GENIUS FORUMS

Elizabeth wrote:

You have never met anyone so illogical that their mind could reach an understanding involving contradictory data, and rejected only that there was a contradiction?

Of course. But they are still sifting through data nonetheless, however poorly.

-

[rolls her eyes] How ordinary you are!

ParaSyphilis wrote:

I score!

Yes, you do! What an achievement. Certainly, something we should all aspire to. What have I been missing all my life, I wonder...

And since you are among what some of us (living in reality) still see as one group i.e. human beings, your lack of a dick only proves one thing, you aren't a man.

Au contraire! mon petit chou chinois. I have the only kind of dick that matters---one that your mouth will never come close to.

No wonder Nat appreciates cooking. What a fucking pussy!

.

PyroSylph wrote:

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

PS: 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?

It is a reflection of my love of truth and my desire to promote wisdom in the world.

I still empathize with all those who don't try to live truthfully, but I don't see any reason to shower them outwardly with it. They get enough encouragement to remain dishonest already.

-

David Quinn wrote:In truth, Nat and I are pointing in opposite directions. He is pointing to animal consciousness, where words are meaningless and life is lived in immediacy. By contrast, I am pointing to full understanding of the nature of Reality and increased consciousness of consequences. It's two entirely different goals.

The only real overlap between us is that we are both pointing to realms which are beyond the ordinary adult conceptual frameworks - he back to childhood and the animal realms, I forward to larger consciousness and heightened rationality.-

No. I am pointing to the actual "adult" realms - the ones where people refrain from putting Burger King "Buddha" crowns on their own heads and prancing around dispensing "enlightened Wisdom." Most of us gave up such games by age 12, and even the really retarded among us (such as myself) finally gave them up sometime later.

My approach has nothing to do with "animal consciousness" or the like. It has to do with throwing out the idea that we can think, talk, or wank our way to freedom, liberation, salvation, or the like. It has to do with accepting Reality rather than trying to conceptualize and capture it in our own minds, where we can pretend we have mastered it.

I agree that we are pointing in two different directions. But yours is not any more grand, majestic, or lofty than mine. We are both babbling and banging on keyboards. The difference is that you are presenting your babblings and bangings as something grandiose in order to assign yourself some psychological meaning and importance, while I am presenting mine as nothing more than sticky buns and three pounds of flax.

David Quinn wrote:
You need to be a lot more honest with yourself.

In reaching your current understanding of things - i.e. the idea that enlightenment is already present and unconditional - you would have sifted through various bits of information, accepting some and rejecting others. For example, you would have rejected the idea that enlightenment can only be reached by wise reasoning, and accepted the populist Zen idea that it cannot be thought about at all.

I never denied that my current state of understanding was conditional. But I also mentioned that Enlightenment has nothing to do with any sort of understanding, accepting, or rejecting. Zen ideas, or rational western ideas.

It's not a difficult question to understand. Do you think that everyone is without ignorance and fully aware of what the Tao is? Can they converse about spiritual truth with authority and ease, in the way that an enlightened master can?

-

They can converse about their own beliefs and ideas with ease, if the conditions are ripe...

They can even pretend that their ideas point to something significant and special, but they don't. Ideas do not point to enlightenment or the absolute anymore than a finger can point to it.
Some people know this, others don't.
Those who do, do not grasp onto their concepts. Those who don't, mentally masturbate over their concepts. And when they ejaculate they call it "enlightenment". Then they make up categories, those who have had the orgasm(wise sage) and those who haven't (delusional virgins)....

Ofcourse this knowledge doesn't make them closer or further to enlightenment, it isn't up to them, it just gives them the right conditions to communicate and argue.
And thus, we dance on the forums :]

BTW, can someone please do us all a favor and give the hysterical mantheist Leyla some Thorazine before somebody gets bit? I'd hate to get rabies, the shots are a real bitch.

whatever-his-name-is wrote to David:

But yours [David's direction] is not any more grand, majestic, or lofty than mine.

Oh, how deluded and DEAD wrong you are! By the way, in your flurry and fluster you left off the “neener-neener.”

BTW, can someone please do us all a favor and give the hysterical mantheist Leyla some Thorazine before somebody gets bit? I'd hate to get rabies, the shots are a real bitch.

Second note to self: the greatest knowledge possessed by “grounded” people is the full knowledge of the complete plethora of psychiatric and medical drugs.

Sorry, your pleas will go unheeded by the wise! But, yes!, how your “life-partner” tag two-some inspires in me a blood-lust born of utter contempt for such insipid morality!

You have already been bitten, stupid.

Anyone who’s in the know can see that.

Carry on.

.

On that note, a bit of humor:

The Totality can only be understood by the Men-tality.

Masculinity is a Man-ditory requirement.

Man-ifest Destiny, you might say.

Don't Men-tion it.

Thank you.

How men-tally disturbing. Almost male-icious.

Carl G wrote:On that note, a bit of humor:

The Totality can only be understood by the Men-tality.

Masculinity is a Man-ditory requirement.

Man-ifest Destiny, you might say.

Don't Men-tion it.

Thank you.

"It's raining men! Hallelujah!" - David Quinn

The Hysterical One shouted,

Sorry, your pleas will go unheeded by the wise! But, yes!, how your “life-partner” tag two-some inspires in me a blood-lust born of utter contempt for such insipid morality!

You have already been bitten, stupid.

Anyone who’s in the know can see that.

Carry on.

http://www.midol.com/index.asp

This thread is made of Sages and Masculinity.

My worldview approves.

Unidian wrote:The Hysterical One shouted,

Sorry, your pleas will go unheeded by the wise! But, yes!, how your “life-partner” tag two-some inspires in me a blood-lust born of utter contempt for such insipid morality!

You have already been bitten, stupid.

Anyone who’s in the know can see that.

Carry on.

http://www.midol.com/index.asp

Uniden, what a cheap shot.

But I found the ad in itself funny. Very funny.

Here women.....take these pills so you can get on with your life:

It then shows the women, appearing drunk, engaging in some strange ritual of celebration, rubbing up against each other - one woman holding her self up by reaching behind and grabbing the other womans ass.

Pardon the off-topic humor, but here's a link to an ad I find humorous:

Centipedes...

Hades wrote:

DQ: In reaching your current understanding of things - i.e. the idea that enlightenment is already present and unconditional - you would have sifted through various bits of information, accepting some and rejecting others. For example, you would have rejected the idea that enlightenment can only be reached by wise reasoning, and accepted the populist Zen idea that it cannot be thought about at all.

H: I never denied that my current state of understanding was conditional. But I also mentioned that Enlightenment has nothing to do with any sort of understanding, accepting, or rejecting. Zen ideas, or rational western ideas.

I realize that this is currently your pet idea, but think about it a bit more.

In determining that enlightenment has nothing to do with accepting and rejecting, a person would have to, at the very least, reject the idea that it does have something do with accepting and rejecting. Don't you agree? And if so, we can see right away that such a conception of enlightenment is contradictory in nature and lacks coherence.

Moreover, if enlightenment really didn't have anything to do with understanding, then none us could ever talk about it with any expertise or authority. None of the Buddhist Sutras or other wise texts, such as the Tao Te Ching, could ever have been written. None of the Buddhas and other enlightened teachers could ever have come into being.

DQ: It's not a difficult question to understand. Do you think that everyone is without ignorance and fully aware of what the Tao is? Can they converse about spiritual truth with authority and ease, in the way that an enlightened master can?

H: They can converse about their own beliefs and ideas with ease, if the conditions are ripe...

They can even pretend that their ideas point to something significant and special, but they don't. Ideas do not point to enlightenment or the absolute anymore than a finger can point to it.

I suppose you would consider the Buddha, Lao Tzu, Hakuin, Huang Po and company, to have been tremendous fools for spending their lives attempting to point people's minds in the direction of enlightenment......

Some people know this, others don't.

Okay, so you concede that some people are ignorant, after all?

-

Unidian,

DQ: 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: 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.

The Tao Te Ching is essentially a book of intellectual truths, which, if pursued wholeheartedly, can change a person's life radically. Some of the Buddhist sutras are also comprised of such truths.

DQ: 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.

U: 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?

It's a way of helping people make the transition from the superficial, populist forms of Zen and Taoism to the authentic kinds. Student's minds can be opened if they hear different interpretations of their favourite scriptures.

DQ: 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.

U: 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.

Indeed, this is what Hakuin was mocking - e.g. "No practice, no realization - that is the true principle, things as they really are."

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.

That is certainly a very popular view among those dwelling in the animal realms.

In the hands of intelligent people, concepts can be very powerful things. They literally underpin the creation and maintenance of human civilization. They drive scientific progress forward. They underlie the skilfully written texts of wisdom. And in the hands of a good teacher, they can be used to point the mind to the nature of Reality. Given this, the attempt to dismiss concepts as though they were nothing is very misguided. And attempting to do it with the help of concepts is insane.

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?

Because Reality is formless.

DQ: 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.

U: 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.

Just as 99% of the world's population doesn't care one whit about spiritual realities or the nature of truth, in the same way 99% of the population within Taoist and Zen circles do not care for these things either. The world intrudes into Zen and Taoism far more than you think. Most people who join these religions are still seeking egotistical happiness and worldly thrills. And 99% of the gurus cater for this market. With some exceptions, these religions are thoroughly corrupt from top to bottom.

DQ: 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.

U: 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.

Lao Tzu also said, "The highest virtue is to follow the Tao, and the Tao alone." So the couplet you quote has to be understood in that context.

The meaning seems to be: Follow the Tao and purify yourself in it. But don't become vain about it.

Sounds like good advice to me.

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.

They are not consistent with the deluded aspects of Zen and Taoism, no.

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.

I direct the same accusation towards you and your kind.

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.

If "Zen" and "Taoism" are just empty words, then why are you taking issue with me? What should it matter to you how I use them?

You can't, on the one hand, say that "Zen" and "Taoism" are just empty words and then complain that I'm not using these words authentically. You're trying to have it both ways.

Either commit to these words and defend whatever meaning you think they have, or commit to the idea that they don't mean anything and stop arguing with people. Enough of this half-and-half skulduggery.

DQ: 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.

U: There you go again. "Trying not to think?" Perhaps utter neophytes to Eastern ideas do things like that.

Pretending that words are spiritually useless is a form of trying not to think.

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.

I have had no problem answering it, using thought.

You need to unlearn the idea that thought lacks this particular capacity.

DQ: 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.

U: 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?

So why did the Buddha think, upon attaining his enlightenment, that hardly anyone would understand it, that it would be too profound for most people?

The following is taken from the Vipassana Newsletter. After a few weeks of enjoying the bliss of enlightenment, the Buddha begins to have doubts .....

The Hesitation. - At the end of this period of bliss follows a period of hesitation, in which Gotama doubts, whether, after all, it will be of any use to proclaim to a world sunk in darkness a doctrine not only so difficult to grasp, but so repugnant to the ordinary mind. We may estimate the importance attached by the early church to this matter by the fact that Brahma himself, the highest of the gods, is introduced as coming on the scene to urge that there will still be some who will have eyes to see. Then the Buddha, 'out of compassion for sentient beings,' determines to preach the word. A similar experience is related in identical words [Digha, ii. 37.] of other early Indian teachers, the previous Buddhas. And this overpowering sense of utter apartness, aloofness, is an experience that falls sooner or later to the lot of all great leaders of thought.

Note the phrase ".....not only so difficult to grasp, but also so repugnant to the ordinary mind." The Buddha was talking about something far more profound and threatening than the pleasant pastime of skipping in the meadows and paying no attention to concepts.

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.

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

U: 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.

This ignores the realities of social conditioning, absorption by osmosis, suppression, mental blocks, henids, genetic programming, and all the other processes which can lead to unconscious beliefs.

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.

Nevertheless, a child's joy is always the result of delusion, whether it be generated from an unconscious belief or a programmed instinct that things inherently exist. In essence, joy and happiness are feelings of triumph which arise when one feels one has conquered threat, oppression, boredom, suffering, etc. They are part of the dualistic world of samsara.

From the Dhammapada:

What fools say is pleasure, the nobles say is pain. What fools say is pain, the nobles know as pleasure. See here is a thing difficult to understand, here the ignorant are confounded.

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

U: 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.

Laughing is a sign that the transient world is still being taken too seriously.

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

U: 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.

You are trying to become free of your conscience, which is a very trivial attainment.

U: 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.

U: 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.

You "know" that I am falsely teaching about Zen and Taoism, and that is because you "know" the authentic version of these disciplines. You "know" that I am speaking falsely about the unworthiness of feminine consciousness, and that is because you "know" that feminine consciousness is the equal of masculine consciousness, if not its superior. You "know" that reason is not the path to enlightenment, and that is because you "know" that concepts are limited. And so it goes on.

There are a lot of things that you are pretending not to know.

-

David Quinn wrote:
I realize that this is currently your pet idea, but think about it a bit more.

In determining that enlightenment has nothing to do with accepting and rejecting, a person would have to, at the very least, reject the idea that it does have something do with accepting and rejecting. Don't you agree? And if so, we can see right away that such a conception of enlightenment is contradictory in nature and lacks coherence.

There is no contradiction in this case.

As I said before, Enlightenment has nothing to do with accepting or rejecting any ideas, behaviors, or beliefs.

So to answer your question, the person wouldn't have to; "at the very least, reject the idea that it does have something do with accepting and rejecting."
Because neither accepting this idea (or its opposite), or rejecting it(and its opposite), will bring the person closer to Enlightenment.

This is the playground of the mind. You can play in it if you like, others play in the playground of the body. You mentally masturbate over concepts, others do it physically over porno. There is no difference between the two of you. You are in love with various ideas, other people are in love with money, or women.

Your precious ideas will fade along with your memory, their money will be lost, and their women will grow old and die.

And then what is left?
Do you see how enlightenment can not in anyway be something you acquire mentally? Its not something the accumulation of wisdom produces, nor the fruit of careful meditation or rational thinking....

Moreover, if enlightenment really didn't have anything to do with understanding, then none us could ever talk about it with any expertise or authority.

We would talk about it if we were meant to talk about it. Some would say it is beyond conception, others might disagree. This isn't up to them.

None of the Buddhist Sutras or other wise texts, such as the Tao Te Ching, could ever have been written. None of the Buddhas and other enlightened teachers could ever have come into being.

They would be written when the conditions were ripe.
Buddhas do not come into being, they just are.

I suppose you would consider the Buddha, Lao Tzu, Hakuin, Huang Po and company, to have been tremendous fools for spending their lives attempting to point people's minds in the direction of enlightenment......

The way they acted and behaved was in accordance with their beliefs and desires, both of which they had no control over. I do not think they were fools.

Okay, so you concede that some people are ignorant, after all?

-

If you read further you would see that it makes no difference in regards to enlightenment. You can be ignorant of facts and information and ideas, but not of Enlightenment. It does not belong to the category of acquired information.

I'll just leave it at that.


I'm too stupid for this forum, it would be best for me to leave for at least 10 years.

=]

unidian, what is your purpose here?

What are you trying to achieve?

Hades wrote:

Your precious ideas will fade along with your memory, their money will be lost, and their women will grow old and die.

And then what is left?

Do you see how enlightenment can not in anyway be something you acquire mentally? Its not something the accumulation of wisdom produces, nor the fruit of careful meditation or rational thinking....

The way you are using the word "enlightenment" is very much at odds with how it has traditionally been used. Traditionally, enlightened teachers used it to refer to successfully overcoming one's ignorance and becoming aware of one's true nature.

What you're essentially doing is redefining "enlightenment" to mean Nature itself. It is a case of confusing two separate terms. What is unconditional and ever-present is Nature, while enlightenment is the temporary awareness of the ultimate reality of Nature.

However, if you want to refer to the totality of Nature as "enlightenment", I don't mind, so long as you are consistent.

DQ: Moreover, if enlightenment really didn't have anything to do with understanding, then none us could ever talk about it with any expertise or authority.

H: We would talk about it if we were meant to talk about it. Some would say it is beyond conception, others might disagree. It isn't up to them.

Since this is a response which has no content, it looks like I will have to answer for you:

"You are right, David. The mere fact that I am speaking about enlightenment as though I know what I am talking about is enough to indicate that I do indeed think enlightenment and understanding are connected. There is no question that I believe I have a true understanding of enlightenment."

Very good, Hades. I knew you were capable of being honest with us.

DQ: None of the Buddhist Sutras or other wise texts, such as the Tao Te Ching, could ever have been written. None of the Buddhas and other enlightened teachers could ever have come into being.

H: They would be written when the conditions were ripe.
Buddhas do not come into being, they just are.

Again, this goes against what is traditionally meant by the word "Buddha". Traditionally, the term "Buddha" means an awakened being. But you're redefining it to mean ....what?

A timeless being who has always existed? An ordinary person who, like everyone else, has no understanding of enlightenment? Enlightenment/Nature?

DQ: I suppose you would consider the Buddha, Lao Tzu, Hakuin, Huang Po and company, to have been tremendous fools for spending their lives attempting to point people's minds in the direction of enlightenment......

H: The way they acted and behaved was in accordance with their beliefs and desires, both of which they had no control over. I do not think they were fools.

Oh, come on, Hades. They spent their lives striving to do what is, according to you, utterly impossible. Surely, that has to be classed as a foolish waste of life?

Don't be so half-hearted. Have faith in your own convictions and judge things accordingly. At the moment, you seem to lose confidence in what you believe in at the vital moment.

DQ: Okay, so you concede that some people are ignorant, after all?

H: If you read further you would see that it makes no difference in regards to enlightenment. You can be ignorant of facts and information and ideas, but not of Enlightenment. It does not belong to the category of acquired information.

And yet mysteriously, you are somehow able to pass this information about enlightenment that you have acquired along the way to us here on this forum.

-

David:

How do you define "enlightenment?" Is it simply a process of getting rid of all false beliefs and retaining only true ones? Or something more?

Well, he says the following here:

What is unconditional and ever-present is Nature, while enlightenment is the temporary awareness of the ultimate reality of Nature.

But that can't be right, since this awareness is shared by practically anyone who studies these matters. We can quibble over precisely what is meant by "ultimate reality" and such, but most Eastern types are well aware that Nature (or Tao, Sunyata, or whatever we want to call it) is all there is.

If that's all there is to it, David would have to proclaim half the forum "enlightened," and I know he has no intention of doing that. He will find some way to qualify his statement and disqualify us, I'm sure.

However, if you want to refer to the totality of Nature as "enlightenment", I don't mind, so long as you are consistent.

Feeling generous today, are we?

Enlightenment does not negotiate because, in reality, to be able to negotiate neccessitates having someone absolute there to negotiate with that is able to agree with you absolutely. These two can not arise together.

Unidian wrote:If that's all there is to it, David would have to proclaim half the forum "enlightened," and I know he has no intention of doing that. He will find some way to qualify his statement and disqualify us, I'm sure.

Well, my point was that if becoming enlightened is simply a matter of believing true things and disbelieving all false ones, then pretty much everyone on earth wants to be enlightened, except for perhaps a small number of really intellectually perverse people. So there must be something else at work here: perhaps David wants to say that most people do not really want to know the truth, even though they say they do, or perhaps he wants to say that there are additional requirements for us to call a person an "enlightenment-seeker." I will wait for him to reply.

Enlightenment is not about believing or disbeliveing anything. It is about attuning one's consciousness to that which is ultimately true. People generally desire satisfactory or egotistically palatable beliefs which they can tell themselves are more than merely that.