GENIUS FORUMS

There are emoticons at GF? Wow, good to know.

How do you access them?

.

Matt borrowed EZboard's tongue emoticon.

Of course there are no emoticons at GF. What do you take this forum for? An unenlightened, frivolous place where people post puppies and other such nonsense? ;-)

Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

Yep, Atlanta Nights by "Travis Tea."

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:the act of expression always removes the artist from the art, until a genius is reduced to prettying up his masterpiece so other people can digest it. The act of creation sacrifices a personal understanding of the Absolute, if only for a time, and forces the one to pay close attention to something egotistical and insipid.

If that's what you believe, then your understanding of the Absolute is false.

Expressing to suit a specific type of listener is an act of divine understanding. One has to let go of the handrail.

Kelly,

If that's what you believe, then your understanding of the Absolute is false.

Buh? I think you missed a few steps in this train of reasoning. First you have to prove that my view on writing is incorrect. Then you can work your way up to proving that I don't understand the Absolute.

Expressing to suit a specific type of listener is an act of divine understanding. One has to let go of the handrail.

What makes this act divine? Everyone who writes writes with an audience in mind. This is not a mystical act.

One has to let go of the handrail.

Do you mean stop thinking logically? That never ends well.

Trevor,


I see no reason to believe that expressing one's understanding of the Absolute, for the benefit of others, is necessarily ego-arousing.

Presenting the Truth means, the ego isn't driving one's mind or expression.

KJ: Expressing to suit a specific type of listener is an act of divine understanding. One has to let go of the handrail.

TS: What makes this act divine? Everyone who writes writes with an audience in mind. This is not a mystical act.

Divine in the sense that it awakens God-awareness. That's all.

KJ: One has to let go of the handrail.

TS: Do you mean stop thinking logically? That never ends well.

No. Letting reason ground one's whole being in the Infinite.

Being absolutely grounded in this way, and yet absolutely liberated from anything in particular, helps one to stimulate the minds of others to be aware of the Infinite.


-

Kelly,

I see no reason to believe that expressing one's understanding of the Absolute, for the benefit of others, is necessarily ego-arousing.

It's always been my understanding that a potential Buddha sacrifices his Buddha-hood for a time to help others. Total enlightenment is solitary.

Presenting the Truth means, the ego isn't driving one's mind or expression.

The desire to present the Truth, rather than a fiction or nothing at all, shows an attachment to others. This is very much egotistical.

If the desire is gone, then I see nothing wrong with writing.

A lot of my comments in this thread were made because people were making a false association between storybooks and truth. Removing that association, while not removing any of the other the virtues of writing, was my purpose.

Divine in the sense that it awakens God-awareness. That's all.

Understood.

Being absolutely grounded in this way, and yet absolutely liberated from anything in particular, helps one to stimulate the minds of others to be aware of the Infinite.

I believe you are already saying this, but it makes no difference for the enlightened to choose to write rather than not write. Making this distinction is actually unnecessary.

The real danger is writing too soon. If a person still wants to write, then he is writing too soon.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:It's always been my understanding that a potential Buddha sacrifices his Buddha-hood for a time to help others. Total enlightenment is solitary.

I'm going to run on logic to dispute this claim, rather than experience, since I cannot claim any experience of Buddhahood (being perfectly enlightened).

To be perfectly enlightened means one is free of delusion. The ego-driven belief is now unable, like a seed in a vacuum, to regerminate. A Buddha wouldn't need return to erroneous thinking, in order to find ways to communicate to deluded people. Why do you believe he would?

Also, I note that you said "a potential Buddha sacrifices his Buddha-hood". If he is still a potential Buddha, then he cannot sacrifice Buddha-hood.

Trevor wrote:If the desire is gone, then I see nothing wrong with writing.

A lot of my comments in this thread were made because people were making a false association between storybooks and truth. Removing that association, while not removing any of the other the virtues of writing, was my purpose.

A fictional storybook could be written by a Buddha, who writes without desire to express Truth.

Also, the potential Buddha's understanding of Truth may be perfect, while his ability to conform to that understanding be imperfect. So, he can still be expressing Truth accurately, to himself and others.

But he won't become a Buddha unless he does grow out of his need of the ego.

Trevor wrote:it makes no difference for the enlightened to choose to write rather than not write. Making this distinction is actually unnecessary.

Ultimately, yes.

Yet without a Buddha's expressions, very many would not become Buddhas. To me, this represents a huge difference.

Trevor wrote:The real danger is writing too soon. If a person still wants to write, then he is writing too soon.

I don't think you believe this, as I can see that the desire for Truth doesn't prevent you from expressing your ideas about Truth.

Yes, it's foolish to write lies. However, a large part of the progress towards living and resting in emptiness is the struggle to have faith in reason. Thinking, writing, reading and speaking are all ways to deepen this faith --- they all exercise the intellect.

Much good can be done using the will to Truth as a stepping-stone.



----

Kelly,

Why do you believe he would [sacrifice Buddha-hood]?

Come to think of it, it was probably a misreading of something I read a long time ago and never bothered to re-think about recently. I can't even imagine which book I got it from, or which quotation I'm referring to, so my last sentence is probably pretty close to the mark.

Also, I note that you said "a potential Buddha sacrifices his Buddha-hood". If he is still a potential Buddha, then he cannot sacrifice Buddha-hood.

I meant something more along the lines of "holds back on attaining Buddhahood".

I don't think you believe this, as I can see that the desire for Truth doesn't prevent you from expressing your ideas about Truth.

Bah, I think you've just smoked me out of the grass here. I don't make the best devil's advocate.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: Bah, I think you've just smoked me out of the grass here. I don't make the best devil's advocate.

This gave me a picture of Kelly summoning forth Trevor in a ganja vision, him sheepishly attired in a cheap Satan outfit.

Excellent. This will kick off my own modern novel, I'll call it "Genius in a Bong." Now, let's see, which three wishes shall I have Trevor grant her?

Wanders completely off topic - Carl, I really like that new userpic :)

My landscape pic inspired him to change his.

I like both your pics...they're cool. I wonder about Katy's, though. Is that girl holding a little globule of silly putty or something?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:my last sentence is probably pretty close to the mark.

Is that the one: "Total enlightenment is solitary" ?

If so, I'll assuming "total enlightenment" means, no habitual delusions or "flash points" are left, in one's own mind. Is that what you meant?

I don't know what you mean for "solitary". Could be: There's only the Totality (no holding to inherent beings), or, Truth-consciousness doesn't rely on any specific idea or person, or, Perfection is the same as non-attachment....

Could you clarify?

KJ: Also, I note that you said "a potential Buddha sacrifices his Buddha-hood". If he is still a potential Buddha, then he cannot sacrifice Buddha-hood.

TS: I meant something more along the lines of "holds back on attaining Buddhahood".

I think what you are getting at, is that an individual who understands Truth to a degree, yet has some major attachments, will hold back on pursuing any experience of Buddhahood, for the simple reason that his internal conflict will always prevent it. So, he must spend more time in hell, to strengthen his intellectual understanding and faith in it first.

Helping to liberate others from their hells and attachments shouldn't awaken attachment again in a deeply enlightened individual. If it does, then his understanding is not deep enough.

KJ: I don't think you believe this, as I can see that the desire for Truth doesn't prevent you from expressing your ideas about Truth.

TS: Bah, I think you've just smoked me out of the grass here. I don't make the best devil's advocate.

So you don't actually believe that writing storybooks and understanding Truth are in opposition?

I don't think I'm ever a true devil's advocate. If I advocate something devilish, I usually believe it because I'm feeling grumpy.


--

Matt Gregory wrote:I like both your pics...they're cool. I wonder about Katy's, though. Is that girl holding a little globule of silly putty or something?

It's a bouncy ball playing a game of "jacks" actually :)

Kelly,

Could you clarify?

You're giving me too much credit. I was actually pointing to my prior sentence in the same point, as in the one where I said that I had no idea which saying had made me think that a Buddha had to leave his Buddhahood behind to teach (which is, honestly, probably the weakest claim I made).

"Total enlightenment is solitary" is not what I was referring to, and although I am in full agreement with the conclusions you drew from it, I was saying something simpler.

I distinguish "total enlightenment" from the milder word "enlightened" I use to describe myself for reasons of consistency in argument (describing enlightenment is the same as saying you know what enlightenment is; however, enlightenment can only be known first-hand) -- total enlightenment is permanant Buddha-hood, Nirvana, or what-have you.

The final steps would have to be done without teachers or assistance -- it must be done in solitude. A Buddha is a Buddha on his own: there is no magical, non-causal way for him to transmit his Buddha-hood to another person.

Helping to liberate others from their hells and attachments shouldn't awaken attachment again in a deeply enlightened individual. If it does, then his understanding is not deep enough.

This is exactly why I would give different, even contradictory, advice to an enlightened person than to an unenlightened person.

So you don't actually believe that writing storybooks and understanding Truth are in opposition?

No, not at all. I was trying to be careful that I was only writing "truth" instead of "Truth", so as to say something along the lines of "making a formal logical proof and writing storybooks are different things".

If you want to get to the depths of a matter, you use logic. Drawing a picture is the wrong way to figure out how the universe works (you either do it for another reason, or you do it once you already know how the universe works).

But these are still Truth.

I don't think I'm ever a true devil's advocate. If I advocate something devilish, I usually believe it because I'm feeling grumpy.

I couldn't advocate something I didn't partially believe. But I do read books. Just not obsessively, and not right now.

At the moment, I don't read storybooks. I read graphic novels. :)

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I distinguish "total enlightenment" from the milder word "enlightened" I use to describe myself for reasons of consistency in argument (describing enlightenment is the same as saying you know what enlightenment is; however, enlightenment can only be known first-hand) -- total enlightenment is permanant Buddha-hood, Nirvana, or what-have you.

The final steps would have to be done without teachers or assistance -- it must be done in solitude.

Is "knowing first-hand" the same as "on his own" and "without teachers or assistance" and "done in solitude"?

If so, then "total enlightenment" is no different to "enlightenment", intellectually speaking.

I think of any understanding that I have, as being in my own mind, regardless of whether the words are spoken by someone else or whether I say them. If I agree with someone, it is because I understand what I think they say.

Perhaps what you mean by solitary, is what I think of as "soul". Namely, when a person experiences their true "I". Since it's the function of memory in consciousness, the I is always anchored in everything they think. So they don't actually need to be alone or with anyone, since they're always "solitary".

I think less of "transmission" than a switch being turned on.

I was trying to be careful that I was only writing "truth" instead of "Truth", so as to say something along the lines of "making a formal logical proof and writing storybooks are different things". If you want to get to the depths of a matter, you use logic. Drawing a picture is the wrong way to figure out how the universe works (you either do it for another reason, or you do it once you already know how the universe works).

I think what you're saying is that storybooks and pictures don't use Occam's Razor to full effect, unlike a "formal logical proof".

The thing is, the simplest possible logical identity is a thought, and irrelevancies are also thoughts.

From personal experience, I frequently use anecdotes and mental images, to clarify an idea, and turn it into a "monad".

For example, I may start out with concept: "the whole of Reality". I might contrast it mentally with "a big round apple pie with one neat slice removed, showing chunks of rhubarb and sultanas". The logical definitions "Whole = Pie with everything in it", and "Part = Portion of Pie, Not-the-whole-Pie", are then used to constitute meanings in my "formal logical proof" that the Pie = All Portions and all the bits inside it, including cinnamon.

Then I make the conclusion, that the Whole of Reality = all parts included. The conclusion is true no matter what artworks or anecdotes I'm referring to.

When I read The Wisdom of the Infinite, I often imagine leaves falling from trees, cars being pulled into pieces, a big space-goat gobbling up galaxies, falling into pitholes, and so on.

Reminds me a lot of Hakuin.

Great storybooks.

And yes, these are still Truth.

I too don't read storybooks. I read graphic novels.

I've tried reading words only, but I find I'm still imagining the meaning of reading words on the page.

I don't think the mind can stop creating meanings in this way.

-

Kelly,

Is "knowing first-hand" the same as "on his own" and "without teachers or assistance" and "done in solitude"?

I guess these are all the same. It looks like I used a lot more words than I needed.

If so, then "total enlightenment" is no different to "enlightenment", intellectually speaking.

Really? I've been getting conflicting views on how to use these phrases from everyone. In the Enlightenment & Nirvana thread, David argued that he wasn't enlightened because he wasn't presently in Buddha-consciousness, and Scott argued that enlightenment doesn't technically exist because, from a practical perspective, it's impossible to flush out delusion from the entire unconscious.

I was differentiating "total enlightenment" from "enlightenment" to challenge Scott's claim. What he was describing was something well beyond my capacity, although I can comfortably use a lesser term.

Perhaps what you mean by solitary, is what I think of as "soul". Namely, when a person experiences their true "I". Since it's the function of memory in consciousness, the I is always anchored in everything they think. So they don't actually need to be alone or with anyone, since they're always "solitary".

I agree with the last sentence, although the explanation leading up to it is baffling. Solitude is either a location or a state of being. The soul, in my eyes, would be what is within solitude. I don't know why you called them the same thing. They're different parts of speech.

I think what you're saying is that storybooks and pictures don't use Occam's Razor to full effect, unlike a "formal logical proof".

Indeed. Using Occam's razor on a storybook seems silly.

I too don't read storybooks. I read graphic novels.

Excellent. I can usually resist the temptation to tear apart a poorly written comic book, and enjoy the pretty pictures. With a book, I feel like I just wasted my money.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:KJ: Is "knowing first-hand" the same as "on his own" and "without teachers or assistance" and "done in solitude"?

TS: I guess these are all the same. It looks like I used a lot more words than I needed.

KJ: If so, then "total enlightenment" is no different to "enlightenment", intellectually speaking.

TS: Really? I've been getting conflicting views on how to use these phrases from everyone.

It all depends on one's purpose.

For the purpose of this discussion, I'm using "enlightenment" to mean an intellectual understanding of Truth, and some degree of faith in reason. I'm using "total enlightenment", or "perfection", to mean permanent freedom from all false beliefs.

This makes sense to me, because I know that intellectual insight into the nature of Reality does not necessarily lead to experience of Reality. Courage and faith in reason need to be so strong, that absolutely all errors are resisted.

Trevor wrote:In the Enlightenment & Nirvana thread, David argued that he wasn't enlightened because he wasn't presently in Buddha-consciousness, and Scott argued that enlightenment doesn't technically exist because, from a practical perspective, it's impossible to flush out delusion from the entire unconscious.

I think David's point was that he wasn't perfectly enlightened.

Think of it as a scale. The Buddha's understanding is pure mindfulness of Reality, without any love of ego. It is at the "top" of the scale, which I'll call "perfect enlightenment". The mind may slip down a notch or two, when there is some small delight or attachment to something. Over time, as one learns to think and live truthfully, one slips and slides less. If one can maintain full immersion in the wise mind, then one is permanently enlightened.

As to Scott's argument, why should human capacity make any difference to the validity of Truth? One's faith in reason is rather weak, to ask for Reality to favour one in this way.

KJ: Perhaps what you mean by solitary, is what I think of as "soul". Namely, when a person experiences their true "I". Since it's the function of memory in consciousness, the I is always anchored in everything they think. So they don't actually need to be alone or with anyone, since they're always "solitary".

TS: I agree with the last sentence, although the explanation leading up to it is baffling. Solitude is either a location or a state of being. The soul, in my eyes, would be what is within solitude. I don't know why you called them the same thing. They're different parts of speech.

How do you define solitude, as you've been using it?

And, what is "soul"?

Then I might be able to understand why you think perfection requires solitude.

KJ: I think what you're saying is that storybooks and pictures don't use Occam's Razor to full effect, unlike a "formal logical proof".

Indeed. Using Occam's razor on a storybook seems silly.

If you wish to make any sense out of anything, you use Occam's razor. For example: what's the most likely, most simple, meaning attributable to this sentence?

KJ: I too don't read storybooks. I read graphic novels.

TS: Excellent. I can usually resist the temptation to tear apart a poorly written comic book, and enjoy the pretty pictures. With a book, I feel like I just wasted my money.

I just meant, most things I read trigger images.

I didn't mean comics, but I occasionally read them too.


-
KJ

Kelly,

For the purpose of this discussion, I'm using "enlightenment" to mean an intellectual understanding of Truth, and some degree of faith in reason. I'm using "total enlightenment", or "perfection", to mean permanent freedom from all false beliefs.

I see. That's pretty close to how I use the terms (I just define them differently).

This makes sense to me, because I know that intellectual insight into the nature of Reality does not necessarily lead to experience of Reality. Courage and faith in reason need to be so strong, that absolutely all errors are resisted.

I would put total perfection above resistance: the errors no longer occur.

How completely the errors are overcome could be a measure of degree of enlightenment. Someone who has a simple intellectual grasp of these concepts without any depth of insight is barely enlightened: at best, I would simply call him a metaphysician.

Think of it as a scale.

After a few days of thinking about your post, I agree that a scale works best. (See my last comment)

As to Scott's argument, why should human capacity make any difference to the validity of Truth? One's faith in reason is rather weak, to ask for Reality to favour one in this way.

It would be best to discuss this directly with Scott. The argument is not mine; also, keep in mind that he has quite a few issues with the way philosophy is approached in this forum.

How do you define solitude, as you've been using it?

Solitude is the thoughtful condition that strikes a person when they are alone. For instance, Descartes wrote his Meditations in solitude, whereas a man coming home from work who flips on the TV is not in solitude.

And, what is "soul"?

"Soul" is what I'd call the apparent driving force in mind. The willing agent.

what's the most likely, most simple, meaning attributable to this sentence?

Simplify this sentence.

I just meant, most things I read trigger images.

I didn't mean comics, but I occasionally read them too.

"Graphic novels" is the word that geeks use to try to make stuffed shirts believe that their obsession has literary relevance. I was just double-checking that you caught what I meant, since very few people are willing to admit that the geeks are right.

But yeah, I see what you mean.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I would put total perfection above resistance: the errors no longer occur.

I wrote: How do you define solitude, as you've been using it?

Trevor wrote: Solitude is the thoughtful condition that strikes a person when they are alone. For instance, Descartes wrote his Meditations in solitude, whereas a man coming home from work who flips on the TV is not in solitude.

I wrote: And, what is "soul"?

Trevor wrote: "Soul" is what I'd call the apparent driving force in mind. The willing agent.

First, why do you believe that the awakened one who
- has consciously reasoned through the nature of all things,
- has practised and experienced Truth for many years in many different circumstances
- is comfortably free of all habits of doubt in reason
- has grown deeply into a relationship with Truth that no experience disturbs from day to day

....starts suddenly to doubt his reasoning and to believe in delusions when a person's image occurs to them?

Second, is not the "driving force" of will, causation? Oh, you wrote "apparent", so I'm guessing you do not believe what you wrote.....?

To my mind, "soul" has connotations of: the deeper life in a person, made up of values. What one believes is ultimately true. That is, conscience. Is that what you mean by will?

"Graphic novels" is the word that geeks use to try to make stuffed shirts believe that their obsession has literary relevance. I was just double-checking that you caught what I meant, since very few people are willing to admit that the geeks are right.

It's funny hearing starry-eyed musicologists on Bach's triple counterpoint, essentially no different to the local theosophist giving lectures on the paranormal. You could ask a geek next time, "Does it make you feel special?" and see what he says.


-

Kelly,

....starts suddenly to doubt his reasoning and to believe in delusions when a person's image occurs to them?

I don't think that someone fully immersed in Truth would be painting pictures, unless they were already doing so before enlightenment. One who suddenly changes his habits to write a book, say, has just unintentionally provided evidence that he is not comfortable in his own enlightenment. A sudden change of habits is often evidence of delusion.

The artistic act itself is not what concerns me, so much as the motivations behind the act.

Oh, you wrote "apparent", so I'm guessing you do not believe what you wrote.....?

I wrote "apparent" as in "presents the appearance of". The soul is what someone might falsely consider the driving force, but with good reason, since it presents all appearances of being so.

By will, I mean the part of the person that says "I will do this" or "I will not do this". And yes, that would be identical to the person's deepest beliefs.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:KJ: ....starts suddenly to doubt his reasoning and to believe in delusions when a person's image occurs to them?

TS: I don't think that someone fully immersed in Truth would be painting pictures, unless they were already doing so before enlightenment. One who suddenly changes his habits to write a book, say, has just unintentionally provided evidence that he is not comfortable in his own enlightenment. A sudden change of habits is often evidence of delusion.

I'd like to keep this simple, because otherwise I can't follow you.

You believe that a perfectly enlightened Buddha is "solitary", which you define as "in a state of thought when he is alone", and "never changing one's habits suddenly".

Is this a correct summary?

A question:
Why do you think that one's understanding of Truth necessarily alters when watching tv or spending time with other people?

Changing one's habits suddenly is really not a good criterium, either. Normally, you're right, because a person who has reasoned through plans won't have good reason to ignore his reasoning totally and behave recklessly. However, he may reason that his past habits aren't adapting to his current circumstances.

I think it's probably a better gauge of wisdom to have no routine whatsoever. Because a wise person sees everything as God, and doesn't find any thing at all, such as a habit, that could provide him with gain or loss. So it wouldn't be a problem to alter whatever he was doing, so long as it matched his ultimate purpose in life.

The artistic act itself is not what concerns me, so much as the motivations behind the act.

Then nothing at all should concern you except the quality of the person's thoughts?

Enlightenment rather than ritual?

KJ: Oh, you wrote "apparent", so I'm guessing you do not believe what you wrote.....?

TS: I wrote "apparent" as in "presents the appearance of". The soul is what someone might falsely consider the driving force, but with good reason, since it presents all appearances of being so.

Remember that you decided that "soul" is something completely different to "solitude", and said it is "within solitude".

Frankly, I don't see the point in these ideas. Too complicated and not necessary. They don't point to Truth for me.

If you wish to examine why I think this (you don't have to), this is what I think on your ideas here:

If all appearances reveal the driving force of the mind/consciousness/everything experienced --- to be the soul/willing agent, then there is no possible appearance that could reveal anything else to be the driving force.

But I dispute that the cause of the mind can ever be experienced, because if it is the cause, then it is absolutely not the same as the mind/consciousness/everything experienced. It just can't be experienced.

Something that cannot be experienced, is experienced "within solitude"? I don't think so!

I did assume that "mind" is the same as "consciousness" or "everything experienced". You may have a different definition, though I think I've covered the most logical bases.

----

Enough of that.

The will (the "I" that makes plans and decisions) doesn't cause the mind. It's simply causes, that happen to have the function of contrasting, identifying, and imagining things.

When one thinks, "I will do this", or "I value doing this", it's because of causes.

I is a cause but not the whole lot.

So there's really no such thing as a solitude in which one's I can ever be diminished by variations in experiences. The I is always comparing things, so variations are inevitable. I is a constant in consciousness - at least, in rational consciousness.

I'm not talking about the unique human self, "Trevor Salzyn" here. Just, the function of consciousness that thinks.

That's all the I is.


-