GENIUS FORUMS

Nicolas wrote:These issues are not really discussed in France. My main interest is to discuss about everything about enlightenment and genius. I wrote from Lyon; southeast of France.

Do you have a definition of 'enlightenment' to work with? Is enlightenment one specific thing? And why do you suppose it is not discussed in France? Is it because the French intellectual establishment takes a harsh stance toward religion generally? Or how do you see it?

Alex Jacob wrote:

Nicolas wrote:These issues are not really discussed in France. My main interest is to discuss about everything about enlightenment and genius. I wrote from Lyon; southeast of France.

Do you have a definition of 'enlightenment' to work with? Is enlightenment one specific thing? And why do you suppose it is not discussed in France? Is it because the French intellectual establishment takes a harsh stance toward religion generally? Or how do you see it?

For me enlightenment is the higher degree of awareness. The man who is enlightened is the only person who is able to live in the present who avoided the trap of past and future.
In France the question is unfortunately not foregrounded (télévision, entertainment and all the joys of ultra-capitalism; or people like " Oh Man I'm 29 now, it's too late to think about my life, too late to change, i'm ok with my poor life. "). This country seems to rejects more and more spiritual matters (even if this view is more or less universal).

I certainly agree with you about 'higher degrees of awareness' being valuable, necessary. But is that then what 'enlightenment' is? In my own case I am beginning to think 'enlightenment' is not within our grasp insofar as 'enlightenment' is a form of 'sanctification' (if you will), that could only arise from a Whole perception of reality. But all our systems are in disarray, and we are fragmented. I hear and see people posing as 'enlightened' but when you scratch the surface a little that is often what there is: pose. Enlightenment might be possible if we actually understood 1) ourselves 2) this existence and Reality, but we don't seem to. We look through a fracturing kaleidoscope.

Or how do you see it?

Alex Jacob wrote:I certainly agree with you about 'higher degrees of awareness' being valuable, necessary. But is that then what 'enlightenment' is? In my own case I am beginning to think 'enlightenment' is not within our grasp insofar as 'enlightenment' is a form of 'sanctification' (if you will), that could only arise from a Whole perception of reality. But all our systems are in disarray, and we are fragmented. I hear and see people posing as 'enlightened' but when you scratch the surface a little that is often what there is: pose. Enlightenment might be possible if we actually understood 1) ourselves 2) this existence and Reality, but we don't seem to. We look through a fracturing kaleidoscope.

Or how do you see it?

I agree with that point of view; enlightenment is interconnected to a total understanding of - ourselves and the " objective reality ".
It's a long way. It's like starting from scratch, forgotten our stereotypes and our relationship with a fake reality that we've built. So yes enlightenment remains as an ideal too difficult to achieve.

Would you agree that 'enlightenment' as a term, in the way you are using it, has not been a term that 'we' have ascribed to any of our (Occidental) great men? By using the term, aren't we employing another system of description, one foreign to our own? And would you agree that if there were 'enlightened' men of the West, that they were men of higher, more acute awareness? In Occidental traditions the corresponding term for 'enlightened' is 'sanctified', but in the West that is a radically different category, isn't it? Yet the way you seem to describe enlightenment is more a perfected way of seeing. The removal of some blinders or something.

And you said 'too difficult': did you mean 'trop' or 'tres'?

How do you know who is aware, wakeful, detached, non-bias and who is only another egotistical person convinced by their own idiotic conceptualisations of the way things are? Nicolas explained it rightly so, removing past and future and any pre-conceived ideas or attachments that cloud your mind from a clear and non-attached experience of your own consciousness, seeing now clearly, "wakefulness is the way to life".

Damn, I has plans to buy groceries tomorrow. Now I'll have to go and do it right now. This awareness shit is really inconvenient.

John/Seeker: Just hold in your mind the thought that I conceive of these things very differently from you. At the very least you may come closer to understanding HOW I order my ideas and concepts. I obviously accept 'ego' and therefor obviously view 'egolessness' is a false concept. Though one's 'ego' can be purified and retrained. The question of How things are is indeed a big one. How ARE things, John?

Mysticism hinges upon a holistic vision of life and reality. Each mysticism is a set of descriptions functioning within a cultural system: that is how they come into being. In yours, apparently, it all hinges on how things are 'seen'. But in 'ours' it depends on many different and interrelated issues and points and facts. You might not agree, but at least you might be able to understand the difference between 'enlightenment' and 'sanctification'.

It is a relevant, fruitful topic---except of course for one who has no need of any thought at all. Who is 'done' with that.

You made that up Dennis, I didn't do anything, and that sounds very different to what I was saying but I will trust you on it. Not only because things are ever-changing, this view is from a detached perspective of thought, no longer saying "these are mine and belong to me", no attachment to illusions, it is clear they flow without your control and are essentially a bad thing when there is self-clinging, they should be regarded as manifestations and nothing more. Remember, I didn't write any of this.

Your foundational premise seeker is:
Consciousness is 'God'.

You've already admitted:

a) it's an inference. (belief)
b) you are not going to change.

clinging.

So what?

...and according to certain schools of mystery and spirituality, consciousness is very definitely and quite precisely 'God', including the school of mystery that gave birth to Buddhism on the Indian subcontinent. The notion of some inner, final 'particulate' that is both consciousness and the source of all possibilities of consciousness, is totally considerable, and can be neither proven or disproven by you or anyone else. If consciousness is seen as 'God', John is very much on solid ground as far as those mystery schools go. It sort of depends on what little shroud of metaphysic one clothes oneself in, what group of symbols and signifiers.

...and everything having to do with any sense of truth or meaning is 'inferred'.

Let's try these on for size:

• What we seem unwilling to consider much less accept in all these freakshow conversations, comic and absurd as they are, is the degree to which our opinions about 'things' are determined not so much by classical, reasoned positions, but by an unruly, personal and subjective will.
• One of the side-effects of the dissolution of an overarching sense of Order to life (supplied by the European Medieval theological system with its unitary metaphysic: still at the base of our mental structures but which is hopelessly fractured and fracturing) was the unleashing of the personal, subjective will that was contained by that Order.
• We seem pushed and propelled into a subjective exercise of will to a large extent despite ourselves. A challenge to our will can lead to life-or-death struggles that have nothing to do with Truth ... but everything to do with ... subjective willfulness!
• We have no overarching, agreed and understood Order to which we can all recur, and that is the only thing, aside from a muzzle or a bullet, that might shut our subjective will up!
• Our world is not one of Truth, that we do not know HOW to seek nor even what it is, but an 'infinite kaleidoscope of the creative will'.

On phone so I will get back to you alex, and to annoying Dan.

Dennis consciousness is the encompass of all that is known of "universe", God is just a three letter word with different meanings. In this case it refers to "it"; that which has manifested this very conversation and all other experiences, I'm happy to call it nature, it is not like I pray to the thing.

Since I haven't quoted in a while, I'll repeat the truth of noble wisdom which has been true forever, "All things are devoid of effort or action because everything is like a dream or miraculous image projected", in other words, you make no actions, there is no person, only that which is seen of the mind, "a vision", it is uncontrolled and hence there is no possibility for "I know what's going on", it is wrong even to describe it, luckily you don't need to know anything but the path to reach enlightenment, which is "Recognize reality is but an illusion, stop acting like it is real , then you will escape the suffering"- Buddha, I abbreviated, the only part I missed POwas on was missed was "one in a million people can "SEE

The only part I missed was "one in a million people can SEE this without being shown"- Buddha, this is why it doesn't matter how smart Alex or Laird is.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:On phone so I will get back to you alex, and to annoying Dan.

Dan is an annoyance? This should be interesting when he gets back from the grocery store...

Alex Jacob wrote:What we seem unwilling to consider much less accept in all these freakshow conversations, comic and absurd as they are, is the degree to which our opinions about 'things' are determined not so much by classical, reasoned positions, but by an unruly, personal and subjective will.

Opinions could also be determined by unsound reasoning.

"I think, therefore I am."
- René Descartes
So, is thinking evidence of being, or cause of being?

seeker,

The only part I missed was "one in a million people can SEE this without being shown"- Buddha, this is why it doesn't matter how smart Alex or Laird is.

what part of verbal diarrhea is smart?

That part which is expressed logically and coherently and in support of specific, articulated points.

No part, which is why I asked Laird if that is how he expresses himself authentically, I can imagine the answer is no for both of them.


And Tomas I was referring to getting back to me annoying Dan.

What we have here is a nondual metapsychics, which stand on the denial of all other metapsychics.

• Enlightenment is still medieval unitary metapsychics, the other.
• From there we have the Genius which is post medieval (da Vinci as representative) less unitarian/other.
• And finally the Male, something which already is/not other, and a metapsychics based on the denial of Female as value.

I kind of understand what you are getting at Sr Bobo. I guess the only way to 'prove' it would be to make it absolutely and unconditionally real for you. Not as an abstract 'for them' but for you.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:And Dan your whole argument that I am by my own word saying my point is invalid is false, it's not true.

Oh, but it is true and cannot be otherwise. I don't know how to get you to see that you make it impossible for you to be right by your own "arguments" (ok, let's call them what they really are: bald assertions having no basis in anything but further assertions). What you have, my friend, is the typically religious disease of certitude, as differentiated from certainty. For an insight into the difference, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiP9DDHUKc (in fact I'd encourage you to watch as many of the vids on that channel as you can). In every other post you make assertions about the nature of reality and of consciousness, etc, that you claim to know to be true and inviolate, yet at the same time declaring, as part of your rubric of certitudes, the notion that thought is meaningless and that we can't control our minds and if we think we can we're caught up in some wild delusion. The incoherence of that is obvious to just about everyone here save yourself. Now, I'm not going to significantly speculate as to the possible reasons you hold such views, but something akin to such speculation will be necessary in at least some of my replies.

Basically, your position amounts to: I can't trust or control my mind in any real way, but I know all sorts of stuff and assert this knowledge as inviolate. It's essentially the same dynamic as batshit crazy Xians claiming they know God exists and they can't be wrong because they experience this fact directly. No argument, no substance, just the plain assertion of an experience they know to be true. That dynamic, in psychological terms, is merely the elevating of feelings and intuitions to the status of fact. The folly of that is something I ought never need to articulate to any sane person.

Given the innate untrustworthiness of thoughts and reason, I'd like you to explain to me how it is that I could have understood the law of identity, as expressed in the symbolism of A=A, 20 odd years ago, and to this very day possess the exact same understanding. Because it seems to me that in your worldview this ought to be impossible.

I experience thought,

You experience your own thought, which is a tremendously important qualification you consistently refuse to take into account.

I am saying it is made up of uncontrolled imaginations that flow into my mind,

That's most unfortunate, but you have no basis whatsover from which to claim such a limitation or dynamic for others. I personally have all sorts of contingent notions about what thought is and how it functions for other people, but they are never actually certain. They are basically empirical models that appear to work and be consistently accurate. The only thing I know for sure is my own experience, which includes dynamics in my mind that are coherent, stable and not subject to the random forces of nonsense you claim to be inherent in consciousness. Certainly those forces do exist, they do arise, but I'm quite aware of most of them. This is as a result of increased awareness, understanding and what might be characterised as a heightening of consciousness. Is that awareness complete and all-seeing? No, of course not, but it is sufficient to enable one to reason about matters consistently and know that one is doing so. If your personal experience is that you cannot do this, then that's kind of your problem.

I am saying this is the same for all humans because that is the nature of thought, it is a very valid claim for someone who is experiencing thought to make.

It is no such thing. Part of your position is true enough: what you claim for your own mind is reasonable enough because you are experiencing it directly. You are not, however, experiencing other people's minds and have no basis from which to make claims about the nature of such. Should you wish to claim things about the innate or inherent or necessary nature of mind and thought, you'd better come up with an actual argument or explanation that is sensible and cogent, otherwise it remains something you are merely asserting as any religious person asserts the content of their belief system. I'm perfectly open to such arguments; I'm not open to baseless assertion dressed up as wisdom.

Do you really think your ego was going to let you agree when I say you know absolutely nothing and are like an idiot child who is lying to themselves about being intelligent and all-knowing?

Don't be so pretentious. You know nothing of my motivation for my disagreement. I disagree with you because you're wrong. And I am, in fact, omniscient. I suspect, however, than any explanation on my part of the way in which I can legitimately claim this would just go whizzing over your head. The truth is there isn't all that much that can be truly "known" (i.e. as certain, non-contingent knowledge) in terms of our experience of Reality. This does not mean, however, that such knowledge isn't available to us. Hell, the fact is you keep claiming such knowledge all the time, despite simultaneously waffling on about what amounts to the impossibility of it. Go figure.

Clearly you aren't going to agree, so no need to keep repeating "I disagree, I disagree".

I will keep demonstrating your errors and contradictions so long as you keep posting them. I don't actually care if there's any benefit in that for you personally. There's a broader audience to consider.

You keep claiming to have all this knowledge, but all I have heard is "1=1".

The only knowledge I am claiming is that thought arises as an uncontrolled imagination of the mind. In fact, I think the only knowledge I have ever claimed to have on Genius Forums is that life is like a dream, that there is nothing but experiences of the mind. All of which can be rightly called imaginations, as the objects we see including our own forms do not actually exist, like the things we see in dreams. "There is nothing but what is seen of the mind itself"

I think you already know you have absolutely no control over your own actions or thoughts, no free will.

If you still believe your conceptualizations are reliable and valid, despite the fact that you can't even decide what you conceptualize, that is up to you. I am not talking about specific ideas or thoughts, I am talking about how ideas and thoughts arise.

I will explain a psychological problem to you, it is one I think you are experiencing. It occurs when an egotistical person begins to learn about non-desire, overcoming self-clinging and other such things.

As you can imagine, when people hear about enlightenment, many of them think themselves enlightened merely due to their own self worth, you have probably seen this before.

Another example might be someone who thinks themselves calm and controlled, then goes on to swear and yell at the person who accuses them of being angry and childish.

You clearly think very highly of yourself, enough to name yourself omniscient, clearly displaying pride and self-clinging. Do you think it a possibility that it is your own self attachment that makes you have such belief in your own self?

It is my understanding that after going through all that self love and egotistical delusion, one finally arrives at understanding the depth of their own ignorance, and no longer pretends to know.

Enlightenment comes through residing within and understanding the mind through direct experience, wakefulness and attentiveness. It all comes down to realizing existence is just like a dream and that life is eternal. That this body is only an experience of the mind and that experiences continues after death.

For example, David Quinn, showed clear mistakes in his understanding, displaying that he believed his thoughts were being determined by chemical processes of the brain. Would you agree with such simple statements as this?

What? I can and constantly do decide what topics I wish to think about. I do this constantly. It is of no importance whatsoever that such a process is ultimately determined by causes. It still is what it is. Please explain to me, as I asked you to do, how my understanding of A=A can remain utterly constant over 20 years if my mind is an uncontrolled roller coaster. Explain it or forever be disregarded as a religious nutter.

And the knowledge I have of reality has been laid out over the 15 years or more of my internet contributions. It's all available in one form or another here:

http://geniusrealms.com/

or at my youtube channel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/MenoftheInfinite

Oh, and btw, the fact that you can't see the significance in A=A speaks volumes. Watch this and it may help:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gBLXJsDnII

And one last thing: if, indeed, as you assert, thought arises as an uncontrolled imagination of the mind, there is no basis upon which you can actually discern that. You wouldn't know it or be able to consistently assert it. The fact than you can and do is in and of itself a complete refutation of the very assertion you rest everything on. QE fucking D.

Sorry about that, I was doing an edit.

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:I will explain a psychological problem to you,

Miraculously, it seems.

it is one I think you are experiencing. It occurs when an egotistical person begins to learn about non-desire, overcoming self-clinging and other such things. As you can imagine, when people hear about enlightenment, many of them think themselves enlightened merely due to their own self worth, you have probably seen this before.

Well, yes, but their notion of enlightenment has no relation at all to enlightenment as the Buddha intended. It's just them assigning the word, because of it's apparent significance, to their own psychological reality. It's a bit of a yawn. It's no different at all to people who takes drugs and declare that their altered state experience was "God".

Another example might be someone who thinks themselves calm and controlled, then goes on to swear and yell at the person who accuses them of being angry and childish.

Well, the notion that being calm and controlled, of itself, indicates (or is even necessarily part of) enlightenment is totally wrong.

You clearly think very highly of yourself,

I don't have notions of my status, in fact. I simply speak what is true in relation to these matters.

enough to name yourself omniscient,

Firstly, omniscience is actually no big deal at all. Once the nature of it is understood, most people wouldn't care for it that much. Anyone with an accurate grasp of the nature of Reality is actually omniscient.

clearly displaying pride and self-clinging.

Actually, no. Simple facts are just that. They are not a cause of pride. Your ability to psycho-analyse others seems to have no more substance than your predilection for projecting certain Buddhistic psychological insights onto people who disagree with you. You should look into that.

Do you think it a possibility that it is your own self attachment that makes you have such belief in your own self?

No. I don't have any beliefs in my "self" or otherwise. Beliefs are for religious people. Understanding is just what it is. I don't possess it as a self. At best I am a conduit. It just is.

It is my understanding that after going through all that self love and egotistical delusion, one finally arrives at understanding the depth of their own ignorance, and no longer pretends to know.

Well, good luck in trying to attain that goal. You've a ways to go. But certainly some people go through a process much like that. It's when they can acknowledge they don't know anything that they can authentically begin to examine reality and discern what is actually true without preconceptions.

Enlightenment comes through residing within and understanding the mind through direct experience, wakefulness and attentiveness.

It's not even really that. There's no such thing as non-direct experience, by the way. And enlightenment doesn't entail attentiveness at all. In fact, enlightenment doesn't entail much of anything. To get my take on the nature of enlightenment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v45Ro4FQHCA

It all comes down to realizing existence is just like a dream and that life is eternal.

Dream reality and wakeful reality have the same essential nature, that's true, but our experience of them is nevertheless very different and I think the analogy is a slightly hazardous one. Life is eternal? Well, yes, in that it never actually begins or ends. But then that is true of all things.

That this body is only an experience of the mind and that experiences continues after death.

Hang on, you cannot possibly know such a thing. That is purely a belief on your part. And while we're at it: where did your mind come from? What is mind, exactly? Is it the same as consciousness?

For example, David Quinn, showed clear mistakes in his understanding, displaying that he believed his thoughts were being determined by chemical processes of the brain. Would you agree with such simple statements as this?

It's conventially true; it's a valid enough empirical model. It can't be ultimately true, of course, because all empirical models have an artificial cut off point. Even the chemical processes that appear to give rise to thought themselves have causes that are directly connected. Ultimately, thoughts, like all things, are determined by Reality. The only valid answer to the question: What causes [insert whatever]? is Reality (or, not-that-thing). There can be no other completely true answer. Anything less is merely a contingent empirical model of causation that may or may not have practical value. But at a practical level there's no reason to suppose any aspect of consciousness is not an emergent property of specific physical states and therefore does not survive after death.

That said, consciousness itself in not an emergent property of a thing, or a self. Consciousnesses is merely the totality of that which appears. Consciousness is its content and nothing else. Thoughts are just appearances arising within consciousness. That, however, does not mean they are at all times chaotic and all the things you wants to characterise them as being. Sometimes they are of a different type, a different variety, a different species. What we call rational, logical, coherent, consistent. To deny this species of thought exists is to deny an obvious part of reality.