GENIUS FORUMS

brokenhead wrote:

Carl G wrote:Golly -- housing issues aside for a moment -- Ryan and Kelly have all but announced their Enlightened status by now. This is quite momentous. As far as I know they are the only two of the long-timers besides QRS who have done this, although Trevor has come close, and Nick certainly speaks as though he thinks he is. I say long-timers to differentiate from some like mikiel who seem to have significantly different definitions of the term.

I guess things are really progressing here at Genius.

I'm with you there, Carl. It's a beautiful thing to be witnessing.

Hey come on. These youngsters gotta have something to dream about. Let it go already..


.

Enlightenment is just another word for rational, or very intelligent,

Oh, come now, Ryan, this is a very cheap sort of enlightenment you are peddling, and easily won.

Iolaus,

Oh, come now, Ryan, this is a very cheap sort of enlightenment you are peddling, and easily won.

its only cheap because it doesn't give any sort of lofty mystic nonsense to gobble up. It gives you absolutely nothing, and that is how it should be. Humanity is unenlightened because they are irrational, meaning they lack awareness, which is a function of emotional intelligence. There is nothing mystical or special about the enlightened state, it is very ordinary in that sense.

Ryan,

No, it's cheap because not a fundamental breakthrough, not at all.

The idea that enlightenment gives nothing, you know, is just a way of explaining a state in which everything has changed, but then life goes on and nothing has changed - yet it has. If it truly gave you nothing, it would be worthless.

Iolaus,

The idea that enlightenment gives nothing, you know, is just a way of explaining a state in which everything has changed, but then life goes on and nothing has changed - yet it has. If it truly gave you nothing, it would be worthless.

it is worthless in the sense that you cannot derive any sort of positive emotion from the idea of the enlightened state, it is a state that gives you absolutely nothing, and that is why it is so beautiful and supreme, there is nothing more honest than a psychological state that is totally neutral - meaning totally devoid of bliss, ecstasy, and all other outrageous fantasies of the ego....

Ryan,

You are an interesting case. You seem conflicted. That is, you speak loftily at times, and dismally at times.
But I think the Hindus are right - the basics, the trinity if you will, of existence, is sat-chit-ananda.

Existence, consciousness, and bliss.

If you ponder existence itself, the mystery of it, we find that existence itself if a fundament, but then we have consciousness, another fundament. That leaves - well what is the state of the Existent One? Nothingness? Emptiness? I don't think so. Bliss is perhaps, or perhaps not, too strong a word for the peace and contentment of the Existent One, which is you.

It is a folly of this forum to deny that there is any feeling state at all. In this case we are robots or nonliving matter. No use to existence if it has no satisfaction. Even the magnificence of the universe, knowledge and learning, are intensely satisfying.

Stop the crap of non emotion. There is no such state and never will be.

Only men can so delude themselves!

Iolaus,

Stop the crap of non emotion. There is no such state and never will be.

The enlightened state is not totally without emotion, but it is subtle, concentrated, and almost non-existent. Actually, I prefer the word sensitivity over emotion, as emotion implies the animal brain. The way an enlightened mind navigates through the world is totally divorced from the gross emotions of the ego, and that is why we are so hard on emotions here at GF. Enlightened minds are critical of emotions that are part of samsara - IE: excitement, euphoria, despair, depression and so on. Dualistic emotions that the ego thrives off of.

Good answer.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Carl/Brokenhead -

I'm with you there, Carl. It's a beautiful thing to be witnessing.

And what is even more beautiful is how you two continue to contradict yourselves.

In what way?

Every poster on here has some notion of what they believe enlightened behavior is….

And some opinion of what enlightenment itself is. Kelly sets her sights high, says it means having "a virtually perfect understanding of Reality." (I wonder how would anyone know if they have achieved this?) while you believe:

Enlightenment is just another word for rational, or very intelligent,

Much more modest, yet you have said there may be only 60 enlightened men on the planet and an estimated 6 women. Interesting.

and yes I do believe that I’m very intelligent, but that is a relative statement based on a common measure of normality within society.

So, there's such a thing as relatively enlightened? Is it anything like being, to coin another of your original terms, partially alive?

I think both of you are unclear about what humility means - Humility doesn’t involve tricking yourself into believing that you’re not conscious, when you are,

I don't think I am accusing you of egoism. If anything the charge is inaccuracy, but maybe I best drop it; as you say we each describe enlightenment by our own terms. I would ascribe more than rationality and intelligence -- however encompassing their definitions might be -- to an enlightened state or being. I suspect you would as well. My main point with you is the same as always, to get you to see the need for accuracy -- that is, truth -- in your thinking and thus in your writing. Sometimes you do these with clarity, but often with romantic notions or fantastic hyperbole. That's all.

Carl,

Much more modest, yet you have said there may be only 60 enlightened men on the planet and an estimated 6 women. Interesting.

I don’t see a contradiction. You see, most individuals are not completely and totally intelligent, meaning they maybe smart in their field, but if you question them enough, you realize that they are a bundle of contradictions. Actually, most men that I’ve ever spoken with are this way. They are easily emotional over certain issues; they don’t have a solid framework of logical definitions to based their conclusions on, and they still have some degree of ego, so most statements they utter are basically wrong.

So, there's such a thing as relatively enlightened? Is it anything like being, to coin another of your original terms, partially alive?

Relatively enlightened is not a new concept, there are degrees of consciousness, as some individuals can criticize certain aspects of reality perfectly, but when those same relationships or other relationships are directed back on themselves, they cannot see them. The ego creates mental blocks, even though they may possess some level of consciousness.

I don't think I am accusing you of egoism. If anything the charge is inaccuracy, but maybe I best drop it; as you say we each describe enlightenment by our own terms. I would ascribe more than rationality and intelligence -- however encompassing their definitions might be -- to an enlightened state or being. I suspect you would as well. My main point with you is the same as always, to get you to see the need for accuracy -- that is, truth -- in your thinking and thus in your writing. Sometimes you do these with clarity, but often with romantic notions or fantastic hyperbole. That's all.

I try to define the same things with slightly different words because there is always the possibility that knowledge becomes ideology, so if you define the enlightened state with many different terms that point to the same thing then the ego has less chance of clinging onto knowledge as belief.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:

So, there's such a thing as relatively enlightened? Is it anything like being, to coin another of your original terms, partially alive?

Relatively enlightened is not a new concept, there are degrees of consciousness, as some individuals can criticize certain aspects of reality perfectly, but when those same relationships or other relationships are directed back on themselves, they cannot see them. The ego creates mental blocks, even though they may possess some level of consciousness.

Can a light be half on? Can a light be relatively on?

Carl,

Can a light be half on? Can a light be relatively on?

Yes, take the atheist secular community, many of these individuals are much more conscious than an organized religious nut job, but they still lack some of the deeper types of understanding that a full enlightened sage possesses.

That is what I would call degrees of sanity, or degrees of consciousness, or degrees of rationality.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Carl,

Much more modest, yet you have said there may be only 60 enlightened men on the planet and an estimated 6 women. Interesting.

I don’t see a contradiction. You see, most individuals are not completely and totally intelligent,

You didn't say "completely and totally intelligent," you said "very intelligent."

Enlightenment is just another word for rational, or very intelligent,

This is what I mean by accuracy. You often appear to blurt, and when someone calls you on it, you change the definition. Anyway, I don't buy the concept of complete and total intelligence. I don't think intelligence, by any but a personal and spurious definition of the word, is completable or totalizable.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Carl,

Can a light be half on? Can a light be relatively on?

Yes, take the atheist secular community, many of these individuals are much more conscious than an organized religious nut job, but they still lack some of the deeper types of understanding that a full enlightened sage possesses.

That is what I would call degrees of sanity, or degrees of consciousness, or degrees of rationality.

Then we define enlightenment differently.

Carl,

You didn't say "completely and totally intelligent," you said "very intelligent."

We are arguing over semantics.

This is what I mean by accuracy. You often appear to blurt, and when someone calls you on it, you change the definition. Anyway, I don't buy the concept of complete and total intelligence. I don't think intelligence, by any but a personal and spurious definition of the word, is completable or totalizable.

Language is never exact. It just points in many different ways. There are a countless number of ways to say the same thing with language, and a sage's mind is so free that he doesn't bound himself to always using the same set of terms to define what he means. The beauty of the English language is that you can play around with many words, and still arrive at the same types of definitions.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Carl,

You didn't say "completely and totally intelligent," you said "very intelligent."

We are arguing over semantics.

This is what I mean by accuracy. You often appear to blurt, and when someone calls you on it, you change the definition. Anyway, I don't buy the concept of complete and total intelligence. I don't think intelligence, by any but a personal and spurious definition of the word, is completable or totalizable.

Language is never exact. It just points in many different ways. There are a countless number of ways to say the same thing with language, and a sage's mind is so free that he doesn't bound himself to always using the same set of terms to define what he means. The beauty of the English language is that you can play around with many words, and still arrive at the same types of definitions.

Haha, no offense but I regard this as bullshit and a cop out.

Carl,

Haha, no offense but I regard this as bullshit and a cop out.

Think about all the different works of philosophers, and how different the language was, and how each was an attempt to point to the same rational state. For instance: East philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurit wrote a book entitled: The Awakening of Intelligence. Or UG krishnamurit wrote a book called “The Natural State” Or Western philosophers wrote books about The nature of Reason and Logic.

Words are just pointers, and there are many combinations of different words that can be used to attempt to say the same thing.

Carl:

Carl G wrote:Haha, no offense but I regard this as bullshit and a cop out.

What Ryan is conveying, can be translated in Gurdjieffian terms to the development of the intelligent centers (emotional and thinking). The highest center in Gurdjieff's philosophy are not two but one, perfect intelligence and understanding.

Ryan:

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Think about all the different works of philosophers, and how different the language was, and how each was an attempt to point to the same rational state. For instance: East philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurit wrote a book entitled: The Awakening of Intelligence. Or UG krishnamurit wrote a book called “The Natural State” Or Western philosophers wrote books about The nature of Reason and Logic.

This is also the reason that much of the spiritual literature adds nothing else except confusion. This is also why I stress on clear definition. A definition should be unambiguous and pointing to a common experience.

Maestro,

This is also the reason that much of the spiritual literature adds nothing else except confusion. This is also why I stress on clear definition. A definition should be unambiguous and pointing to a common experience.

yes, but dozens of different words can be interpreted as the same thing...A definition should be clear, but language as a communication medium can be confusing for some just because of the nature of language itself.

Anna wrote:

"Alex it's a bit new age, but you must see a little clearer the difference between religion and true spirituality, which is dogma-free, and does not depend upon stories, and is essentially mystical, relying on intuition and a guiding principle of not accepting negativity."

You've put me in a bind. The other bind was when we initiated a conversation on definitions of men, definitions of women, the man-woman question. In addition to being busy and constantly interrupted in these months, I realized that everything that I think is up in the air and I am not certain where 'truth' lies, so I am chary of saying too much until I understand how my thinking is changing.

The same is true in regard to the question of 'religion' and 'spirituality'. I can say that I am in many senses almost completely opposed to the juvenile formulations of the QRS, both about women and about religion and all the definitions that entail religious view. I agree that women need to be looked at, examined, and defined, and that men need to seriously examine themselves down to the last detail, and also that men must become much more committed to values and ethics of masculinity, but I would outline a path to that radically distinct from what they propose. I have partially concluded that these fellows seem to be missing a portion of their brains, it is like some whole part of them has been carved out, like people who have brain injuries and are still the same person, but something essential is missing. You can talk to them and go through every vocal formulation, and do it in 1000 different ways, but they simply cannot receive any ideas that do not conform to their simplistic A-B-C. What I am trying to understand---and Fate always has a message for us---is why it is that I had to come here and deal with this, this 'absent-brain' problem I just described. It reminds me of a segment of Ginsberg's poem Howl (part 2): What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination? This is what 'Moloch' does, it lays waste to everything, and guts people of the most important part of themselves, turning them into something inhuman.

I do not see 'true religion' and mysticism as being necessarily compatible. There is a mysticism (but I don't really know what you mean when you use the term) that can arise from 'true religion', but 'true religion' does not seem to arise from mysticism. As you say, it can sound New-Age, but it is not the sound of it that is troublesome, rather that New-Age often represents a flattening of values, a shirking of values, a wash-out of principals, the taking up of mental ceremonialism which is satisfying to some part of us but which represents perversion.

Also, the phrase 'dogma-free' is problematical. We might say that some doctrine is 'dogma-driven' and over-emphasises dogma, but that is usually when we don't like the tenets, the catechism, the credo, that it is presenting. But, if we were to line-out what we ourselves believe and think is vitally important, we'd end up describing a dogma and a creed too. So, I am not uncomfortable with a bottom-line 'dogma' or 'credo', even a rigid one, but obviously the battle is for what gets to appear on that list.

In respect to religion, the practice of religion, the definition of religious values, in our culture(s), my position is that I am completely in pro of a religious agenda, that is to say a Judeo-Christian agenda, but all the items on the list that makes up the foundation-creed have to be thoroughly modernized. I am discovering that I accept the core moral and ethical values of Biblical Judaism-Christianity (I see them as not identical but sufficiently similar) in the sense of describing a 'religion of the spirit' as it was expressed by the notable prophets, say Hosea, Amos, Isaiah and Micah, which seems to me from our present perspective of moral and ethical meltdown to have extremely progressive elements. In other words, a reformulation of these core values into our present provides the moral and ethical basis for resistance to the perversions of the cultural and intellectual present. Nothing new under the sun, I guess.

I don't think that anything humans do does not depend or can ever not depend on 'stories'. At some level 'story' is operating. It all depends on what story you accept and subscribe to. I know it sounds weird, but for me that core story is a Biblical narrative, not so much as in every line or event in the Bible, but as it pertains to the moral and ethical imperative that unmistakably shines through it. It is that sense of a moral and ethical imperative that makes life a serious thing, a thing to be taken seriously, a thing to be valued.

To subscribe to those values, to come under their yoke (if you will) is a mature thing to do, and in so doing you become a parent, an authority, and you take responsibility for directing and guiding other people, which is pretty much what the Judeo-Christian mission has been about. QRS also propose being 'parents' and their criticism is of the bratty spoiled children of modern culture. There is always a failing, a falling away, a seduction to temporal pleasures, a capricious following of one's own will, but there is also a moving back, a 'turning', and a re-dedication to serving values. But it seems one has to go down to the very bedrock of foundational values and you have to select them, and then find a way to live them and represent them even if the whole process is useless, even if it will fail in the end. At some other time they will surface again, they always do. There is room therefor for a kind of 'tragic religiosity': the service of something that is completely out of sync, completely unpopular, nonsensical, something that cannot even be seen by the average drooling modern.

To discover that, to align oneself with that, is 'salvation' and 'repentance' (return). I find it so interesting that this is the core value of the QRS---which is why I call them Christian---and yet they have expropriated the terms, bend them to their own will, chain them to their own purposes.

Alex,

There is no hurry, but I am still interested in hearing your thoughts on men and women. I do not expect from you the kind of certitude that others here proclaim. I, too, am a work in progress, God forbid it should stop. It is hardly a reason for apology, rather a sign that you are indeed on the journey. It is absolutely a good sign and if you think you have arrived, be very wary.

Religion and mysticism have an uneasy relationship. I find is quite interesting in Islam. They tolerate their mystics, but if you read the poems of Rumi, for example, you know that he knows something, which is to say, the freedom beyond dogma, the knowing without having to be told what to believe. There's a particular poem of his, and I'm not at home or I'd find it, that is quite clear about it. Yet they all seem to revere Mohammed, which seems impossible to me. I suspect many are faking it. So long as you fake it, you're fairly safe.

The Catholics do have some mystics, and I am not sure but they do seem to survive alright. I wish I had thought more on this, to say something intelligent. The Prots have no time for mysticism, and denigrate it. It is considered an insult and a disqualification.
Mysiticism is quite well tolerated in Eastern Orthodoxy. But as you say, mystics happen, but they do not give rise to religion. Actually, the probably do. But by the time the masses get hold of it and time passes, it has lost what it was. The problem is, and I think this is the real problem of religion, especially Christianity, is that it is mystic at the core, and this mysticism is aboslutely the goal and purpose of the Christian life, yet the church cannot convey it to the people.

Mysticism is what people want, the real fruit, the enlivening of one's own soul so that it can attain wisdom and be connected to life, but it is something real, like enlightenment, it just is not easy to give away. You can pray and eat wafers and study catechism and sacrifice doves till the cows come home, but it is all a vanity and vexation of spirit.

Jesus was a mystic. He was so high the day he found the woman at the well that he had no thought of food. When the disciples came back he said, I have food you know not of. But they thought he had a secret stash of food.

I guess I kind of like the new age. I think they are on the right track, for the most part. Big generalization. Perhaps it will degenerate.

I am not in pro of a judeochristian agenda, unless and until I can reform it. Sadly, I find that most of what is wrong with Christianity is the Old Testament. This has to be looked at. It is time for people to stop justifying the warlord Jehovah and just realize that some of the stuff in the Old Testament has nothing to do with a good being or a divine being at all, but a petty warlord who abused the Hebrew people unmercifully, and caused such local psychic trauma, that none of the middle eastern people, and by infection the west, have yet recovered. This is serious stuff.

I can reform Christianity, but am less sure how to reform Judaism and Islam. That is a job for someone else.

The JudeoChristian agenda has had ample time, has been weighed in the balance, and found wanting.

There ARE no core biblical or Judeochristian values, that's precisely the problem. Jesus stated them fairly consistently, but the tragedy is that the Christian church swallowed that old Jehovah and then completely turned Jesus' teachings and life purpose on its head and Christians have been walking in circles ever since.

Hosea, Amos, Isaiah and Micah, you say. Well, perhaps I'll read Amos and Micah. Some of the best gems in the OT are in Isaiah and Hosea. In fact, Jesus quoted from Hosea, when he said to the pharisees:

Go and learn what this means: "I will have mercy and not justice (or sacrifice)"

Perhaps, Alex, you came to this forum to meet people like me, or you may have helped or uplifted someone you know not of. The threads are not so simple as to the reasons.

You are right about the deep prevalence of stories, but if I am a Buddhist at all, then I constantly examine that tendency, and learn to see through the silly stories that are everywhere believed in my culture. The essay by Huang Po, On the Transmission of Mind, is excellent. This is imoprtant for enlightenment, whatever it is. It is important for the rational pursuit of reality - to see through this bizarre reality. As you point out, it seems outlandish. It is outlandish!!

Think about the difference in the level of stories that are required for a Christian versus a zen Buddhist. All religions are NOT the same. Think about how expressing doubt in the stories is a capital crime in Islam, and the kind of questioning that Buddhism encourages. Buddhism says, you need a big ball of doubt! Think about how Buddhism encourages you to minutely sit with your mind and examine it. Does Islam or Christianity do that?

All religions are not the same but all mystics understand one another.

You did not answer - have you had a lucid dream?

If you stretch the term repentance, you could say that the person who reads and utterly takes to heart Huang Po's essay is repentent - because it is a cleansing process. Removing from one's belief system almost everything. Here's a core spiritual truth - it's not so much about acquiring new knowledge as letting go of the bullshit. Again, Jesus taught the same. he said you can't pour new wine into old wineskins. You've got to clear away negating dogmas and beliefs.

If you believe in a wrathful God, you can't get what Jesus has to give. Thus has Satan had his way with the Christian church.

maestro wrote:Carl:

Carl G wrote:Haha, no offense but I regard this as bullshit and a cop out.

What Ryan is conveying, can be translated in Gurdjieffian terms to the development of the intelligent centers (emotional and thinking). The highest center in Gurdjieff's philosophy are not two but one, perfect intelligence and understanding.

Uh, I don't think Gurdjieff ever used or implied the term perfect intelligence. I don't think the concept is coherent. And I don't think the semantics charge and the different-ways-of-saying-things arguments dismiss the need for accuracy, i.e. truth in a lot of Ryan's writing, this being just one small example.

Of course we each define words as we see fit, so for Ryan there may be coherency. But then, I hope that in communication he becomes more aware that others may not know his meanings. For example, in my own mind, for whatever reason, I may substitute the word "apple" for "enlightenment." If I then use apple for enlightenment in my writings, without qualifying it, should I be surprised when readers question my thinking process?

Regarding your reference to Gurdjieff's philosophy, he describes three centers, not two, the third being the instinctive (body: physical, sensual, motor). They are not, to my knowledge, described as "intelligent centers." It is simply said that man is a three centered being. Although one could surmise that what intelligence one has would emanate from these areas, intelligence itself is not emphasized; consciousness is. And, there is no "highest center" that I'm aware of, in Gurdjieffian thinking. The object of one's work is to harmonize the functioning of the three centers: mental, emotional, and instinctive.

Carl G wrote:Regarding your reference to Gurdjieff's philosophy, he describes three centers, not two, the third being the instinctive (body: physical, sensual, motor). They are not, to my knowledge, described as "intelligent centers." It is simply said that man is a three centered being. Although one could surmise that what intelligence one has would emanate from these areas, intelligence itself is not emphasized; consciousness is. And, there is no "highest center" that I'm aware of, in Gurdjieffian thinking. The object of one's work is to harmonize the functioning of the three centers: mental, emotional, and instinctive.

Yes there are three centers and each is again subdivided in three sub-parts: Instinctive, emotional and intelligent (like a fractal). The instinctive part is the merely habitual, the emotional part is driven by likes and dislikes and the intelligent part is: intelligent. In a normal human the intellectual part is asleep, so that the (three) centers run through the lower two sub-centers. The goal is to awaken the intelligent sub-center, and the emotional center and intellectual center share their highest sub-center.

maestro wrote:

Carl G wrote:Regarding your reference to Gurdjieff's philosophy, he describes three centers, not two, the third being the instinctive (body: physical, sensual, motor). They are not, to my knowledge, described as "intelligent centers." It is simply said that man is a three centered being. Although one could surmise that what intelligence one has would emanate from these areas, intelligence itself is not emphasized; consciousness is. And, there is no "highest center" that I'm aware of, in Gurdjieffian thinking. The object of one's work is to harmonize the functioning of the three centers: mental, emotional, and instinctive.

Yes there are three centers and each is again subdivided in three sub-parts: Instinctive, emotional and intelligent (like a fractal). The instinctive part is the merely habitual, the emotional part is driven by likes and dislikes and the intelligent part is: intelligent. In a normal human the intellectual part is asleep, so that the (three) centers run through the lower two sub-centers. The goal is to awaken the intelligent sub-center, and the emotional center and intellectual center share their highest sub-center.

That is partially correct. I notice that except for once in the above text you call the mental or intellectual function the intelligent function. It is not referred to as this in Gurdjieffian terms, so far as I know, and I don't think the words are equatable.

Secondly to say that "in a normal human the intellectual part is asleep" is inaccurate. In Gurdjieffian thought there are seven types of men. In the first three one of the centers predominates. Let's say man number one is ruled by the intellect, number two by the emotions, and three by the instinctive center. It is only when a man begins to awaken and work on himself that the centers begin to function in some sort of balanced way, and he becomes a man number four. Thus in maybe two-thirds of "normal humans" indeed the intellectual part is mostly asleep, but in the others it operates excessively, to the detriment of the emotions and body, suppressing these. The stereotypical scientist or college professor would be examples.

But yes, each of the centers has the sub-centers you mention. And that is a good point. It is good to think of this whenever we are tempted to attribute all thinking to the mass of gray matter in our heads. It is why Gurdjieff also referred to humans as being three-brained beings. But it does create more work, to separate all the threads of internal activity within us.

Carl G wrote:Secondly to say that "in a normal human the intellectual part is asleep" is inaccurate.

What I meant was that the highest sub-part in each center is asleep. This is true for even professors, who pursue their goals due to emotional attachments or just mechanically, without really going into the depth of things.

Gurdjieff's classification is an interesting way to look at things, and provides a lot of insight into puzzling questions. Such as how come a really intelligent person (say a nobel prize winner) is so emotionally immature. The answer is that his intellectual center operates through the (middle) emotional sub-center and not through the higher intellectual center, and perhaps his emotional center acts through the instinctive (lowest) sub-center.