GENIUS FORUMS

No need to. Just works well if you know what it means.

Enlightenment has nothing to do with thoughts, thinking or the mindsets of smart people or even stupid people.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:hades,

However, I have reason to suspect your definition is inaccurate, and you aren't talking about enlightenment at all.

Ofcourse I'm not, to be honest, Enlightenment can't be talked about at all, thats the whole point.

It's not a question of whether I can handle it, since I doubt there is anything you can throw at me that would disturb me, but whether I'll take it seriously. It was entirely for you benefit that I suggested you don't attack so many posters so quickly in such an early post -- it makes you look thoughtless, which is hardly how you want to appear on a forum for geniuses.

PyroSylph wrote:Elizabeth

If there is something I don't understand, the only way I'll understand it is if someone explains it to me in a logical and rational fashion. Background and supporting material can be helpful, but exactly where it came from is not so relevant to me as whether or not it makes sense to me. I take whatever concepts - whether they come from Christianity, QRS, you - anywhere - and chew them myself. Whether I spit or swallow the concept depends on how the chewing goes.

So, essentially, you don't do much independent thinking on subjects that are over your head, you aren't too concerned with where the information comes from as long as it makes sense to you, and you only accept the information as valid if it suits your taste? Is that a close summation?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:hades,

Ofcourse I'm not, to be honest, Enlightenment can't be talked about at all, thats the whole point.

I can easily talk about who I am. Since that's the definition you were using, what you said is false.

The thing is, enlightenment can be easily and accurately spoken about and described by people who know what it is. It is difficult to understand what is being spoken of unless you are enlightened -- which is why it should be spoken of carefully -- but two perfectly enlightened sages have no difficulty agreeing with each other as to what enlightenment is, and what the consequences of enlightenment are.

It is even possible for an enlightened person to judge whether or not another person is enlightened, based on what he says -- just as a man with vision can easily tell if another person is blind or not, based simply on the words he uses to describe the act of seeing.

So, on that ground as well, what you said is false: enlightenment can be talked about.

IQ has little to do with perception when it comes to self-preservation and validation of ones own existence.

It is even possible for an enlightened person to judge whether or not another person is enlightened, based on what he says . . .

Enlightenment is not expressed through behavior.

Ok, try.

hint: who you are, truly, has nothing to do with your job, name, race, body, beliefs, thoughts, or anything transient that comes and goes.

Enlightenment is not something you know, like a definition, or an object or process. That is just more conceptual thought.

Enlightenment is not expressed through behavior. If it is detected by someone else, then that is just their own imagination at work superimposing an idea over someone else.

If you think enlightenment is just another simple concept, that you can stick into a category and analyze like the idea of a 'car'...sure.
But that enlightenment is not Enlightenment. Sorry. ;]

What a person says is a poor way to judge whether or not another person is enlightened. The best way to judge (not know, as knowing is not possible) whether another person is enlightened is based on their actions; i.e., the more compassionate their actions, the more likely they’re enlightened.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: Actually, you just defined every single thing that makes a person who they are. Who and what a person is, truly, is a bunch of transient things.

Of course enlightenment is not something a person simply knows, otherwise it would be a lot easier to become enlightened. It requires a more than simply memorizing facts.

Enlightenment is expressed through every aspect of a person's behaviour: part of enlightenment is the fact that the person is enlightened, through and through.

It is true that enlightenment cannot be detected with perfect accuracy in another person, but that does not mean that it cannot be detected at all. An enlightened sage can make reasoned guesses as to whether or not another person speaks as though he is enlightened.

Enlightenment actually is a pretty simple concept. It just takes a lot of work to see what it is.

You should be apologizing to yourself for not doing the work.

If he sticks around we might be treated to even more of his subconscious revelations.

L: I just love it when women with penises come onto this forum and claim to be defending men with cunts!

syph: Been into self-loathing long, or is this a recent development brought on by the desire to be accepted by men who find your gender contemptible?

Why do I suspect that (in your case), getting choux pastry to rise is the less complicated of the two?

S: What if love, women, happiness, pleasure, is part of one's understanding of emptiness?

DQ: Understanding their lack of inherent existence is part of one's understanding of emptiness, certainly. But forming emotional bonds with these things is only reveals an ignorance of emptiness.

DQ: To love a finite thing within the Tao is to push away the Tao itself. In effect, you are saying to the Tao, "I have no interest in what you really are; I am only interested in the things you create which give me pleasure." It's a case of treating the Tao as though it were a prostitute.

And, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—such a person cannot be my disciple."

But of course, nobody pays any attention to that.

I am only responding to your "knee-jerk attack" because I gained some respect for you as Cloudwalker.

I have been a thinker all of my life, and have not only thought my own thoughts, but was kind of surprised when I got here that others had the same concept of God that I had figured out when I was a teenager. Most people found my concept that God was everyone and everything, includig the person I was speaking with, laugh-out-loud ridiculous.

I never said anything about IQ. Don't know why you brought it up.

I agree that what a person says can be a poor way to judge their enlightenment. However, speaking is an action. And in this format, it is the only action that we can judge (other than not speaking).

Yes, speech is action and speech (& silence) is all we have on a forum; so, the more compassionate a person's speech is, the more likely they're enlightened.

We can also judge our own speech and our own intentions, and know how truly enlightened we are.

Parasyphilis:

Oh no, here comes the Nat pop-psych “heavy”… Scary!

Well, let me take a stab in the dark here; might it be that not only do you and your ilk have such a grander respect for “my gender” than I due to their ability to cook (“groundedness”), but you also know that nothing they say can be believed since they are unconscious, pathological liars?

Unidian wrote:

Matt Gregory wrote:He thinks he can experience the totality by not forming any concepts about anything in his immediate experience, but that has nothing to do with enlightenment.

Agreed, it has nothing to do with "enlightenment." And happily so, because I'm no longer interested in enlightenment, Nirvana, moshka, sticky buns, toilet brush, or any other words.

I'm sorry, then by what measure do you define genius?

If it is the only action that you can judge, and it is poor, then the conclusion drawn from it will be just as poor. How could it be any other way?

DQ: Only Nature itself is unconditional - i.e. beyond all possibility of being conditioned by something else, and therefore beyond life and death.

Everything else within Nature is conditional, including enlightenment. For example, one of the conditions of enlightenment is the absence of ignorance.

H: You speak of basically, an academic enlightenment. When one gathers certain information(wisdom), and experiences, and rejects other information(delusions)...he will pass the test and get his enlightened-diploma. This isn't authentic, this is more ego, its kinda funny actually.
This will come and go.

DQ: You are doing precisely the same thing - namely, rejecting some information and accepting others, favouring some conceptions and dismissing others. We all do it as matter of course, even Buddhas.

H: I do this, but I do not label this sort of behaviour as the way to enlightenment. You do.

So there is a difference.

DQ: Would you say that everyone is beyond ignorance and fully enlightened about the nature of Reality?

H: I don't know.
There are too many concepts in your question that could mean different things.

"David Quinn and Kevin Solway have developed a new version of pantheism, which they term "mantheism."

I don’t think that is entirely true. Essentially, what Nat and David are pointing to is exactly the same, but the argument itself is about the fingers.

… you would have rejected the idea that enlightenment can only be reached by wise reasoning… [emphasis added]

The Taoists have a saying about this. I will paraphrase it as "words are folly, but necessary folly."

To hades, David Quinn wrote: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.

David.

You wrote,

… you would have rejected the idea that enlightenment can only be reached by wise reasoning… [emphasis added]

Is this your view? If so, what is your basis for making the claim that “wise reasoning” (logic) is the only way? You listed Hakuin, Buddha, and Bodhidarma as enlightened masters. I do not recall reading them make such a claim, either for themselves or as “the only way”.

- If a man do rituals for a thousand years, better is it for the man who for but
a moment pay homage to a man who is grounded in true knowledge. And he
who lives a hundred years, not seeing the highest Truth, a life of one day is
better if a man sees the highest law.

- To be thoughtless is easy, it is easy to live without shame and be selfish. But
it is hard to be selfless, pure and intelligent.

- Without knowledge there is no meditation, without meditation there is no
knowledge. He who has knowledge and meditation is near unto Nirvana.

Outline of Practice

MANY roads lead to the Path, but basically there are only two: reason and practice. To enter by reason means to realize the essence through instruction and to believe that all living things share the same true nature, which isn’t apparent because it’s shrouded by sensation and delusion. Those who turn from delusion back to reality, who meditate on walls, the absence of self and other, the oneness of mortal and sage, and who remain unmoved even by scriptures are in complete and unspoken agreement with reason. Without moving, without effort, they enter, we say, by reason.

To enter by practice refers to four all-inclusive practices: Suffering injustice, adapting to conditions, seeking nothing, and practicing the Dharma.

First, suffering injustice. When those who search for the Path encounter adversity, they should think to themselves, "In Countless ages gone by, I’ve turned from the essential to the trivial and wandered through all manner of existence, often angry without cause and guilty of numberless transgressions. Now, though I do no wrong, I’m punished by my past. Neither gods nor men can foresee when an evil deed will bear its fruit. I accept it with an open heart and without complaint of injustice." The sutras say when you meet with adversity don’t be upset because it makes sense. With such understanding you’re in harmony with reason. And by suffering injustice you enter the Path.

Second, adapting to conditions. As mortals, we’re ruled by conditions, not by ourselves. All the suffering and joy we experience depend on conditions. If we should be blessed by some great reward, such as fame or fortune, it’s the fruit of a seed planted by us in the past. When conditions change, it ends. Why delight In Its existence? But while success and failure depend on conditions, the mind neither waxes nor wanes. Those who remain unmoved by the wind of joy silently follow the Path.

Third, seeking nothing. People of this world are deluded. They’re always longing for something - always, in a word, seeking. But the wise wake up. They choose reason over custom. They fix their minds on the sublime and let their bodies change with the seasons. All phenomena are empty. They contain nothing worth desiring. Calamity forever alternates with prosperity! To dwell in the three realms is to dwell in a burning house. To have a body is to suffer. Does anyone with a body know peace? Those who understand this detach themselves from all that exists and stop imagining or seeking anything.

The sutras say, "To seek is to suffer. To seek nothing is bliss." When you seek nothing, you’re on the Path.

Fourth, practicing the Dharma. The Dharma is the truth that all natures are pure. By this truth, all appearances are empty. Defilement and attachment, subject and object don’t exist. The sutras say, "The Dharma includes no being because it’s free from the impurity of being, and the Dharma includes no self because it’s free from the impurity of self." Those wise enough to believe and understand these truths are bound to practice according to the Dharma. And since that which is real includes nothing worth begrudging, they give their body, life, and property in charity, without regret, without the vanity of giver, gift, or recipient, and without bias or attachment. And to eliminate impurity they teach others, but without becoming attached to form. Thus, through their own practice they’re able to help others and glorify the Way of Enlightenment. And as with charity, they also practice the other virtues. But while practicing the six virtues to eliminate delusion, they practice nothing at all. This is what’s meant by practicing the Dharma.

-

Taken from The Teachings of Bodhidharma

Question: "In that case, what can I do to become thoroughly awakened to my own mind?'

Answer: What is that which asks such a question? Is it your mind? Is it your original nature? Is it some kind of spirit or demon? Is it inside you? Outside you? Is it somewhere intermediate? Is it blue, yellow, red, or white? This is something you must investigate and clarify for yourself. You must investigate it whether you are standing or sitting, when you are eating your rice or drinking your tea, when you are speaking and when you are silent. You must keep at it with total, singleminded devotion. And never, whatever you do, look in sutras or in commentaries for an answer, or seek it in the words you hear a teacher speak.

Those Dharma patricians who explore the secret depths are like this too. They go straight forward, boring into their own minds with unbroken effort, never letting up or retreating. Then the breakthrough suddenly comes, and with that they penetrate their own nature, the natures of others, the nature of sentient beings, the nature of the evil passions and of enlightenment, the nature of the Buddha nature, the god nature, the Bodhisattva nature, the sentient being nature, the non-sentient being nature, the craving ghost nature, the contentious spirit nature, the beast nature - they are all of them seen in a single instant of thought. The great matter of their religious quest is thus completely and utterly resolved. There is nothing left. They are free of birth and death. What a thrilling moment it is!