GENIUS FORUMS

Good grief! Why so wordy?

Hehe... Touche. :)

It's just obvious that you are worried about being percieved as someone who is worried about their self image. Which is simply another way of worrying about your self image.

I agree, there's no reason one should care about it one way or the other. That's why I play guru when I feel like it and knock down the whole guru scene at the same time. I don't care about being a guru, but if I have something gurulogical to say, I'm going to say it, just because it seems like the thing to say.

Making no effort, grass grows and rain falls. And no, I don't "try" to make no effort. I just don't make any. It sounds like you're making a big fuss about all this in your own mind, Nick. Why is that?

Note the difference between this attitude and incessant proclamations about how "lofty" and "wise" one is. Sure, it's fun to imagine oneself a heroic figure in hot pursuit of Ultimate Supreme Unsurpassed Lofty Truth, but let's not kid ourselves. It's all about ego and self-image. It's playing "perfect spirituality" rather than embodying real humanity.

Hre's a gurulogical tidbit for you: the Eastern teachings say you have to make a "leap of faith" or the like to cross to "the other shore." What do you think that might be, and what might it have to do with the fact that so many historical Zen and Tao types have responded to questions with things like "KATZ," "Mu," "Buns," and "dung-stick?"

Leah wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:That is exactly the problem when talking about anything at all here, like enlightenment, truth and so on. What kind of approach would you suggest instead? Some new-speak?

An intelligent one... one that examines the data and formulates the most useful response for it,...

You're welcome to try. It doesn't help assuming others are failing in this after a few glances and what appear to be knee-jerk reactions. The world is a bit more complex than that with many crooked ways leading to Rome.

Don't you think it's a bit lazy to merely suggest the other is 'preening feathers'? Such form of debate does not lead to anything fruitful at this stage, in my opinion. When I wrote that you didn't have to wrap up the truth, I didn't mean to give me only wrappings. Where's the beef?

Leah wrote:But whatever, you will go on clucking like the clergy if you wish to, talking of good and evil and saints and devils and whatnot.

You're right, perhaps these terms are just too advanced. Lets talk about men and women instead.

Leah wrote:Just go on raping 'whoever' for glory-warmth, without even catching their eye.

Just rape? Utter destruction would be more like it, even if it's not mine to give. But I know enough about message boarding to know what is bright is almost never gold. So I don't waste time to see eye to eye with phantoms.

Leah wrote: A clumsy ego-based attempt to illuminate somebody is a horribly ugly and damaging thing.

Agreed. That's why most of the time it's better to teach people the basics of reason, logic, honesty and constructive debate first. Otherwise online messaging will only bring more darkness.

Unidian wrote:

DQ: Again, the true meaning of this teaching is something that can only understood by the wise few. I can tell by your words, for example, that you haven't yet understood it.

Obviously, the teaching wasn't meant to taken in the shallow, literalist sense that the Buddha never taught anything, because his entire career consisted of preaching the Dharma. It has a much deeper meaning, which can only really be understood when one understands the nature of the Tao itself.

U: Yeah, I get it quite clearly. And I know you do, too. So why not teach that? What is the purpose of teaching these watered-down "baby-step" things you give to the others around here, who eat them up and think they are halfway up Mt. Everest? If not to play a game of "sage and students," then what? Do you think people can't get it without this whole "path" and "attainment" business? If they can't, what's the use? Why fight delusion with delusion?

As I explained earlier, you don't give teachings to people who are not ready for them. It will only harm them.

Just as you don't teach quantum mechanics to kindergarten kids, but rather wait until their brains have developed sufficient maturity and they have mastered the foundations of classical physics, in the same way you don't teach emptiness to those whose minds are still filled with crude intellectual delusions and strong emotional attachments. They will only misunderstand and misuse the teaching, and large swathes of their ego will remain hidden and intact.

Yeah, I get it quite clearly.

I don't think you do - not fully. You have some insight into it, but it still quite narrow and not all that deep. And it will only remain that way if you keep refusing to factor your own attachments into the equation. At the moment, you are keeping your insight into the Tao tightly compartmentalized within a section of your mind and not allowing to broaden and deepen and challenge the other attachments in your life.

-

Unidian wrote:I agree, there's no reason one should care about it one way or the other. That's why I play guru when I feel like it and knock down the whole guru scene at the same time. I don't care about being a guru, but if I have something gurulogical to say, I'm going to say it, just because it seems like the thing to say.

Making no effort, grass grows and rain falls. And no, I don't "try" to make no effort. I just don't make any. It sounds like you're making a big fuss about all this in your own mind, Nick. Why is that?

Fuss? Hardly, I just call em like I sees em.

Unidian wrote:Hre's a gurulogical tidbit for you: the Eastern teachings say you have to make a "leap of faith" or the like to cross to "the other shore" what do you think that might be?

To leave one's attachments behind and have faith in reason, of course.

Unidian wrote:And what might it have to do with the fact that so many historical Zen and Tao types have responded to questions with things like "KATZ," "Mu," "Buns," and "dung-stick?"

What does leaving one's attachments behind, and relying solely on one's reasoning in order to live a a life dedicated to God have to do with someone saying "KATZ," "Mu," "Buns," and "dung-stick"? Absolutely nothing. The only reason a wise person would say things like "KATZ," "Mu," "Buns," and "dung-stick?" would be to let someone know they are needlessly complicating Truth.

But whatever, you will go on clucking like the clergy if you wish to, talking of good and evil and saints and devils and whatnot.

You're right, perhaps these terms are just too advanced. Lets talk about men and women instead.

But even though the words good and evil are just used descriptively, there is still an innate and complex value system related to the terms, particularly as a phrase, that affects how you think, ever so slightly, but possibly accumulative with use. It's better use neutral terms.

It annoys me generally when "the enlightened" use adjectives designed to appeal to emotions, and they all do. I guess no one would listen if they didn't.

To me, either the truth on it's own is good enough or it isn't.

Oops, swap the word good with positive :)

Nick Treklis wrote:What does leaving one's attachments behind, and relying solely on one's reasoning in order to live a a life dedicated to God have to do with someone saying "KATZ," "Mu," "Buns," and "dung-stick"? Absolutely nothing. The only reason a wise person would say things like "KATZ," "Mu," "Buns," and "dung-stick?" would be to let someone know they are needlessly complicating Truth.

KATZ. Mu. Buns. Dung-stick.

I don't think you do - not fully. You have some insight into it, but it still quite narrow and not all that deep. And it will only remain that way if you keep refusing to factor your own attachments into the equation. At the moment, you are keeping your insight into the Tao tightly compartmentalized within a section of your mind and not allowing to broaden and deepen and challenge the other attachments in your life.

David, you always say this. Whenever I come here and disagree with you, I get the "not quite there" treatment. I don't mind that, I just think you're making a potentially faulty assumption there.

But it's your choice. I won't play "more enlightened than thou." That's your game and I'll leave it to you. You need to rule the roost and who am I to dispute it? :)

Seriously, though - go read this.

Unidian wrote:KATZ. Mu. Buns. Dung-stick.

Like David said, less fundamentalism, more intelligence. A truly wise person knows when it is best to speak in an Absolute sense and when it is not. Something you have yet to figure out.

Thanks for the tip, Nick.

And for a religious leader and his dutiful follower to join forces in scolding me about "fundamentalism" is pretty rich.

You guys are a hoot. :)

Philosophaster wrote:

DQ: Do you really think that submitting to a pre-packaged belief system and closing one's mind to everything else is on a par with exercising one's reason to the fullest extent and challenging everything without fear or favour?

P: No, but most religious people and most people in general do not think that they are acting in the former manner. Everybody likes to think of himself as critical, fearless toward all evidence and arguments, open to the facts. All part of building up the self-image.

That's true, but not really relevant. The key difference I am pointing to is the methodology. If seeking ultimate reality involves exercising one's reason to the fullest extent and challenging everything without fear or favour (and it does), then the Islamic fundamentalists do not fit the bill by any stretch of the imagination.

DQ: Again, the true meaning of this teaching is something that can only understood by the wise few.

P: Okay, humor me and tell me what the true meaning of this teaching is. I am interested to see what you think it is. Even if you believe that I won't be able to understand it yet, I can save your words and come back to them later to see if I understand them then.

Teaching the Dharma involves pointing to a reality which is already present. It is all already around us. It is already in us. It is everything that we are. So when a Buddha teaches the Dharma, he is not actually adding or taking anything that is not already there - and the person who becomes enlightened realizes this fact very clearly.

Indeed, it is his first great insight - namely, that the Buddha, the teaching, his own mind, the world around him, are all part of the same Reality, all part of the one movement, and that there was nothing intrinsically special that the Buddha, or he himself, did to bring this realization into focus. In fact, he realizes with the utmost clarity that there is really no Buddha to begin with, nor a teaching, nor a mind, nor a world around him, nor even him. There is only.... the nameless.

-

Jamesh wrote:It will be something about that Enlightenment for Beginners post she made.

'That Enlightenment for Beginners post' was me block posting a 400 year old essay that I have found useful. I have no wish to explain no-thought or anything else to you under the guise of defending someone else's ideas and phraseology as though they were mine.

Needless to say however... when looking for an understanding of no-thought, you look above, you look below, and then when you still don't understand, you say, "Well where am I supposed to look then?" Can't blame you really, I wouldn't have chosen the term 'no-thought' to label 'no-thought', it is like a waiting trap... you are in that trap, it is the trap of aye and nay.

Jamesh wrote:I also want to know some of her history. Was she bought up by well off parents, who were into Eastern philosophy? Did she go through their system and allow someone else to judge her degree of enlightenment (she seems to be above this).

Good heavens.

Born in Adelaide, Australia. My parents were (are) mainstream ego-monsters, career-minded and spiritually shallow. I was lucky enough, however, when quite young, to regularly stay with an elderly lady who would read me zen poems in the manner one reads a joke, and then laugh until she cried... she asked me hundreds of questions that don't have real answers, little thorns, that, by nesting uncomfortably in my mind, protected me from common enamourments while I grew up.

That "Enlightenment for Beginners" post was great. A lot of soild guidance there. One could sense the ring of authentic Eastern instruction - a sense one rarely gets from today's offerings.

David Quinn wrote:Isn't sarcasm generally regarded to be the lowest form of wit?

Isn't truth generally regarded as a hinderance to getting fatter?

Jamesh wrote: But even though the words good and evil are just used descriptively, there is still an innate and complex value system related to the terms, particularly as a phrase, that affects how you think, ever so slightly, but possibly accumulative with use. It's better use neutral terms.

I understand what you're trying to say but are neutral terms really that? The important issues in life will always become related to an 'innate and complex value system'. We can keep changing the words to pretend objectivity but I don't believe that makes discussion really more effective.

But I do think I shouldn't have used the word 'advanced' for terms as 'good/evil' or 'saints/devils'. What matters is if in the context the words are capable of doing the job. While I consider it 'advanced' to have flexibility to switch between different contexts, it's better for the speaker to adjust to the cultural preferences and vocabulary if he wants to be understood at all. Unless of course the cultural preferences themselves are the target.

Unidian wrote:

Seriously, though - go read this.

I didn't seen anything much of interest there. Perhaps you can direct me to what you want me to see.

This passage is a good illustration of why I think your understanding isn't fully-developed yet:

Why so dismissive? Primarily because QRS and most of the other evangelistic "enlightenment" types make a fundamental error in their thinking - one which is tantamount to reintroducing "inherent existence" through the back door, to their own benefit. They implicitly assign the individual a "more real" status by presuming that the individual's realization of the illusionary nature of all things (including one's own inherent existence) means a hill of beans. But it doesn't, because the individual making this realization is just as illusionary as everything he just dispelled. It's like living in a totally red room with red-tinted glasses on. Go ahead and have a big old Leeeroy Jenkins of an epiphany and take off the red-tinted glasses. What changed?

Rent still needs to be paid, dishes still need to be washed, personal and psychological conflicts still need to be resolved, fish still fries in the kitchen, and beans still burn on the grill. What you get from QRS-style "Rational Enlightenment" is not just the truth, but also an illusion as bad or worse than the one you just got rid of. Namely, you get the illusion that as a person who understands basic logic and Eastern philosophy, your life will now be somehow fundamentally different. But the difference is created entirely by this faith rather than by any effect of the rational realization itself.

The kind of enlightenment I am talking about can only be reached by a transformation of consciousness. It does involve a radical change of mind - not a sudden change, but a gradual, almost imperceptible change over time. By the end of it, one has a very different subjective relationship to the rest of the universe than before.

That you haven't experienced this transformation yourself doesn't surprise me. It is consistent with my contention that your insight into Reality is narrow and not all that deep. You are still trying to reach for it while retaining normal, conventional consciousness. Thus, your reach is restricted.

This is where the role of attachments come into play. By remaining attached to the core mindset which values love, women, happiness, pleasure, etc, you are preventing your mind from undergoing the transformation which is needed to truly breakthrough into the Infinite.

This is why the great spiritual teachers of the past have always stressed the need to give up all attachments and abandon the world.

"No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God", said Jesus with great insight.

-

David Quinn wrote:Teaching the Dharma involves pointing to a reality which is already present. It is all already around us. It is already in us. It is everything that we are. So when a Buddha teaches the Dharma, he is not actually adding or taking anything that is not already there - and the person who becomes enlightened realizes this fact very clearly.

Indeed, it is his first great insight - namely, that the Buddha, the teaching, his own mind, the world around him, are all part of the same Reality, all part of the one movement, and that there was nothing intrinsically special that the Buddha, or he himself, did to bring this realization into focus. In fact, he realizes with the utmost clarity that there is really no Buddha to begin with, nor a teaching, nor a mind, nor a world around him, nor even him. There is only.... the nameless.

Yep. This is what you imagine I don't get, David? Jeez, that's child's play. Really not difficult at all, for anybody of normal or better intelligence and the ability to read. The tougher part, of course, is reconciling this knowledge with the fact that a world does appear. The nameless appearing as the named through the functioning of mind - that's the tough part. In attempting to resolve this universal dialectic, one eventually reaches a brick wall of logical paradox smilar to the koan experience, which as you know is nothing more than an attempt to induce this wall-hitting experience by rhetorical means. What is the sound of one hand clapping? Does the dog have Buddha-nature? If the barber of Seville shaves every man who does not shave himself, does the barber shave himself?

It is interesting to me that here at Genius, logic is preached as the means to "enlightenment" when in fact it has no means of delivering such a thing. What happens after we hit the wall and are forced to let go of intellect as a means to ultimate truth is the difficult and interesting part. And what does happen? Ordinary life, just as before, but perhaps differently approached. "Chop wood, carry water" becomes not only a chore, but a spiritual practice. And although there is a difference between the two in language, there is none in experience. That, for me, is the key. While language and thought describe experience, they are not it. Experience is whole, while language and thought always divide.

David Quinn wrote:I notice that on your list of things to "let go" - namely, conceptions, self, and mind - there is no mention of emotions, love, family, pleasure, sex, life, etc - all the things that people normally enjoy very much. Does your "letting go" extend to all these things as well, or are you choosing to make exceptions of them?

I find no reason to distinguish these things from conceptions, self, mind.

David Quinn wrote:

Leah wrote:The mind here, that is happening... what are you, blind?

There is nothing to see, so how can I be blind?

Oh... now would be a good time for me to slap my hand over your eyes and ask you, "then what is different now?"

David Quinn wrote:From the bowels of Nature, where all things come from.

Erm... and what are the 'bowels of Nature'?

David Quinn wrote:The kind of enlightenment I am talking about can only be reached by a transformation of consciousness. It does involve a radical change of mind - not a sudden change, but a gradual, almost imperceptible change over time. By the end of it, one has a very different subjective relationship to the rest of the universe than before.

Okay, then why not talk about that, rather than how women suck and you guys are uber-lofty?

If it's just jnani yoga, say that.

That you haven't experienced this transformation yourself doesn't surprise me. It is consistent with my contention that your insight into Reality is narrow and not all that deep. You are still trying to reach for it while retaining normal, conventional consciousness. Thus, your reach is restricted.

I'm not reaching for anything. After ten years of searching, (at least five of them serious), I am completely at rest in regard to to my understanding of reality (or lack thereof) and have no path, no goal, nothing to learn, and nothing to teach. This is not salvation, nor is it damnation. Dogmatic religious concepts of all kinds ("enlightenment" included) are completely irrelevant to this. I have no attainment or non-attainment. I'm just babbling here because I enjoy this sort of thing.

This is where the role of attachments come into play. By remaining attached to the core mindset which values love, women, happiness, pleasure, etc, you are preventing your mind from undergoing the transformation which is needed to truly breakthrough into the Infinite.

I value life. For better or worse. I do not value religious salvation, because there's nothing to it. I value chop wood, carry water. I value dung-stick and toilet brush.

This is why the great spiritual teachers of the past have always stressed the need to give up all attachments and abandon the world.

By no means have all of them have stressed that approach.

"No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God", said Jesus with great insight.

No one who looks in any direction for any teaching, path, or goal has any worthwhile insight whatsoever, as you should know. All are deluding themselves further from truth, and will have to discover this hard way, as I did. That's the point of the whole intellectual exercise - to exhaust itself once and for all and leave us defenseless in the face of the nameless.

This is why Socrates knows nothing. And in knowing nothing, he knows everything. And in knowing everything, he goes about doing ordinary things, because "knowing everything" is different from "knowing nothing" only in dualistic thought and language, not in the wholeness of non-conceptual experience.

Put that in your Dharma-pipe and smoke it. Seriously, though, thanks for the chance to babble a bit. I do enjoy discussing these issues with you, because while I may object to some of your views rather vigorously, you are consistently thoughtful and civil in dialogue.

The truth that Socrates points to, the dialectical, is the truth that the spiritual traditions, in their varying approach, attempt to guide one towards. The most frightening, but also the most freeing discovery rests in the understanding that there is one truth, and it is your own. Your own psychological needs, your own self, however illusory, is something to be discovered. Once attained, no one can guide you, but in a very real sense, they, including everything in the universe, are still very much guiding you.

Once the Truth is understood, your own wisdom is relative to any experience: What is wise for one, may be completely misleading to another. This is really why Lao Tzu says that "to know the self is to be enlightened."

Steven Coyle wrote:The truth that Socrates points to, the dialectical, is the truth that the spiritual traditions, in their varying approach, attempt to guide one towards. The most frightening, but also the most freeing discovery rests in the understanding that there is one truth, and it is your own. Your own psychological needs, your own self, however illusory, is something to be discovered. Once attained, no one can guide you, but in a very real sense, they, including everything in the universe, are still very much guiding you.

Once the Truth is understood, your own wisdom is relative to any experience: What is wise for one, may be completely misleading to another. This is really why Lao Tzu says that "to know the self is to be enlightened."

And knowing the self is knowing that your ego is self-delusional, one of the most sublime lessons of life, so ironic, so penetrating and tragic, so bittersweet and hilarious, worthy of horse laughs through and through.