GENIUS FORUMS

By what system do you apply the "-" and "+" signs after your posts?

David Quinn wrote:No, there is a bit more to it than simply engaging in a new false imagining. Enlightenment is the result of abandoning all false imaginings. It means realizing our true nature, which has always been with us, and this only comes about by dismantling all of our false imaginings of ourselves.

Then the goats in the parable are enlightened. How is it that they can be enlightened, and teach a lion wrongly? Surely, if the lion acted like a lion, the goats would not approve (and be eaten for their trouble). If one is lucky enough to have no false imaginings from the start (like the goats), does that count as enlightenment?

If a community consisting of only the enlightened is formed, and children are born into it, would those children ever develop false imaginings? They are surrounded by enlightenment. Imagine that generations pass, all enlightened from their birth. Would those children be able to know that they are enlightened, without experiences to compare enlightenment to? Their parents could try to explain unenlightenment, which might be met with puzzled stares.

If one tries to do away with all dualisms in the literal sense you are meaning, it can only result in further dualities being created. The distinction between duality and non-duality is itself a duality. So if a person tries to reach non-duality by going beyond the realm of duality in a literal sense, he will only end up creating the conditions for further imprisonment in duality.

Going beyond duality in the sense I mean involves realizing that all dualities lack inherent existence, in the same way that mirages lack inherent existence. It means no longer being spellbound by any kind of duality at all. It is by ceasing to be spellbound by duality that one is able to tune into non-duality. In this way, the sage tunes into non-duality even while continuing to experience dualistic forms in his every waking moment.

I get the feeling I should think about these meaty comments until it sinks in....
but I probably won't.

David Quinn wrote:In this way, the sage tunes into non-duality even while continuing to experience dualistic forms in his every waking moment.

David,
My own metaphysical position is that the span of reality is only those possible worlds that contain objects which are necessarily in all possible worlds I perceive; that is to say, concepts that are necessarily, once created, independent of sense-data (e.g. i, 2, 4, 3.333, a perfect circle, a perfect sphere, &ct.).

Reality itself is composed of those concepts (C-class), and the vague, amorphous concepts we use to refer to sense-data (A-class), which are also real objects (only vague). Note: The fact that C-class objects seem to be the key to certain patterns in A-class objects (e.g. The Golden Ratio and its seeming connection to our perceptions of beauty) is convincing evidence that both are real.

Propositions that are about only C-class objects are C-class propositions, and can be truth-functionally analyzed. Propositions that contain at least one A-class objects cannot be universally analyzed; in order to make truth and knowledge declarations about them, a universe of discourse must be created in which the A-class objects in the proposition are considered C-class objects. This universe of discourse must be bounded with one or more assumption that transforms the objects within temporarily into C-class objects.

When it seems that we are referring to A-class objects without such restrictions, we are using the name that refers to them without actually referring to the object. As soon as we make a proposition about such an object, we must transform it into a C-class object, using an assumption-bound universe of discourse.

The above system maintains the objectivity of knowledge and truth. Universal, objective truth is available; one must first only declare one's assumptions, creating a solid ground for determining the truth or falsity of a proposition, objectively and universally. (It might be difficult to find every assumption that is being made, which renders truth difficult to find, but the truth still exists.) For example, I could say, "Mary loves John," and on the face of it, could not truth-functionally analyze such a proposition. However, if I put the proposition in a universe of discourse that is bound by the assumption "Given that love means 'acts affectionately towards'," I can analyze the proposition. Here, infinite regress is stopped at the level of sense-data; I would need more than just that assumption to bind my universe of discourse, but this is of course just an example.

Now, on the surface of things, your metaphysics and mine seem to differ dramatically; however, I propose that they are really quite similar. We only disagree on one rather large point: that being vaguely defined renders a concept unreal. I maintain that vague concepts may be real; they only require slightly more complex handling with regards to propositions concerning them.

I am not convinced, however, that simply having a particular metaphysical stance makes a person existentially different. I suppose enlightenment is just a matter of picking the right one, but the quasi-mystical aspect is puzzling.

ataxas wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:The meaning of my words has a very close relationship to the words of others, but is shifted sidewards, as it were - or transformed into another dimension.

These statements seem to directly contradict each other. A word w, that is entirely different to a word M, can bear no close relationship to it

Let's take an example word, to illustrate the point: the word "death".

Generally speaking, an unenlightened person will understand this to mean something like the physical and mental cessation of a person. So does the enlightened person. But the enlightened person understands so much more by it. The enlightened person understands many other, deeper dimensions, of which the unenlightened person is unaware.

So we are effectively talking about shallow understanding as opposed to deep understanding. These two understandings are very different, yet are only separated by a few layers.

It's not that the unenlightened person can't see the same general things as the enlightened person does, but that the unenlightened person mistakes the outside surface for the whole thing.

Crudely speaking, it is like thinking that the entire iceberg is the small bit of ice that appears above the surface of the water.

Imagine the Holy Grail of dictionaries, a dictionary that translates "enlightened" to "unenlightened".

Such a dictionary is not really possible, since it would be like human beings trying to translate human language into the language of, say, cows.

x=y/F

Where "y" is a word in unenlightened speech, "F" the value of the filter, and "x" the enlightened word. If I knew the value of "F", I could translate unenlightened speech into enlightened speech, whilst remaining unenlightened.

If you knew the value of "F", the extra factor possessed by the enlightened, then you would be wiser and therefore closer to enlightenment yourself. Therefore you would be better able to understand enlightened speech. Knowledge of this extra factor would deepen your understanding of all things, including the speech of enlightened people.

I do not know "F". Therefore, calculating "x" from "y" is impossible.

That's right. It is the job of the enlightened to try and enlighten others as to what the extra factor is. The Buddha is said to have passed on this factor to Bodhidharma simply by passing him a flower. So Bodhidharma must have been very perceptive and quick to learn.

Let us now assume that the shift "F" is chaotic.

The shift is a constant. So that makes it a lot simpler.

Kevin Solway wrote:Such a dictionary is not really possible, since it would be like human beings trying to translate human language into the language of, say, cows.

Kevin Solway wrote:

ataxas wrote:I do not know "F". Therefore, calculating "x" from "y" is impossible.

That's right.

The above quotations are all in agreement. The following quotations directly contradict the above quotations.

Kevin Solway wrote:It is the job of the enlightened to try and enlighten others as to what the extra factor is.

Kevin Solway wrote:The shift is a constant. So that makes it a lot simpler.

...unless the key to enlightenment is extra-lingual, in which case, attempting to explain it is futile.

ataxas wrote:...unless the key to enlightenment is extra-lingual, in which case, attempting to explain it is futile.

There is no necessity upon enlightened people to use the language of words. I gave the example of how the Buddha transmitted his wisdom to Bodhidharma by passing him a flower.

But words can be used as well. In short, whatever works is fair game.

Zen koans are an attempt to use language in an unconventional way to transmit the "enlightenment factor".

Kevin Solway wrote:But words can be used as well. In short, whatever works is fair game.

I have effectively proven that it is impossible for words to work.

ataxas wrote:I have effectively proven that it is impossible for words to work.

They work for me, so I will continue to use them.

Kevin Solway wrote:Let's take an example word, to illustrate the point: the word "death".

Generally speaking, an unenlightened person will understand this to mean something like the physical and mental cessation of a person. So does the enlightened person. But the enlightened person understands so much more by it. The enlightened person understands many other, deeper dimensions, of which the unenlightened person is unaware.

So we are effectively talking about shallow understanding as opposed to deep understanding. These two understandings are very different, yet are only separated by a few layers.

It's not that the unenlightened person can't see the same general things as the enlightened person does, but that the unenlightened person mistakes the outside surface for the whole thing.

Crudely speaking, it is like thinking that the entire iceberg is the small bit of ice that appears above the surface of the water.

Kevin; Yes, let's take the word "death" as an example. What "deep understanding" do you have of death? Please give us an example or two of such deep thoughts that an unenlightened person would not have or understand?

clyde wrote:Please give us an example or two of such deep thoughts that an unenlightened person would not have or understand?

See my writings on reincarnation in "Poison for the Heart".

It is the job of the enlightened to try and enlighten others as to what the extra factor is. The Buddha is said to have passed on this factor to Bodhidharma simply by passing him a flower. So Bodhidharma must have been very perceptive and quick to learn.

I gave the example of how the Buddha transmitted his wisdom to Bodhidharma by passing him a flower.

I hate stuff like this. Can't stand it. The story has no real meaning, except that in some people it invokes them to concentrate on pondering about its meaning. Its a pot of gold story.

To me, anyone who gives a story like that any respect is kidding themselves, and has moved into the realm of the emotion of religious spiritualism. Even if the story went into 10 pages of details, and there were 10 independently written accounts that said the same thing, one could place no reliance on it. I don't even care if it was a type of flower that had a generally known meaning at the time.

I could create any number of scenarios where the action of passing of a flower contains information. And there in lies the problem. If you say all enlightened people could uniformly explain what this signified, what the information was, then you are kidding yourself.

The "extra factor" to me is experiencing the emotion of religious spiritualism, which both you and David do, but Dan does not seem to.

Otherwise the "extra factor" can only be the mental organisation of sufficient absolute truths into a "coherent whole", where each absolute truth is commensurate with all the others - just like the forming of a persistent semi-conscious henid into a thought that will always be true.

The patterns of such coherent wholes, can take many forms, even with absolute truths. If the Buddha knew that the passing of a flower to Bodhidharma, would result in the triggering of the formation of a stronger absolute-truth-wholeness then he was a mighty smart mind reader. It is possible that Batman suspected it would cause Robin to think in a certain way, but if that was the case, the passing of the flower would have just been one small factor in a long chain of equally important events, so the flower passing on its own has no significance.

If the flower already had some sort of accepted meaning in that particular situation, then to me that is just the same as the transmission of spoken information, that could occur if the village idiot was taught what it meant. In this case the story attempts to make one curious about the "hidden knowledge", where there is none.

Kevin Solway wrote:

clyde wrote:Please give us an example or two of such deep thoughts that an unenlightened person would not have or understand?

See my writings on reincarnation in "Poison for the Heart".

Reincarnation? Where is your "Poison for the Heart"?

Meanwhile, give a sentence or two that expresses your understanding of death.
Or cut-and-paste a short excerpt from "Poison for the Heart".

Jamesh wrote:

If one tries to do away with all dualisms in the literal sense you are meaning, it can only result in further dualities being created. The distinction between duality and non-duality is itself a duality. So if a person tries to reach non-duality by going beyond the realm of duality in a literal sense, he will only end up creating the conditions for further imprisonment in duality.

Going beyond duality in the sense I mean involves realizing that all dualities lack inherent existence, in the same way that mirages lack inherent existence. It means no longer being spellbound by any kind of duality at all. It is by ceasing to be spellbound by duality that one is able to tune into non-duality. In this way, the sage tunes into non-duality even while continuing to experience dualistic forms in his every waking moment.

I get the feeling I should think about these meaty comments until it sinks in....
but I probably won't.

Well, pondering over it is the only way, so let me see…

David Quinn wrote:If one tries to do away with all dualisms in the literal sense you are meaning, it can only result in further dualities being created. The distinction between duality and non-duality is itself a duality. So if a person tries to reach non-duality by going beyond the realm of duality in a literal sense, he will only end up creating the conditions for further imprisonment in duality.

Firstly, there is no "trying" to go beyond or do away with duality becasue it is impossible in any ways.

Secondly, in other words, there can be absolutely nothing beyond duality, actually; unless may be one means it in a non-literal sense. But in whatever sense one means something, consciousness has to be there, and that cannot operate or be without distinctions, so one cannot go beyond distinctions unless “unconscious”. (Which is another impossibility according to me, in a different sense, James.)

Going beyond duality in the sense I mean involves realizing that all dualities lack inherent existence, in the same way that mirages lack inherent existence. It means no longer being spellbound by any kind of duality at all. It is by ceasing to be spellbound by duality that one is able to tune into non-duality. In this way, the sage tunes into non-duality even while continuing to experience dualistic forms in his every waking moment.

I don’t really get this. Until now it has always been that ‘things’ lack inherent existence, not ‘dualities’. What does that exactly mean needs to be clarified.

A hammer landing on my head does not simply disappoint me like the mirage does when its truth lands on me, although both lack inherent (that is utterly independent) existence.

Now… not being spellbound by any kind of duality, is duality too, because there is something other than one’s self that one is not spellbound about, which is but a matter of a perspective in and of duality, so where does the necessity of non-duality arise, or fit in? Is the question.

clyde wrote:Where is your "Poison for the Heart"?

Type it into google and you'll find it.

If one tries to do away with all dualisms in the literal sense you are meaning, it can only result in further dualities being created. The distinction between duality and non-duality is itself a duality. So if a person tries to reach non-duality by going beyond the realm of duality in a literal sense, he will only end up creating the conditions for further imprisonment in duality.

Going beyond duality in the sense I mean involves realizing that all dualities lack inherent existence, in the same way that mirages lack inherent existence. It means no longer being spellbound by any kind of duality at all. It is by ceasing to be spellbound by duality that one is able to tune into non-duality. In this way, the sage tunes into non-duality even while continuing to experience dualistic forms in his every waking moment.

This sounds like a "what the fuck" viewpoint to me. They believe it is impossible to form an absolute viewpoint about what lies beyond what we sense. They never talk about it, because it would be speculation. Sages don't like speculation.

If you talked about dualism every 2nd day for 10 years, you’d want some respite. I think David might be fairly correct. The nature of examining dualism is that it is non-linear, it cannot avoid not needing to be linked to more and more dualisms. That is the nature of dualism, it can be just what it is, namely the non-duality that is "a particular set of opposites", or can be examined endlessly merely by following the infinite causal chain.

I don’t care if he is correct though, as examining duality is fun. I find it rewarding. Makes me feel I know more about fundamental reality than anyone, as delusional as this may seem to most. Feeling this does not make me a sage though. Gosh no - that requires effort, and my mental manner is way too loose. Sticking to the one formula is too boring.

A = The identification of A and B within the "Set of A and B", where the dominant focus is on A, never B.

Our A, our dominant focus is on the world of duality, the world of dividing things, while their focus is on B, the world of the one infinite - whatever that means! They reckon they can see both A and B at the same time, whereas to the non-enlightened with their focus on things, the B is always blurry. just like our vision really.

Sapius, I will try and properly address your posts, this post was just a butt in, but it might not be until my Sunday.

Kevin Solway wrote:

clyde wrote:Where is your "Poison for the Heart"?

Type it into google and you'll find it.

Kevin; I was disappointed. Nothing new. Nothing profound. Here is the section on Death:

DEATH



The fear of death

We people are not death-denying, but truth-denying. Death is the ultimate escape from suffering, so we are hardly afraid of it.

We do not fear death, but we do we fear the possibility of a protracted and painful death. We fear the loss of personal freedom that comes with illness. We fear rejection by our friends. And we fear having to abandon our dreams for the future, and the hope which gave us so much strength for life.

So you see, the death we fear is the death of happiness. We see the loss of a happy life as the loss of life itself. To add to our troubles, these deaths are happening all the time. Whenever we perceive that we have lost something, we experience a death. Again, we are not afraid of death, but of the thought of loss.

Reincarnation doctrine teaches that your thoughts during "death" determine your future rebirth. In other words, your attitude during the experience of loss will determine your future consciousness, and your "future life".




Suicide

A popular song goes . . .


Drowning in the sea of love,
Where everyone would love to drown.
and another . . .


Killing me softly with his song.
The psychology behind these words is the desire to fill the mind with so much rubbish that boredom and suffering will have no place to exist. We use entertainment and the media to swamp our minds with sensational tripe, to arouse our every emotion so that we might forget reality altogether.

When reality is forgotten, life ceases to exist. Consequently our whole lives revolve around killing ourselves!




Resurrection

Jesus's death is symbolic of the death of the ego. His resurrection is symbolic of subsequent rebirth in the spirit.

The ego does not really exist, therefore its death is unsurprising. The spirit is eternal, so its birth is a certainty.

Someone who has died cannot be hurt by anything, nor afflicted with any problems. The dead have no chores. However, despite their dead condition they still hang around. In truth, we are all dead - we just haven't woken-up to the fact.




Death

Modern Buddhism stresses the importance of death awareness, yet negates the whole idea of death with a belief in literal reincarnation. This conveniently takes all the punch out of death, making the Buddhist meditation on death useless.

The power of the idea of death shouldn't reside in its power over life, but in how it can impel us to discover the illusoriness of life. Death awareness achieves nothing if all it inspires us to consider is the possibility of life after death, or the temporary nature of life.

So, please, share a few of your enlightened thoughts on death, thoughts that the unenlightened would not be capable of understanding on their own.

ataxas wrote:

David Quinn wrote:No, there is a bit more to it than simply engaging in a new false imagining. Enlightenment is the result of abandoning all false imaginings. It means realizing our true nature, which has always been with us, and this only comes about by dismantling all of our false imaginings of ourselves.

Then the goats in the parable are enlightened. How is it that they can be enlightened, and teach a lion wrongly? Surely, if the lion acted like a lion, the goats would not approve (and be eaten for their trouble). If one is lucky enough to have no false imaginings from the start (like the goats), does that count as enlightenment?

Well, you are stretching the parable beyond its intended meaning and creating unnecessary issues out of it. A parable is designed to illustrate a point, not prove it. So while it is easy to pick apart a parable, it won't really mean anything unless you address the central point the parable has been designed to illustrate.

The central point of the above parable is that our delusions are imaginary in nature and that our true nature is always with us, regardless of whether we are aware of it or not.

If a community consisting of only the enlightened is formed, and children are born into it, would those children ever develop false imaginings? They are surrounded by enlightenment. Imagine that generations pass, all enlightened from their birth. Would those children be able to know that they are enlightened, without experiences to compare enlightenment to? Their parents could try to explain unenlightenment, which might be met with puzzled stares.

It isn't really possible for a child to be brought up fully enlightened. He would necessarily have to adopt certain deluions as part of the process of learning about the world - for example, the delusion of self and other, of things inherently existing, of the world existing objectively, etc. He would also have to develop a strong sense of himself, a strong ego, so that he will be motivated to develop his mind and skills in all manner of ways.

The best that an enlightened community can do, then, is ensure that he develops a strong, stable ego, one that is well-balanced emotionally, with little or no trauma, and possessing powerful intellectual skills. He will then be in a position, as an adult, to use the strength of his ego to challenge its own foundations and make a bid for enlightened life.

-

clyde wrote:So, please, share a few of your enlightened thoughts on death, thoughts that the unenlightened would not be capable of understanding on their own.

Did you read the section on reincarnation like I suggested? It would seem not.

David Quinn wrote: It isn't really possible for a child to be brought up fully enlightened. He would necessarily have to adopt certain deluions as part of the process of learning about the world - for example, the delusion of self and other, of things inherently existing, of the world existing objectively, etc. He would also have to develop a strong sense of himself, a strong ego, so that he will be motivated to develop his mind and skills in all manner of ways.

I doubt that it is not possible to bring up a child fully enlightened, why not, do not feed wrong notions about the ego and the world existing objectively. Tell it correct things. Your argument that enlightenement has to go through a strong ego makes no sense. It is similar to saying that a person must believe in the spirit theory of disease before he can be taught the germ theory of disease.

You are reinforcing the popular view that an enlightened person is a simpleton who is helpless against cunningness of the world. Accurate knowledge is not a hindrance in any manner of endeavor.

Kevin Solway wrote:

clyde wrote:So, please, share a few of your enlightened thoughts on death, thoughts that the unenlightened would not be capable of understanding on their own.

Did you read the section on reincarnation like I suggested? It would seem not.

Yes, I did and it seemed even less impressive. Shall I post that section here? Or will you share a few of your enlightened thoughts on death?

maestro wrote:

David Quinn wrote: It isn't really possible for a child to be brought up fully enlightened. He would necessarily have to adopt certain deluions as part of the process of learning about the world - for example, the delusion of self and other, of things inherently existing, of the world existing objectively, etc. He would also have to develop a strong sense of himself, a strong ego, so that he will be motivated to develop his mind and skills in all manner of ways.

I doubt that it is not possible to bring up a child fully enlightened, why not, do not feed wrong notions about the ego and the world existing objectively. Tell it correct things.

Even if you tell the child "correct things", you are still not going to prevent him from developing these core delusions about the world. Developing these core delusions is part and parcel of a young mind learning about the world in a structured way. It is a natural part of brain development.

You can't tell a five-year-old child that the world doesn't objectively exist or that his self is an illusion - he won't know what you mean and it will only confuse him. He is not ready for such truths. Indeed, far from doing good, you could easily trigger psychcological trauma and ruin him for the rest of his life.

Your argument that enlightenement has to go through a strong ego makes no sense. It is similar to saying that a person must believe in the spirit theory of disease before he can be taught the germ theory of disease.

Without this egotistical development, the child will be mentally undeveloped. His consciousness will not be much more developed than an animal's. He might have a pure mind which is full of innocence, but it will lack depth and awareness.

You are reinforcing the popular view that an enlightened person is a simpleton who is helpless against cunningness of the world. Accurate knowledge is not a hindrance in any manner of endeavor.

I see it as simply recognizing that all people are vulnerable when they are children and need to be guided into standing on their own two feet, and that means nurturing in them a strong ego. I also recognize that the bid for enlightenment is really an adult activity, although it is possible for more gifted chilrdren to get a head-start while they are young.

-

clyde wrote:

Did you read the section on reincarnation like I suggested? It would seem not.

Yes, I did

Reincarnation, as I describe it, is the deeper side of death, of which unenlightened people have very little awareness.

[Removed unneccessary quote from Poison for the Heart - Reincarnation]

Nothing new here.

clyde wrote:Nothing new here.

I didn't say it was new, but that it was a deeper aspect of death which unenlightened people have very little awareness.