GENIUS FORUMS

Yeah, it dropped my first comment, which was just a humorous reference to my "bag of tricks" you keep alluding to. I assure you, I am no magician!

Okay.

By "bag of tricks" I don't mean to imply that you are a magician, or that you are in control of the process. Cleay, the trickery is habitual, subconscious and instinctive. It is very real, all the same.

It relates to what I have spoken about in the past - namely, that you are in denial about the deeper aspects of ego. Both your own ego personally, and the ego as a subject generally.

samadhi wrote:

David Quinn wrote:The one above I will call "paranoid moralizing" - that is, the trick of deflecting attention away from the logic of the other person's statements by whipping up paranoid fear and moral condemnation.

First, there was no logic in your statement, simply an assertion. Second, I wasn't playing on fear but rather skepticism. I don't swallow anything whole simply because someone wants to point to their bright and shiny enlightened halo. In fact, the more pointing, the more likely the opinion is crap.

This is a repetition of the previous "paranoid moralizing" trick, with the aid of a new trick I shall call "arm-flapping".

It's a case of trying to bluff one's way out of the situation by placing all of the fault and the blame on the other person - firstly, by discrediting the validity of his point of view, not with logical argument, but by waving the arms about, and secondly, by assassinating his character by accusing him of vanity and perpetuating lies.

samadhi wrote:

David Quinn wrote:In this way, the other person's statements no longer have to be dealt with in a logical manner, but can be swept away by a tide of insinuation and character assassination.

Oh please. Playing the "enlightened one" doesn't give you a free pass on any opinion you want to throw around. If that's the arena you want to cavort in, then you're going to get dirty with everyone else.

Here, the "paranoid moralizing" is simply ramped up a level or two. Instead of changing tack in a bid to alter the perception that he is assassinating the other person's character, he employs a double-bluff by repeating it even more intensely in the hope that it will somehow be more persuasive in the re-telling.

As a point of interest, the point I was making had nothing whatosoever to do with pointing to my "enlightenment halo" or whatever story you were making up there. Rather, it was concerned with describing the flexible, non-egotistical behaviour of a mind immersed in emptiness.

-

David Quinn wrote:By "bag of tricks" I don't mean to imply that you are a magician, or that you are in control of the process. Cleay, the trickery is habitual, subconscious and instinctive. It is very real, all the same.

I was joking about it. I just think it's funny when someone refers to my "tricks."

It relates to what I have spoken about in the past - namely, that you are in denial about the deeper aspects of ego. Both your own ego personally, and the ego as a subject generally.

No doubt the ego is subtle. It helps to invite scrutiny from others.

David: The one above I will call "paranoid moralizing" - that is, the trick of deflecting attention away from the logic of the other person's statements by whipping up paranoid fear and moral condemnation.

sam: First, there was no logic in your statement, simply an assertion. Second, I wasn't playing on fear but rather skepticism. I don't swallow anything whole simply because someone wants to point to their bright and shiny enlightened halo. In fact, the more pointing, the more likely the opinion is crap.

David: This is a repetition of the previous "paranoid moralizing" trick, with the aid of a new trick I shall call "arm-flapping".

Yah! My repetoire keeps growing!

It's a case of trying to bluff one's way out of the situation by placing all of the fault and the blame on the other person - firstly, by discrediting the validity of his point of view, not with logical argument, but by waving the arms about, and secondly, by assassinating his character by accusing him of vanity and perpetuating lies.

Again, I am simply pointing to your assertion about having no viewpoint. Very clearly you have one and are waving it my face right now.

David: In this way, the other person's statements no longer have to be dealt with in a logical manner, but can be swept away by a tide of insinuation and character assassination.

sam: Oh please. Playing the "enlightened one" doesn't give you a free pass on any opinion you want to throw around. If that's the arena you want to cavort in, then you're going to get dirty with everyone else.

David: Here, the "paranoid moralizing" is simply ramped up a level or two. Instead of changing tack in a bid to alter the perception that he is assassinating the other person's character, he employs a double-bluff by repeating it even more intensely in the hope that it will somehow be more persuasive in the re-telling.

lol, the views fly fast and furious! My point was simply that playing with opinions puts you in the arena. If you don't want to be in the arena, don't flaunt your opinions.

As a point of interest, the point I was making had nothing whatosoever to do with pointing to my "enlightenment halo" or whatever story you were making up there. Rather, it was concerned with describing the flexible, non-egotistical behaviour of a mind immersed in emptiness.

Yeah, I get that. Just cease cherishing opinions and you'll be okay. A message board probably isn't the best place to do that though.

I've already spelled out the difference between forming judgments (a natural function of the mind) and solidifying into views (an egotistical-based activity concerned with feeling secure).

Just as a Buddha doesn't cease having perceptions, even though it is said that he transcends all perceptions, he doesn't cease forming judgments and articulating views, even though it is said that he transcends all views. A mind immersed in emptiness isn't a blank mind where nothing happens. It is a mind where truths and clear perceptions arise and fall spontaneously, with nothing personal invested in any of them.

I trust that you will take on board what I say here, otherwise I will have no choice but to accuse you of engaging in another trick - namely, "assumed deafness", or "rendering the other person invisible", or some such thing.

-

David Quinn wrote:Just as a Buddha doesn't cease having perceptions, even though it is said that he transcends all perceptions, he doesn't cease forming judgments and articulating views, even though it is said that he transcends all views. A mind immersed in emptiness isn't a blank mind where nothing happens. It is a mind where truths and clear perceptions arise and fall spontaneously, with nothing personal invested in any of them.

A Buddha's enlightenment is about "I AM." It isn't about what he likes for breakfast. The idea that all views are transcended on enlightenment is demonstrably false. A personality is not transcended, only the identity with it.

I trust that you will take on board what I say here, otherwise I will have no choice but to accuse you of engaging in another trick - namely, "assumed deafness", or "rendering the other person invisible", or some such thing.

I understand where you're coming from. But I disagree with the implication that enlightenment applies to ideas other than "I AM." And I disagree with your idea that "[you] have no views whatsoever." You have clearly shown to have views about me. Your wanting to couch them in terms of some pristine emptiness is a transparent attempt to deflect criticism. Calling my disagreement another trick is a way of, as you said, solidifying your view and feeling secure.

samadhi wrote:

David Quinn wrote:Just as a Buddha doesn't cease having perceptions, even though it is said that he transcends all perceptions, he doesn't cease forming judgments and articulating views, even though it is said that he transcends all views. A mind immersed in emptiness isn't a blank mind where nothing happens. It is a mind where truths and clear perceptions arise and fall spontaneously, with nothing personal invested in any of them.

A Buddha's enlightenment is about "I AM." It isn't about what he likes for breakfast.

I never said that it was. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Your use of the phrase, "I AM", althoughy catchy and cliched, is meaningless if you don't actually specify what it means. I've seen it used in a hundred different ways - both wisely and deludedly.

The idea that all views are transcended on enlightenment is demonstrably false. A personality is not transcended, only the identity with it.

Here is another mental trick that you use - quite a lot, in fact. I will label it "gushing".

The trick essentially consists of jumbling together separate ideas and issues in a loose, random manner with the hope of deflecting the thread of the other person's thinking.

Above, for example, the idea of personality is suddenly introduced without warning and for no apparent reason. The idea of transcending all views is suddenly conflated with the idea of transcending personality, again with no explanation why. Somehow, the other person is expected to pick apart this jumble and make a coherent response.

Why have you done this? On the face of it, it seems that you needed to direct the conversation to an area where you feel more comfortable - namely, the issue of identifying with things, which is one of your pet subjects. The issue of whether views are transcended or not in enlightenment was too unfamiliar for your liking, and so you suddenly and violently yanked the conversation over to where you wanted it to be - almost in mid-sentence, as it were.

Personality is a conglomeration of all sorts of things, ranging from physical habits and inflections in the voice to one's overall values and general disposition to life. It goes without saying that personality is neither transcended nor comes to an end with enlightenment. But certain aspects of personality are changed, one of them being the inability to transcend all views.

-

sam: A Buddha's enlightenment is about "I AM." It isn't about what he likes for breakfast.

David: I never said that it was. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Your use of the phrase, "I AM", althoughy catchy and cliched, is meaningless if you don't actually specify what it means. I've seen it used in a hundred different ways - both wisely and deludedly.

I am using it the wise way ... lol. It simply means enlightenment is about who you are, not what you think.

sam: The idea that all views are transcended on enlightenment is demonstrably false. A personality is not transcended, only the identity with it.

David: Here is another mental trick that you use - quite a lot, in fact. I will label it "gushing".

How cute.

The trick essentially consists of jumbling together separate ideas and issues in a loose, random manner with the hope of deflecting the thread of the other person's thinking.

Above, for example, the idea of personality is suddenly introduced without warning and for no apparent reason. The idea of transcending all views is suddenly conflated with the idea of transcending personality, again with no explanation why. Somehow, the other person is expected to pick apart this jumble and make a coherent response.

A personality has views, wouldn't you agree?

Why have you done this? On the face of it, it seems that you needed to direct the conversation to an area where you feel more comfortable - namely, the issue of identifying with things, which is one of your pet subjects. The issue of whether views are transcended or not in enlightenment was too unfamiliar for your liking, and so you suddenly and violently yanked the conversation over to where you wanted it to be - almost in mid-sentence, as it were.

Actually I did it as a means of directing your attention to what enlightenment means. Overlooking aspects of personality as you are doing with views is problematic.

Personality is a conglomeration of all sorts of things, ranging from physical habits and inflections in the voice to one's overall values and general disposition to life. It goes without saying that personality is neither transcended nor comes to an end with enlightenment. But certain aspects of personality are changed, one of them being the inability to transcend all views.

I'm glad we're on the same page as far as personality goes. But certain aspects of personality can be transcended according to you. Ideas and viewpoints become pristine in enlightenment. Is that your argument?

samadhi wrote:

sam: A Buddha's enlightenment is about "I AM." It isn't about what he likes for breakfast.

David: I never said that it was. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Your use of the phrase, "I AM", althoughy catchy and cliched, is meaningless if you don't actually specify what it means. I've seen it used in a hundred different ways - both wisely and deludedly.

I am using it the wise way ... lol. It simply means enlightenment is about who you are, not what you think.

Again, this is nowhere near specific enough. I could easily describe the transcendence of all views that I have been speaking about as "being about who you are, not what you think"

But certain aspects of personality can be transcended according to you. Ideas and viewpoints become pristine in enlightenment. Is that your argument?

Well, the distorting force of delusion disappears and the mind becomes perfectly clear, which does impact on every aspect of mental functioning - including thinking, perceiving, experiencing, remembering, etc. The mind no longer has to grasp at things out of insecurity and confusion, and thus, like a still lake in the middle of the night, is able to reflects things just as they are.

So yes, mental functioning does increase in quality and become more "pristine", but that is really just a natural consequence, a side-effect, of the far more important attainment of immersion in emptiness or "I AM".

-

sam: I am using it the wise way ... lol. It simply means enlightenment is about who you are, not what you think.

David: Again, this is nowhere near specific enough. I could easily describe the transcendence of all views that I have been speaking about as "being about who you are, not what you think"

I don't think so. Look at your views about me. They have nothing to do with you, everything to do with me. Do you really think there is an enlightened view of me and you got it?

sam: But certain aspects of personality can be transcended according to you. Ideas and viewpoints become pristine in enlightenment. Is that your argument?

David: Well, the distorting force of delusion disappears and the mind becomes perfectly clear, which does impact on every aspect of mental functioning - including thinking, perceiving, experiencing, remembering, etc. The mind no longer has to grasp at things out of insecurity and confusion, and thus, like a still lake in the middle of the night, is able to reflects things just as they are.

The delusion is the identity one has with thoughts, not the thoughts themselves. Which is not to say that thinking doesn't change after enlightenment. Without attachment, a lot of thinking is no longer relevant.

You do appear as wanting to identify with thoughts as some kind of mark of enlightenment, their "emptiness", their "clarity", etc. That reveals an attachment, "my thoughts must be empty." Your thoughts are simply your thoughts. Don't attach to them.

So yes, mental functioning does increase in quality and become more "pristine", but that is really just a natural consequence, a side-effect, of the far more important attainment of immersion in emptiness or "I AM".

The change in thinking is about the lack of identity. One no longer invests a self into thinking. You however seem to believe that attachment is now safe because the thoughts are "pure." This is common delusion.

samadhi wrote:

sam: I am using it the wise way ... lol. It simply means enlightenment is about who you are, not what you think.

David: Again, this is nowhere near specific enough. I could easily describe the transcendence of all views that I have been speaking about as "being about who you are, not what you think"

I don't think so. Look at your views about me. They have nothing to do with you, everything to do with me. Do you really think there is an enlightened view of me and you got it?

Well, I do have a clear perception of you. You can hide from most things and you do a pretty good job of it, but I have navigated the maze and can see you clearly.

True to form, you didn't deal directly or rationally with my comment above, but instead "gushed" over to something else.

samadhi wrote:

sam: But certain aspects of personality can be transcended according to you. Ideas and viewpoints become pristine in enlightenment. Is that your argument?

David: Well, the distorting force of delusion disappears and the mind becomes perfectly clear, which does impact on every aspect of mental functioning - including thinking, perceiving, experiencing, remembering, etc. The mind no longer has to grasp at things out of insecurity and confusion, and thus, like a still lake in the middle of the night, is able to reflects things just as they are.

The delusion is the identity one has with thoughts, not the thoughts themselves. Which is not to say that thinking doesn't change after enlightenment. Without attachment, a lot of thinking is no longer relevant.

You do appear as wanting to identify with thoughts as some kind of mark of enlightenment, their "emptiness", their "clarity", etc. That reveals an attachment, "my thoughts must be empty." Your thoughts are simply your thoughts. Don't attach to them.

A mind that transcends all views and dwells in emptiness isn't a mind that clings to things, whether it be to thoughts, feeling, or experiences. It observes each truthful thought and each clear perception as it arises and falls, while adhering to none of them.

samadhi wrote:

So yes, mental functioning does increase in quality and become more "pristine", but that is really just a natural consequence, a side-effect, of the far more important attainment of immersion in emptiness or "I AM".

The change in thinking is about the lack of identity. One no longer invests a self into thinking. You however seem to believe that attachment is now safe because the thoughts are "pure." This is common delusion.

You should just admit that you don't really know what you are talking about and be done with it. This business of pontificating about enlightenment in a rigid, formal manner, using sterile, third-hand scripts regurgitated from someone else, is ridiculous.

If you were a witness in a court case and you answered questions in this same rigid, borrowed, scripted manner, your evidence would be dismissed out of hand due to a lack credibility. The judge would conclude that you didn't really witness the incident at all.

I do know why you are here on this forum, and on discussion boards generally, peddling these scripts, but you owe it to yourself to have a genuine rethink about how you go about things. Instead of wasting your time on-line, engaging in these inauthentic discussions, why not knuckle down and get serious about becoming enlightened and understanding these issues properly? Then, when you have made some authentic discoveries, you can come back and tell us something worthwhile.

At the moment, you are just wasting everyone's time with fool's gold.

-

sam: I am using it the wise way ... lol. It simply means enlightenment is about who you are, not what you think.

David: Again, this is nowhere near specific enough. I could easily describe the transcendence of all views that I have been speaking about as "being about who you are, not what you think"

sam: I don't think so. Look at your views about me. They have nothing to do with you, everything to do with me. Do you really think there is an enlightened view of me and you got it?

David: Well, I do have a clear perception of you. You can hide from most things and you do a pretty good job of it, but I have navigated the maze and can see you clearly.

Yeah, I'm sure you think you do. The point is, is their only one "true" way to look at me? And you happen to have that "true" view? I mean, I write a few words on a message board and suddenly you have the one "true" view? WTF?

True to form, you didn't deal directly or rationally with my comment above, but instead "gushed" over to something else.

Of course. Everything I say is slotted into your view and flushed. How enlightened of you.

sam: The delusion is the identity one has with thoughts, not the thoughts themselves. Which is not to say that thinking doesn't change after enlightenment. Without attachment, a lot of thinking is no longer relevant.

You do appear as wanting to identify with thoughts as some kind of mark of enlightenment, their "emptiness", their "clarity", etc. That reveals an attachment, "my thoughts must be empty." Your thoughts are simply your thoughts. Don't attach to them.

David: A mind that transcends all views and dwells in emptiness isn't a mind that clings to things, whether it be to thoughts, feeling, or experiences. It observes each truthful thought and each clear perception as it arises and falls, while adhering to none of them.

Talk about gushing.

David: So yes, mental functioning does increase in quality and become more "pristine", but that is really just a natural consequence, a side-effect, of the far more important attainment of immersion in emptiness or "I AM".

sam: The change in thinking is about the lack of identity. One no longer invests a self into thinking. You however seem to believe that attachment is now safe because the thoughts are "pure." This is common delusion.

David: You should just admit that you don't really know what you are talking about and be done with it. This business of pontificating about enlightenment in a rigid, formal manner, using sterile, third-hand scripts regurgitated from someone else, is ridiculous.

Sorry David if I don't meet with your approval. I give the simple truth, enlightenment is about what you are, not what you think. Deal with it.

If you were a witness in a court case and you answered questions in this same rigid, borrowed, scripted manner, your evidence would be dismissed out of hand due to a lack credibility. The judge would conclude that you didn't really witness the incident at all.

I do know why you are here on this forum, and on discussion boards generally, peddling these scripts, but you owe it to yourself to have a genuine rethink about how you go about things. Instead of wasting your time on-line, engaging in these inauthentic discussions, why not knuckle down and get serious about becoming enlightened and understanding these issues properly? Then, when you have made some authentic discoveries, you can come back and tell us something worthwhile.

All you want to do is trash talk. Every post of yours is an ad hominem. And you have the balls to say I lack credibility. Sheesh.