GENIUS FORUMS

Dan Rowden wrote:It is about attuning one's consciousness to that which is ultimately true.

What does this mean other than rejecting the false and accepting the true?

Hi Dan.

Philosophaster wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:It is about attuning one's consciousness to that which is ultimately true.

What does this mean other than rejecting the false and accepting the true?

Well, you're using different terminology now and that terminology is quite important in discussing these matters. "Accepting" has a rather different connotation to "believing". Had you used "accepting" initially I wouldn't have had a problem with what you said. But that acceptance also has to be of a very particular kind and must involve the experiential and not just the intellectual. Enlightenment is not just accepting/acknowledging the validity of a certain argument or perspective (though obviously the process must include that). Accepting must eventually give way to direct "knowledge" which doesn't involve accepting or not accepting. You don't need to "accept" that which you can't not experience.

Dan: It is about attuning one's consciousness to that which is ultimately true.

Philo: What does this mean other than rejecting the false and accepting the true?

I think it has to do with "seeing things as they are" prior to thought or conceptual activity, but that's not something that can be talked about meaningfully, because "seeing things as they are" is just another concept. The more we try to talk about this, the more thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and concepts we introduce and the further we get from anything real. "Enlightenment" is not enlightenment. As the Diamond Sutra puts it, there is no named thing which is not merely a name. There is no "enlightenment" that is not merely four spoken syllables, or thirteen letters on a page.

That's my perspective, and it's part of the reason I'm on board with the "sticky buns/toilet brush" approach these days. Nothing needs to be learned, unless one happens to want a religious approach full of doctrines, steps, and requirements. That's fine for those who want it, but this whole Zen business isn't about all of that. It's about unlearning all of the conceptual junk that that confuses us and lures us away from direct awareness. And the idea is to progressively throw all of it out, up to and including "enlightenment" itself. That is why it is said, "if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."

Yes, one certainly has to divest oneself of conceptual "junk", but that doesn't mean all concepts are trashy. It's about developing the skills to know the difference between useful concepts and harmful ones. If you try and carve a meatloaf with a blunt blade you end up with - well, I'm not actually sure what you'd call it, but you get the idea...

Dan Rowden wrote:But that acceptance also has to be of a very particular kind and must involve the experiential and not just the intellectual. Enlightenment is not just accepting/acknowledging the validity of a certain argument or perspective (though obviously the process must include that).

Would this be along the lines of how a person "accepts" the death of someone he knew? He may believe it intellectually as soon as he hears of it, but it takes a much longer time for it sink in as an "experiential" reality.

Dan Rowden wrote:Yes, one certainly has to divest oneself of conceptual "junk", but that doesn't mean all concepts are trashy. It's about developing the skills to know the difference between useful concepts and harmful ones.

Well, sure - but this doesn't mean concepts of any kind have anything to do with what is being pointed to in Zen and similar approaches. Even the best and most useful concepts are fingers, not the moon they are pointing to.

This includes the concept of "Zen" itself, of course. All of this eventually has to go. I don't mean that it has to be deleted from the brain or anything silly like that, we just have to stop mistaking it for what it is pointing to. In my view, Zen is all about letting go of things like "Zen."

What is pointed to in these approaches can be described just as meaningfully by "dung-stick" or "buns" as it can by "Enlightenment" or "Truth" - in other words, not at all. Wittgenstein said "that which we cannot speak of, we must pass over in silence." Nonsense words, like the Buddha's "flower sermon," are a really a form of silence.

Philo,

I'm speaking of the direct awareness Nat mentioned. The difference between intellectual understanding and direct realisation. But, sure, your example is a reasonable one. Another would be the difference between an intellectual understanding of what "love" is and actually being in love.

Unidian wrote:In my view, Zen is all about letting go of things like "Zen."

And the letting go of the letting go, even.

Yes. The idea is that eventually you are left with nothing whatsoever to cling to, not even "letting go" or any other conceptual path. No path, starting nowhere, with no goal and no attainment. Any path you may take initially is eventually understood as a path to no-path. That is why it is called "gateless gate" and such.

That's the eventual realisation, yes, but prior to that certain concepts mean more than others. I just don't think sticky buns are a useful form of silence. They say way too much for my liking!

Unidian wrote:

What is pointed to in these approaches can be described just as meaningfully by "dung-stick" or "buns" as it can by "Enlightenment" or "Truth" - in other words, not at all. Wittgenstein said "that which we cannot speak of, we must pass over in silence." Nonsense words, like the Buddha's "flower sermon," are a really a form of silence.

And yet mysteriously, in the Tao Te Ching - that wordy text full of concepts which you profess to have so much faith in - not a single nonsense word can be found. No "dung-sticks", no "buns", or anything equivalent. Instead, it is entirely comprised of coherent text which utilizes specialized terms with a specific purpose in mind.

You are literally trampling over Lao Tzu himself in order to reach that nonsense mentality you crave.

-

Dan Rowden wrote:That's the eventual realisation, yes, but prior to that certain concepts mean more than others. I just don't think sticky buns are a useful form of silence. They say way too much for my liking!

Hehe... good point. Since I don't care for sticky buns myself, they don't mean much to me. But if the nonsense word of choice were "cheese pizza," well... :)

David Quinn wrote:And yet mysteriously, in the Tao Te Ching - that wordy text full of concepts which you profess to have so much faith in

O RLY? I profess that? Funny, I could have sworn I just got through saying that that everything of that sort, including "Zen" (and by extension, "Tao") has to be thrown out.

The Tao Te Ching is a pointer. When we become aware of what it is pointing it, we can toss it on the fire to keep warm.

Ever hear the Zen story about the guys who burnt the Buddha statue?

- not a single nonsense word can be found. No "dung-sticks", no "buns", or anything equivalent. Instead, it is entirely comprised of coherent text which utilizes specialized terms with a specific purpose in mind.

Yep - that purpose being to help the reader understand why Lao-Tzu might just as soon have said "buns."

You are literally trampling over Lao Tzu himself in order to reach that nonsense mentality you crave.

Oh jeez. Dan, just for the sake of convenience, can you vouch for me here? David is trying to beat me up as if I just started reading all this stuff last week, and the back-and-forth of it is wasting you guys' bandwidth. Can we get beyond the "Zen 101" stuff?

Uni, since you are familiar with it, I remember a certain passage in the Diamond Sutra that made me laugh. I don't have it in front of me, but it went something like:

"A dharma teaching is like a raft. As much as we should be able to throw away dharma teachings, how much more so we should be able to throw away no teachings."

It gave me a really vivid image of someone on a river leaping away from his boat just to prove that he can swim. ...and then having the Buddha lean over the edge to say: "ok you've proven yourself. Now stop."

The idea is that eventually you are left with nothing whatsoever to cling to, not even "letting go" or any other conceptual path. No path, starting nowhere, with no goal and no attainment. Any path you may take initially is eventually understood as a path to no-path. That is why it is called "gateless gate" and such.

That sounds good in theory. But coming out of your mouth, it is deluded. This is because you are continuing to mistake animal consciousness for wisdom.

Diving back into animal consciousness where concepts become unimportant and words lack meaning can certainly create the illusion that one is traveling the path of no-path, but that is all it is - an illusion. The problem is, the person attempting to retrogress in that way still has many other attachments in his life. He is still attached to things like life, happiness, comfort, security, pleasure, love, sexual partners, and the like. But because he is trying rid his mind of all concepts as his main focus, the consciousness of the existence of these attachments is being pushed away. The result is instead of following the path of no-path, he is in fact following the path of many subconscious paths.

The path of no-path can only be entered if one is truly serious about giving up all attachments - not just to conceptual ones, but to all the emotional ones as well.

-

Unidian wrote:

DQ: And yet mysteriously, in the Tao Te Ching - that wordy text full of concepts which you profess to have so much faith in

U: O RLY? I profess that? Funny, I could have sworn I just got through saying that that everything of that sort, including "Zen" (and by extension, "Tao") has to be thrown out.

The Tao Te Ching is a pointer. When we become aware of what it is pointing it, we can toss it on the fire to keep warm.

And yet you cling to those first two lines of the Tao Te Ching as though it were a life-raft.

Even Elizabeth noticed it the other day. Whenever you are backed into a corner, you instinctively turn to Lao Tzu for support. Take care not to deceive yourself.

DQ: - not a single nonsense word can be found. No "dung-sticks", no "buns", or anything equivalent. Instead, it is entirely comprised of coherent text which utilizes specialized terms with a specific purpose in mind.

U: Yep - that purpose being to help the reader understand why Lao-Tzu might just as soon have said "buns."

But he didn't, and that is the point. He knew that, generally speaking, nonsense words have little or no value in spiritual discourse.

Nonsense words are too ambiguous, can be easily faked, can too easily interfere with more serious thought-processes and can too easily create the misleading impression that wisdom is nothing more than animal-consciousness. In some limited circumstances, they might be able to serve a purpose, but this doesn't happen very often.

To go around the place indiscriminately preaching the value of nonsense words as a kind of formulaic dogma is very ignorant. It also reveals an attachment to words and concepts.

Can we get beyond the "Zen 101" stuff?

You are not ready for Zen 101. There is still too much clinging to particular concepts. There is still a lot of mental emptying for you to do.

-

Zen is actually an advanced form of Buddhism that is built on the Tipitaka and the Mahayana canon and it really makes absolutely no sense without a strong familiarity of those works. You can't just pick up the Lin-Chi Record and hope to understand it. Possibly unless you're one of those rare souls who have a lot of natural potential, like Hui Neng or someone.

Philosophaster wrote:

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?

I would describe it as a revolution in consciousness in which the ordinary, empirical mindset that we all grew up in is discarded and an infinitely more flexible consciousness takes its place. The mind slips into the formlessness of Nature and no longer gets taken in by any appearance. All the logical truths which one has previously used to affect this revolution are abandoned. One now dwells in perfect freedom and clarity of insight, effortlessly seeing things as they are.

-

David Quinn wrote:That sounds good in theory. But coming out of your mouth, it is deluded.

Of course. After all, There Can Be Only One (or three, in this particular case).

If I were to say the wisest thing imaginable (assuming one puts any stock in the idea that such a thing could be said), it would still be deluded by virtue of "coming out of my mouth."

That's okay, because I expect it. The only thing that is potentially problematic about it is that it wastes a lot of time and bandwidth with this whole "guru/seeker" dynamic. But hey, I'm participating by choice, so that isn't your fault.

This is because you are continuing to mistake animal consciousness for wisdom.

No, it's because you know very well what I am saying is both doctrinally and experientially sound, you just can't admit it because your self-image depends on you being "more enlightened" than me.

It's pretty funny, actually. In part because you'll go to any lengths to establish it, and in part because you continue to presume that I take these sticky buns/dung-stick words and concepts you keep introducing seriously.

But I guess that's for the best, in a sense. If I do manage to convince you that I no longer care a whit about "enlightenment" and the like, you'll probably just ask me to leave rather than admit my approach might reflect an understanding.

Diving back into animal consciousness where concepts become unimportant and words lack meaning can certainly create the illusion that one is traveling the path of no-path, but that is all it is - an illusion.

Yep, that's what I must be doing. I simply couldn't have actually read Zen and Taoism for a number of years and understood the teaching. Nope, that's out of the question by defualt because it would dissolve the grounds for you to hold yourself superior. So I must be "diving into animal consciousness" or whatever else.

Okey-dokey, let's go with that. :)

The problem is, the person attempting to retrogress in that way still has many other attachments in his life. He is still attached to things like life, happiness, comfort, security, pleasure, love, sexual partners, and the like. But because he is trying rid his mind of all concepts as his main focus, the consciousness of the existence of these attachments is being pushed away.

Is it? I rather think the person taking my approach is simply unconcerned with things like "attachments," because there is no attachment to the very concept of them. There is also no attachment to the antithetical concept of "non-attachment." There is just reality as it is, immediately present and unburdened by any of these conceptual filters.

Non-attachment is experiential, anyway. It cannot be displayed or proven in words. Nor can it be displayed or proven in actions, because they can be (and often are) poor reflections of a person's actual mindset. Contrary to what appears to be the offical Genius line, I believe that a person who appears to be very attached indeed can in fact have no genuine attachment, if they are not clinging to any concepts.

Concepts are what people become attached to. No concepts, no attachment. It's just not possible. You of all people should be well aware of this. Examine any attachment and there is a concept involved in it somewhere. Let go of that and there is no problem. People are not attached to their television sets, for example. They are attached to the concept "the TV set will make me happy and I need it to obtain that happiness." Drop that concept and immediately the TV set is out on the curb.

However (and here's the cool part), a person who understands no-path has no motivation to do something like this in order to "attain enlightenment" or whatever else. Rather, he acts in a totally ordinary manner. If the TV set is causing him problems, he examines his attachment to it and chooses to let it go. If the TV set isn't causing him problems, he just watches it. Why should he do anything else? He is not attached to "non-attachment" as a path, because he understands no-path.

As women, your favorite people, will happily tell you, "No means no." No-path means no-path. It does not mean non-attachment, renunciation, competitive pie-eating, or any of these other concepts. No-path. Just that, nothing more and nothing less.

No-path is about letting go of our desire to conceptually interfere with reality as it is in any manner. Making no effort, grass grows, flowers bloom, and people do what they do. As Hades pointed out, none of this is up to them anyway.

The result is instead of following the path of no-path, he is in fact following the path of many subconscious paths.

You can't "follow" the path of no-path, because "path" isn't a path, it's just a word (Diamond Sutra again). "Path" is a conventional term of convenience. You can't "follow" anything to get to where you already are.

The path of no-path can only be entered if one is truly serious about giving up all attachments - not just to conceptual ones, but to all the emotional ones as well.

So "giving up attachments" is no-path? Hmm, sounds more like yes-path to me. Boy howdy, for a jen-you-wine Zen Master, you sure do have a lot of yes-paths and "correct worlds." Why is that?

David Quinn wrote:And yet you cling to those first two lines of the Tao Te Ching as though it were a life-raft.

Even Elizabeth noticed it the other day. Whenever you are backed into a corner, you instinctively turn to Lao Tzu for support. Take care not to deceive yourself.

Dude, as Nagarjuna pointed out, all discussions are conventional (samvriti). They involve concepts. Given this fact, it makes sense to refer to those concepts we find useful for conventional purposes, no?

And additionally, I'm pretty sure you quote a shitload of scripture on your web sites and in your various discussions.

Meh, nevermind. You'll just say that you are allowed to do so because you have your own enlightened understanding of it, whereas ignorant people like me just parrot it religiously, etc. There's no arguing with that, and there never can be.

Nonsense words are too ambiguous, can be easily faked, can too easily interfere with more serious thought-processes and can too easily create the misleading impression that wisdom is nothing more than animal-consciousness. In some limited circumstances, they might be able to serve a purpose, but this doesn't happen very often.

Yep, fakery and misdirection. That's what I'm up to here. You see, I have to do that to buttress my grandiose and totally un-Zenlike claim of the Most Lofty Enlightened Buddhahood...

Oh, wait...

To go around the place indiscriminately preaching the value of nonsense words as a kind of formulaic dogma is very ignorant. It also reveals an attachment to words and concepts.

It does? Yeah, I'm sure equating your religious words like "Enlightenment," "Truth," and "Ultimate Reality" to nonsense words like "dung-stick" reveals a big attachment to words on my part, while you have no attachment whatsoever to the terms so equated...

You are not ready for Zen 101. There is still too much clinging to particular concepts. There is still a lot of mental emptying for you to do.

LOL. Okay, I think that pretty much settles the matter, then. I don't see how I'm going to be able to have any productive discourse with you given that viewpoint.

See ya, David. Best of luck with being the Tathagata and all. Dan, if you want to take this further, I'll keep checking in. Otherwise, see you at FP.

Well, Nat, you obviously think you're wise and enlightened, otherwise you wouldn't be sitting here arguing about how you should be given credit for how much you know about enlightenment. Just because you don't use the exact words "wise" and "enlightened" doesn't mean your actions don't speak for you. David just comes out and says that he thinks he's enlightened, so there's no conflict in him, but in you there's a major conflict between what you're saying and what you're doing.

Matt: I don't believe Uni believes himself enlightened, just that he knows enough about what enlightenment is to prove that nobody else could be. It's rather immature, in my view.

To use an analogy, I'm not a rugby player, but I don't gather from that that nobody else could be one, either. (And, once convinced that someone can be good at the sport, I also don't suddenly assume that I'd be a good judge of how talented any given player is.)

Uni does not believe in Truth, Reality, Enlightenment, or the value of using concepts; yet he believes himself able to make judgements about the capabilities of people who do subscribe to these concepts, and know the value of using them.

Unidian wrote:

DQ: This is because you are continuing to mistake animal consciousness for wisdom.

U: No, it's because you know very well what I am saying is both doctrinally and experientially sound, you just can't admit it because your self-image depends on you being "more enlightened" than me.

You shouldn't take things so personally. I'm not attacking you as a person, I'm simply attacking your ideas, ethics and understanding. Since you claim that these are nothing anyway, I'm not sure what your problem is.

All throughout this discussion, my only interest has been in undermining the "mindless, do nothing" doctrine of spirituality, which unfortunately manifests everywhere in this day and age, including in your own self.

DQ: The problem is, the person attempting to retrogress in that way still has many other attachments in his life. He is still attached to things like life, happiness, comfort, security, pleasure, love, sexual partners, and the like. But because he is trying rid his mind of all concepts as his main focus, the consciousness of the existence of these attachments is being pushed away.

U: Is it? I rather think the person taking my approach is simply unconcerned with things like "attachments," because there is no attachment to the very concept of them.

Your "unconcern", such that it is, stems from pushing away the existence of these attachments and their harmful consequences from your mind. It is merely the result of a loss of consciousness.

Non-attachment is experiential, anyway. It cannot be displayed or proven in words. Nor can it be displayed or proven in actions, because they can be (and often are) poor reflections of a person's actual mindset.

Being emotional, experiencing joy and suffering, etc, are sure indicators that one has attachments.

Contrary to what appears to be the offical Genius line, I believe that a person who appears to be very attached indeed can in fact have no genuine attachment, if they are not clinging to any concepts.

Concepts only form a small part of the entire range of sources of happiness that one can become attached to.

I would be far more impressed if you left your girlfriend than I would you giving up attachment to concepts like "Truth". I don't really believe you ever had a serious attachment to concepts like "Truth" to begin with. So I think it is an easy sacrifice you make.

Concepts are what people become attached to. No concepts, no attachment.

No concepts, no consciousness of existing attachments - which is an entirely different thing. It's as though you are saying to the Tao, "I'm only willing to give you two dollars for your sake. The millions in my bank account will remain mine."

However (and here's the cool part), a person who understands no-path has no motivation to do something like this in order to "attain enlightenment" or whatever else. Rather, he acts in a totally ordinary manner. If the TV set is causing him problems, he examines his attachment to it and chooses to let it go. If the TV set isn't causing him problems, he just watches it. Why should he do anything else?

The trouble with blocking out concepts and living in the now is that you also block out consciousness of future consequences. For example, watching TV over a period of time could result in the deluded, worldly mentality seeping in and becoming a part of you. It could enter into you and change you by stealth. And by the time you realize what has happened, it might be too late. You might become, from a spiritual perspective, irreverseably damaged.

It might explain why you thought it appropriate to engage in that crude adolescent behaviour on that other thread.

From the Dhammapada:

As long as the evil deed done does not bear fruit, the fool thinks it is like
honey; but when it ripens, then the fool suffers grief. An evil deed, does not
ripen suddenly, but smouldering, like fire covered by ashes, it follows the fool.

No-path is about letting go of our desire to conceptually interfere with reality as it is in any manner. Making no effort, grass grows, flowers bloom, and people do what they do. As Hades pointed out, none of this is up to them anyway.

Becoming emotional over things is a form of conceptual interference.

DQ: The result is instead of following the path of no-path, he is in fact following the path of many subconscious paths.

U: You can't "follow" the path of no-path, because "path" isn't a path, it's just a word (Diamond Sutra again). "Path" is a conventional term of convenience. You can't "follow" anything to get to where you already are.

If there really was no path, then why would any of the sages, like Buddha and Lao Tzu, talk about things as though there was one? It might only be a term of convenience, but it still refers to a reality nevertheless. If it didn't, then the term would be pointless and no would have brought it up at all.

It's all very well to talk loftily about "getting to where we already are", but unfortunately, where people are, generally, is the realm of ignorance. That is why action has to be taken and a path followed. That is why Lao Tzu said, "The highest virtue is to follow the Tao, and the Tao alone."

-

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Matt: I don't believe Uni believes himself enlightened, just that he knows enough about what enlightenment is to prove that nobody else could be. It's rather immature, in my view.

Well, he has every right to question David's authority on enlightenment. He would be insane not to. I just wish he had some better arguments!

To use an analogy, I'm not a rugby player, but I don't gather from that that nobody else could be one, either. (And, once convinced that someone can be good at the sport, I also don't suddenly assume that I'd be a good judge of how talented any given player is.)

I don't think he's quite saying that nobody can be a sage, just that David isn't.

Uni does not believe in Truth, Reality, Enlightenment, or the value of using concepts; yet he believes himself able to make judgements about the capabilities of people who do subscribe to these concepts, and know the value of using them.

Well, he's entitled to his opinions. I don't agree with them, but I'm not into browbeating people into holding the same opinions I do. I'm more into getting people to doubt and raise questions.