ever been institutionalized in a psychiatric ward? Do tell all.

Also, I say (we say) that this is not even a 'state' that began at some point in time, but was ALWAYS present. The enlightened person only notices what is already the case.....AND, it is the constant case of all other humans - they are currently experiencing 'enlightenment' or 'pure consciousness' right now - all the time.

If that is the case, then why do you talk about the need to turn consciousness back on itself and block out the rest of the world? What is the point of doing that?

The mind is like a bucket of water outside in the sunshine - you look inside at the water and see nothing, but if you stilled the water you would see the sun there in reflection. Many buckets with the sun - only one sun. The sun is not in the bucket.

You're still talking about a limited attainment here. From the perspective of enlightenment, there is no bucket of water, nor is there a sun. You are showing that you are still trapped within the realm of forms and illusions.

It reminds me of a famous story in Buddhism. Have you heard about Zen Master Hui Neng? He was an illiterate fellow back in 7th century China who was recognized to be enlightened by his teacher after he submitted a high-quality stanza, one that was far superior to the leading monk's stanza.

The leading monk's stanza was:

Our body is the Bodhi-tree,
And our mind a mirror bright.
Carefully we wipe them hour by hour,
And let no dust alight.

In contrast, Hui Neng's stanza was:

There is no Bodhi-tree,
Nor stand of a mirror bright.
Since all is Empty,
Where can the dust alight?

This latter stanza represents a much higher perspective and cuts more deeply into the heart of Reality. The first stanza is scripted and conventional in nature, and generally adhered to by religious people who want to follow a bunch of rules.

Another interesting side affect of my 'realization' is that I no longer have any questions. I am not bothered for one second about my soul, or god, or life after death, or heaven, or reincarnation.....nothing. It provides an instant answer for all existential questions of every kind.

Fundamentalist Christians say exactly the same thing. I really can't see any difference between you and them.

-

I thought some here might find my perspective to be interesting. I certainly do. One of the reasons I like to write a few things here is to see if they are comprehended, but they are so easily misunderstood that it seems communication of my actual ideas are not possible. For instance, I just was saying that there are two sorts of samadhi and that in the highest samadhi the entire world disappears. You write back about some poor monk that says the same thing as though you didn't read what I just said. It is maddening. But it might be actually more fun for me to find out a bit more about your perspective. I already know what I believe.

You have a Buddhist view. How would you say your view is different from the Dali Lama or Krishnamurti? I think I have one or two of his books around here - and then there is UG Krishnamurti who is even more interesting. I once went to a Buddhist temple and met the traveling Rinpoche there. He was considered enlightened by those present, I think. He seemed sort of like an idiot child. Maybe you have the same impression of these people - I don't know.

Our body is the Bodhi-tree,
And our mind a mirror bright.
Carefully we wipe them hour by hour,
And let no dust alight.

In contrast, Hui Neng's stanza was:

There is no Bodhi-tree,
Nor stand of a mirror bright.
Since all is Empty,
Where can the dust alight?

I prefer the initial one. The second one is logically unsound as it refers to dust as a thing yet recognises no other things.

“Since all is empty” is crap. Nothing is truly empty, ever – it is the opposite, everything is full, although things are empty of their own making, they are not empty of the ability to be casual agents. There is no emptiness.

The first stanza is rational. All it is saying is don’t get emotionally attached to the events in the world. Our mind is a mirror, the experiences that a mind experiences are reflected back in the persons actions. Clearing the mind of the dust of emotions that become attached to memories is necessary for us to experience the full potential of the photosynthesis on the leaves of the bodhi-tree that symbolises our body. The more emotional dust on our mental leaves the less one is able to perceive of the outside world.

I too prefer the initial one.

The response to the second is..."What dust if all is emptiness?!"

Or more honestly: "Shut up!"

unwise wrote:You are forgetting a very important possibility - I am amusing myself.

Yourself, noone else.

Hey! unwise amuses me! He calls me sewergas! And he said something about a sun in a bucket that amused me too. :D

unwise wrote:

For instance, I just was saying that there are two sorts of samadhi and that in the highest samadhi the entire world disappears.

That isn't the highest samadhi. That's entry level samadhi. Through repeated entry into samadhi, they say, enlightenment occurs.

Dear unwise,
You've got a thing that's called in Zen, 'Beginner's Mind'...I have it too.
We identify it in each other's posts...despite the limitations of language something gets transmitted and it's that we call Spirit..

The Lamp is radiated.

There seems to be the postulate of a heirarchy here that ranks Genius on top of the list...I don't know..

But you enjoy what you have as do I...

If it's Caused, then Giraffes are busily Giraffing and that fills me with a Sense of Wonder...

franking...

Why do you two always feel a need to hug and pat each other on the back? It makes you look needy and insecure.

-

Unwise wrote:

I thought some here might find my perspective to be interesting. I certainly do. One of the reasons I like to write a few things here is to see if they are comprehended, but they are so easily misunderstood that it seems communication of my actual ideas are not possible.

The problem is that your ideas, when examined closely, are incoherent. This is the result of you jumping too quickly to the conclusion that you have reached the highest attainment on the basis of a few vague insights and the swallowing of some Hindu scripts.

Why should any of us find your vomit interesting when you aren't even interested enough in it to make sure it is coherent?

For instance, I just was saying that there are two sorts of samadhi and that in the highest samadhi the entire world disappears. You write back about some poor monk that says the same thing as though you didn't read what I just said. It is maddening.

I assure you that your beliefs are a million miles away from Hui Neng's understanding. Instead, they are on a par with the first monk's understanding - that is, in order to make the mirror bright (i.e. reach the so-called "highest samadhi") one has to wipe away the dust (i.e. the entire world).

In truth, there is no dust to wipe away and therefore no such thing as samadhi. Only when a person thoroughly understands this point is he in samadhi.

But it might be actually more fun for me to find out a bit more about your perspective. I already know what I believe.

I'm willing to discuss my perspective (as if I've not being doing this already!), but first I want you to tell me about your real life. I'm no longer interested in the fantasy you are concocting on this forum.

What is your real name? Where do you live? What do you do for a living? Are you married? Do you have kids? What do you do in your spare time? Do you take drugs? Have you ever been institutionalized in a psychiatric ward? Etc.

Come on, out with it.

-

James wrote:

Our body is the Bodhi-tree,
And our mind a mirror bright.
Carefully we wipe them hour by hour,
And let no dust alight.

In contrast, Hui Neng's stanza was:

There is no Bodhi-tree,
Nor stand of a mirror bright.
Since all is Empty,
Where can the dust alight?

I prefer the initial one. The second one is logically unsound as it refers to dust as a thing yet recognises no other things.

The second stanza isn't proposing the existence of dust. It is challenging the first stanza's assumption of the existence of dust, and "things" generally.

“Since all is empty” is crap. Nothing is truly empty, ever – it is the opposite, everything is full, although things are empty of their own making, they are not empty of the ability to be casual agents. There is no emptiness.

It is precisely because all things are empty of their own making that they have the ability to be causal agents. The truth that all things are effects and the truth that all things are empty (of inherent existence) are expressions of the same reality. They are two sides of the same coin. You can't affirm one without automatically affirming the other - although, as in your case, it is possible to set up mental blocks about it.

The first stanza is rational. All it is saying is don’t get emotionally attached to the events in the world. Our mind is a mirror, the experiences that a mind experiences are reflected back in the persons actions. Clearing the mind of the dust of emotions that become attached to memories is necessary for us to experience the full potential of the photosynthesis on the leaves of the bodhi-tree that symbolises our body. The more emotional dust on our mental leaves the less one is able to perceive of the outside world.

When properly understood, the first stanza can act as a stepping stone to the higher perspective embodied in the second stanza. One does need to clear away all delusions from the mind before one can begin to discern emptiness.

-

Why do I have the strong suspicion that you are about to ban me if I do not provide my complete FBI profile?

I give up talking about my views here in basic Buddhist boot camp. It is interesting how it is perceived as retardation. I mean, it would be recognized by all serious students of Hinduism. In mocking me, you mock a very long tradition with thousands of deep philosophers and sages. I find that approach amazing. Even if I had been a sanyassin here at the QVC in my old days, I would have wondered what relation there might possibly be between the two systems. Your approach is to mock and cast out the traveling missionary - sort of what a Baptist or Mormon would do.

So, let's talk about your teaching and it's relation to the head of the Buddhist church. It has never really interested me before as none of them believe in enlightenment for anyone but the Buddha. It sort of reminds me of Christians. I've often wondered, why then don't god and angels visit you today? Same problem. The Hindus seemed to still be producing enlightened people, and this is why I looked deeper there.

You know I have no intent on making my personal profile available to thousands of people. This is only a ruse to provide an excuse to get rid of me. Why do you believe that telling everyone your address and medical info important as a sign of honesty? You have to give your name, rank, and serial number to the enemy when you are captured. You have freely given all of this up in order to receive the dole. I don't owe you or anyone here anything other than my ideas. Am I being logical now?

unwise: I have no need or motivation to convince anyone of anything. None. In fact, people do not NEED to become enlightened. Not at all.

And yet…

Here is my teaching:

I don’t think anyone has anything personal against you, but why don’t you admit how wondrous enlightenment has been for you and you would like to share it, teach it, see others enlightened? Simple as that. You would seem more sincere then. On the other hand, you could be another anti-guru like UG, and still be a guru and interesting to many just as you find him, I don’t find any great value in him at all, he may be good for the mildly curious, baffled at his anti-enlightenment stance.

Unwise is complaining that he is being mocked?

DQ:

The second stanza isn't proposing the existence of dust. It is challenging the first stanza's assumption of the existence of dust, and "things" generally.

Which really makes it inferior to the first. If one does not assume existence, why assume to challenge the assumption of existence?

One does need to clear away all delusions from the mind before one can begin to discern emptiness.

What does one do after one begins to discern 'emptiness'?

The leading monk's stanza was:

Our body is the Bodhi-tree,
And our mind a mirror bright.
Carefully we wipe them hour by hour,
And let no dust alight.

In contrast, Hui Neng's stanza was:

There is no Bodhi-tree,
Nor stand of a mirror bright.
Since all is Empty,
Where can the dust alight?

I don’t know which stanza to pick? In my opinion, neither can be said without really knowing the other. The monk couldn’t have said what he did if he knew not the essence of the second. How could he give recognition of being enlightened to his student if he did not already know what the student was saying?

The first stanza is the way, the second actual understanding.

Coming so far since those days, we better update the stanzas to a more philosophically logical expression, I guess.

There is no Bodhi-tree, yet it stands upright.
Nor stand of a mirror bright, yet it holds strife.
Since all is Empty, and yet there is All.
Where or what dust can alight? Yet I say so, alright.

Suergaz wrote:

DQ: The second stanza isn't proposing the existence of dust. It is challenging the first stanza's assumption of the existence of dust, and "things" generally.

S: Which really makes it inferior to the first. If one does not assume existence, why assume to challenge the assumption of existence?

Because one knows that other people are still being spellbound by their false belief in (objective) existence. That is why they are still trying to "rub the mirror clean", which is a form of chasing phantoms.

DQ: One does need to clear away all delusions from the mind before one can begin to discern emptiness.

s: What does one do after one begins to discern 'emptiness'?

Whatever Nature wills.

-

Unwise wrote:

Why do I have the strong suspicion that you are about to ban me if I do not provide my complete FBI profile?

I don't know. Because you're paranoid?

You have stated that you are so enlightened that you are beyond fear, so much so that you don't have any fear of the future or death. I think this is a ridiculous claim to make from someone who cowers behind a pseudonym.

I think my request is reasonable. You have made some outlandish claims of late, and so it is only natural that the rest of us are curious to see if your real life actually matches them.

What is the matter? What are you afraid of?

-

Sapius:

The leading monk's stanza was:

Our body is the Bodhi-tree,
And our mind a mirror bright.
Carefully we wipe them hour by hour,
And let no dust alight.

In contrast, Hui Neng's stanza was:

There is no Bodhi-tree,
Nor stand of a mirror bright.
Since all is Empty,
Where can the dust alight?

I don’t know which stanza to pick? In my opinion, neither can be said without really knowing the other. The monk couldn’t have said what he did if he knew not the essence of the second. How could he give recognition of being enlightened to his student if he did not already know what the student was saying?

The first stanza is the way, the second actual understanding. Coming so far since those days, we better update the stanzas to a more philosophically logical expression, I guess.

There is no Bodhi-tree, yet it stands upright.
Nor stand of a mirror bright, yet it holds strife.
Since all is Empty, and yet there is All.
Where or what dust can alight? Yet I say so, alright.

I think I know what you're saying, but allow me to put it like this:

There is in fact a bodhi tree, and like it I'm upright
my mind more than a mirror, retains what it finds bright
All is never empty, that's something we assume,
So out of dust, eternity is where we'll make our room.