Interesting Chaos: Mining The "genius Forum" Topic

[Fool Zero]

Yes, I'm a newbie, as my stats at left already show. Hi, all! :)

I recently suggested in another post (http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=1019&st=195#entry31234) that a neighboring topic, The Genius Forum, and its particular brand of 'philosophy', was chock full of examples of the very sort of thing that I'm especially interested in: the practical limits of philosophy as applied to online discussion and everyday life. Disclaimer: I intend this list as something of a teaser and may not be able to point out an example, in the other topic, of every item: Philosophers X and Y may agree on their terms and proceed to have a civilized discussion in which they reach some unshakeable conclusion such as, say, A=A. Oddly enough, their work finds little practical application.

X and Y may proceed with the same civilized discussion and perhaps even arrive at some sort of conclusion only to discover, perhaps long afterwards, that they hadn't been talking about the same thing at all.

X and Y may be in the middle of their civilized discussion when Z happens along, calls them idiots and vegetable-shovers, and won't be dissuaded from explaining to them how his guru can meditate circles around them (and their little dog, too) with one hand tied behind his back.

X and Y may firmly agree that Z is deluded and represents a dangerous cult. What's more, everyone else they talk to may agree with them -- before excusing themselves to look into joining that very cult.
I would've loved to spend a lot more time extending and polishing this list of examples/teasers but I also want to get this posted. Onward!

I happen to think that the truth, more often than not, is paradoxical and that the kind of ordinary, two-dimensional thinking that comes easiest to us doesn't fit the truth very well. In the "Genius Forum" thread we seem to be running into that problem again and again. "What is truth?" "What is enlightenment?" "Are you enlightened?" "Is being enlightened the same as being schizoid?" "Is there any such thing as being enlightened OR schizoid?" (Quotes fabricated to illustrate my point, may or may not resemble what was actually said in the topic).

In this topic I'd like to take a closer look at when/how discussion goes astray, and especially at whatever paradoxes may turn up in the vicinity of such discussion. I'll be back later to continue but right now I need a break -- for very late breakfast, if nothing else.

[spiritual_emergency]

X and Y may be in the middle of their civilized discussion when Z happens along, calls them idiots and vegetable-shovers, and won't be dissuaded from explaining to them how his guru can meditate circles around them (and their little dog, too) with one hand tied behind his back.

Oh good. There'll be opportunities for laughter. I'm in!

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Zero wrote:
the truth, more often than not, is paradoxical and that the kind of ordinary, two-dimensional thinking that comes easiest to us doesn't fit the truth very well.

Very good.
X may see what X sees, and describes it to Y as A.
Y sees what Y sees, and also describes it as A.
Yet, Ax does not equal Ay, but neither of them sees this and both agree that A=A
The limitations of language as well as the limitations of the human mind contribute to all of that.

X and Y start feeling pretty good about themselves because they have been told that they are right by each other, so despite the outside practical application, they have boosted each other's supposedly nonexistent egos. This ego boost sits on the precipice of being "right" and telling any outsider that disagrees that the outsider is "wrong."

Meanwhile, since they originally came seeking the truth and recognize the wisdom of Truth, and on some level are dissatisfied with just getting an ego-boost out of the deal. Especially since they’ve been telling each other and themselves that either they don’t have an ego, or the ego is a bad thing. So, when something else comes along, at the very least they instinctively know it’s a good idea to go investigate it.

I'd like to take a closer look at when/how discussion goes astray

I believe that things get tangential because one topic kind of leads into another, and people don’t want to cut off a pertinent lead-in.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

psyche wrote:
warning please try to minimize the use of the word genius as i am over my quota
:lol: Savant-like suggestion. :lol: Brilliant! Scathingly so! :lol:

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

psyche:
the truth it seems lies not at the intersectionof the x and y axis but at the convergence of the x and y and z
I think that's the most insightful thing I've ever heard from you. The more dimensions we see, the truer the view.

[Starry_Canopy]

:lol:

According to mathematics, there are infinite dimensions simultaneously existing and each independent of the others!

[Fool Zero]

OK, it's catch-up time...

S_E: Oh good. There'll be opportunities for laughter. I'm in!

Welcome aboard, S_E. As you no doubt know by now, I've been an admirer of your work for some time.

psyche: warning please try to minimize the use of the word ______ as i am over my quota

:duh: With any luck I should be able to get along just fine without it.

Elizabeth Isabelle: The limitations of language as well as the limitations of the human mind contribute to all of that.

Yes, and I'm interested in just what and where those limitations are, how to respect them and avoid getting tripped up by them, and what we can perhaps do to get around some of them.

Years ago I happened to read an example by a some guru -- a well-qualified one imo, but whose name I've forgotten -- along these lines:

Everything you look at, obviously has a color; that's the way seeing works. A clear sheet of glass has the color of whatever's behind it plus whatever reflections, dirt, slight tint, etc. may be added by the glass. When I close my eyes I still see some color; depending on the lighting and on how tightly I close them, it could appear yellowish, or red, or nearly black though I don't think I've ever seen completely black. Obvious, goes without saying, right? Very well, the guru went on to ask...

What color, then, do you see at the point in your visual field that's in line with the back of your head?

When I wrote, I'd like to take a closer look at when/how discussion goes astray and you replied, I believe that things get tangential because one topic kind of leads into another..., that's also true but we weren't talking about the same thing. By "astray" I'd meant going in unproductive directions, toward (say) "ego" issues and away from discovering what's so and what's not. You'd already started to address that part, a bit earlier.

(psyche, Elizabeth Isabelle, Starry_Canopy):
I think the notion of, if not "dimensions" per se then something analogous, is very relevant to what we've started talking about here. Most of the failure-to-communicate or failure-to-understand analogies that have occurred to me so far, are about somehow neglecting to allow for another dimension. I'm not really satisfied with these but they'll have to do for now: Some experiences of failure to communicate, "talking past each other", have reminded me of two people trying to find each other on different floors of the same building. "I'm right here by the elevators. Where are you?" "I'm right here by the elevators too, but I don't see you anywhere!"

Point of view makes a huge difference in what we are and aren't able to "see". Of course I don't mean just visually but I'll use another visual example here: suppose you and I are standing perhaps fifty feet apart looking at the same street corner from different directions. You see a street sign and report that it says "FOURTH". I see the same (apparently) street sign except that mine inexplicably says "MAIN". Could you be misreading such a plain sign at such a short distance? I'm quite sure that I'm not; I can even make out the screws holding it to the post. Could you be lying about what you see? Could one of us (hopefully you, not me) be crazy?

From a slightly different point of view, of course, both planes of the sign come into view and there's no longer any mystery. To stretch the analogy a bit further (let me know if it starts to squeak) -- it's not out of the question that one of us might decide that our point of view was the only valid one, and flatly refuse to look at the sign from any other direction. "I don't care what it says from over there; that viewpoint is false and wicked. I have a photograph right here of it saying "FOURTH" and I'll just rely on that instead of looking at your tricksy damn sign, thank you very much."

Long ago, one Edwin A. Abbott wrote a little book called Flatland (http://www.ibiblio.org/eldritch/eaa/FL.HTM) on more or less this same subject of dimensions. That link will take you to an online copy if you wish. I confess that I haven't read the book since I was in school, and not very thoroughly even then, and I'd rather not digress into discussing it here.
I happen to think the difference between a more "enlightened" and a more "endarkened" (if you will) state may depend largely on your willingness to adopt points of view different from those you're accustomed (perhaps even addicted) to.

[JamesH]

According to mathematics, there are infinite dimensions simultaneously existing and each independent of the others!

Whereas I say there are only two true dimensions. Expansion and Contraction.

Combining Expansion and Contraction into a single unit of existence creates the form we know of as empty space, which allows an object to exist as a 3 dimension object, and to travel through same.

Add another layer of the combined dimensions of expansion and contraction, on top of the spatial layer, and we get a fundamental form of thingness (QM strings or whatever they may really be), which has the effect of automatically creating the effects of gravity and the 4th traditional dimension, flowing time.

The maths surrounding string theory where additional dimensions are created is a load of hogwash. One can have as many dimensions as one chooses to arbitrarily define as a dimension, but they are not true dimensions but observations of the same thing. The whole concept of dimensions, when speaking of the fundamental physics of the universe, as opposed to everyday practical matters, is a red herring - it isn't really relevant.

Btw, it is impossible for anything to be independent, and certainly not dimensions.

[Fool Zero]

JamesH: Interesting -- and I'll offer more or less my usual questions in response:

1. How do you happen to know that?

2. How would the rest of us go about finding out for ourselves whether it's so or not?

3. Once we're satisfied that it's so, what use could we make of it in, let's say, an online discussion of philosophy, communication and cults?

[schrodinger]

I'd like to take a closer look at when/how discussion goes astray--Fool Zero--

She began, rather timidly……
“Would you tell me please, which way I ought to go from here?”
“That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,” said the Cat.

“I don’t much care where….” Said Alice.

“Then it doesn’t matter which way you go,” said the Cat.

[...]

In this topic I'd like to take a closer look at when/how discussion goes astray, and especially at whatever paradoxes may turn up in the vicinity of such discussion.

..discussions tend to go astray when the contributors pay back the dividends on the investment made by the original poster. IOW, if the intent of the OP is to be abrasive and play games, then taking the bait is surely going to result in plenty of turmoil. I derive some pleasure in engaging their points with logic and sincerity, just to see where it'll lead me. As the other thread proves, mosttimes other posters who do want to honestly exchange experiences and views pick up on that and a few gems can be found amongst the mudslinging :)

[JamesH]

Fool Zero

1. How do you happen to know that?

Thinking about the word "infinite". And then attempting to logically determine what is possible and what is not.

I use the word "attempting" as when one's logic goes astray, one does not always recognise this. I'm dealing with something now retained only as memories in the mind and cannot obtain confirmation from common knowledge. All knowledge however may be generalised and the essences that are common to all things can be evaluated in terms of the manner in which causal interaction might occur.

2. How would the rest of us go about finding out for ourselves whether it's so or not?

You can't really until you, yourself have thought deeply and (hopefully) logically about the nature of reality generally.

Nothing will make much sense until you grok what I mean by expansion and contraction, something I only grasp partially myself. The words are metaphors for something unexplainable. One has to use vague generalised words, due to the sheer simplicity of a binary causal process, to describe a process that can account for every event we have ever been caused to experience. I have to condense everything down into two, in order to explain everything.

As an example, one has to go so far in their generalisations as to class the total output/input of an individual or a nation as being the same thing as the output of a star, or the output of an electron as that of a galaxy. It comes down to whether an individual thing gains or loses the power to influence.

The word Expansion does not just mean spatial expansion. If there is space, meaning space is not actually nothing, and there is as it allows concepts like distance to be applied to it, then space has been caused to exist. I am just applying the word expansion because of its commonality of pertinence to all things, for example to describe whatever it is that can cause something to move from one point to another.

When things move, then in order for that thing to occupy the new space, then something else must be pushed away, but at some point in the causal chain reaction something has to contract in size. In order to push something away then something must expand in size.

There are however no points of existence, notwithstanding that quantum processes exist.
Things are only totalities, We cannot define any point to an absolutely accurate level, for to do so would be to define the whole universe. We do however observe that all things are moving, things are totalities of relative-movement actually. Movement indicates that a cause is in action, something is being caused to do whatever it has been caused to do. If all things are moving then all things ARE causal action, therefore we shall never be able to define any fundamental point-of-existence. We can however conceptualise the sum effect of all imaginary points by observing whether something has expanded or contracted, and to what degree it is presently doing so. What degree of expansionary or contractionary power does the thing have ,and how does this force move from one thing to another.

There is something that causes a fundamental quantum process to occur. Without a some form of quantum process, everything would be everything at once, and so there would be nothing. I believe time is of a quantum nature. It the only linear thing that seems to exist. (numbers are not really linear, as numbers are mental symbols for any thing, but unless one defines a thing then it does not exist, but anyway to count takes time). I do have a partial explanation as to why this is so, but just about had enough for now.

3. Once we're satisfied that it's so, what use could we make of it in, let's say, an online discussion of philosophy, communication and cults?

Yeah, sorry about that. None, I guess. I'm rebellious and don’t like following rules, prolly call this arrogant. There were two posts that started on a tangent, on a topic that interests me, and I responded.

On that post I responded at work, where time available for posting is limited. If I see something I disagree with then I may be induced to respond, - rather than ready the thread properly to understand the content and why each post was made. I guess the interesting thing here is that it is for me responding to perceived wrongness is more important than responding with agreement. On forums, it is not common for people to state agreement, unless they are also making a point themselves, or disagreeing with part of what was said.

[JamesH]

Oddly enough, their work finds little practical application.

I'd be a bit careful here. If you think that the great scientists and generalists of the past were not waxing lyrical about philosophy in groups then you would be mistaken. Philosophy sets the framework from which practical ideas may flow.

I don't place much value in A=A myself, as I feel it is too open. I have had a very interesting discussion about it though - I tend to flip flop on it's value. On the other hand a discussion on Cause and Effect may be hugely effective. It gives the brain the freedom to look for the real reason for X, Y and Z, it removes the mental boundaries created because the herd attempts to teach obedience to conformity of belief.

The whole moves slower than the parts, and complexity of modern life, complexity that creates binding to the herd, means that the beliefs of authorities are often not questioned, and these beliefs may slowly become more and more inappropriate to the times, and potentially harmful.

The Western Greed meme is an obsolete herd belief, however it is now a global economy in which there are more poor than wealthy, and always will be, then this meme will carry on until there is a collapse of some form, at least I hope so rather than an the big one.

[Fool Zero]

I'll catch up on replies later. Right now I have a very pretty example of spin and distortion fluttering around in my net and I want to get it out on display.

Back in the long topic (http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=1019&st=240) Trevor Salyzyn had disagreed with my interpretation of something he'd said earlier and admonished me to "Read more carefully". I retorted [Oct 23 2006, 12:13 PM -- p. 16]:
I regret to inform you that reading some of your work rather reminds me of an alternative pastime, pounding my head against a brick wall. The best to be said about either one is that it feels so good when I stop. and On what compulsion must I? tell me that.

...out of which Trevor now makes [Oct 24 2006, 12:07 AM -- p. 17]:
Fool Zero said that he'd rather slam his head into the wall than read my writing, which I guess is fine because I'm long-winded and my grammar is atrocious and there are certainly better people to learn the truth from than me. He deserved some recognition for his callousness.

... taking the conversation (should we choose to pursue it) in quite a different direction. Poor BABY! :rolleyes:

[Trevor Salyzyn]

No, I don't wish to "pursue" some conversation with you. You have not yet said anything of interest, or asked a meaningful question.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Elizabeth Isabelle: The limitations of language as well as the limitations of the human mind contribute to all of that.

Fool Zero:Yes, and I'm interested in just what and where those limitations are, how to respect them and avoid getting tripped up by them, and what we can perhaps do to get around some of them.

Years ago I happened to read an example by a some guru -- a well-qualified one imo, but whose name I've forgotten -- along these lines:

Everything you look at, obviously has a color; that's the way seeing works. A clear sheet of glass has the color of whatever's behind it plus whatever reflections, dirt, slight tint, etc. may be added by the glass. When I close my eyes I still see some color; depending on the lighting and on how tightly I close them, it could appear yellowish, or red, or nearly black though I don't think I've ever seen completely black. Obvious, goes without saying, right? Very well, the guru went on to ask...

What color, then, do you see at the point in your visual field that's in line with the back of your head?

It seems to me that you have already picked up on some examples of conversations going astray.

Funny you should mention about colors. When I was quite young, my mother spent a week telling me to do things, then as soon as I did them telling me that she did not say to do them (such like telling me to turn up the T.V., then insisting she didn't, or telling me to pass the salt, then insisting she didn't and yelling at me for trying to give her something that was unhealthy for her) When it was just her and me, I knew she was just being weird. At the end of the week, she did it again, but in front of my father. She then asked my father if she had asked me to turn up the TV (after insisting she didn't). My father agreed that she had not. I spent hours in my room, not knowing what was or was not real. After my mother went to sleep, my father sneaked back to my room to tell me the truth, and said ne'd been getting yelled at all day and went along with her lie because he figured it was my turn to get yelled at.)

Afterwards, when I was trying to get a grip on reality, one of the things that I realized was that if someone told a child that red was blue, blue was yellow, and yellow was red - the color wheel would still work. Think about it - language-wise, "red" and "blue" would still make "purple" no matter whether everyone was calling the same color by the same name or not.

In much the same way, we could all be seeing the same thing, but calling it something different, or saying the same thing, but seeing something different - and all of the rules behind it, like the rules of the color wheel, would still be the same. It would take a lot of patience and a lot of understanding on both sides to see through the confusion.

[TheObjectiveSubjective]

X and Y should not agree with each other to reach the same answer,

W:Okay so the question is does A=A?

X:Yes becuase they are the same thing.

Y:But really what is A and why must you say it is another A?

X: Anything could be A, it's an expression.

Y:So Anything could be Anything?

X:Well the word anything means the word anything.

Y:Okay i get it but what if I see Anything differnt from you?

X:Does that matter? A would still =A even if we saw it differntly.

Y:What if we are talking about two differnt anythings?

X: The problem here is we are arging about a word. If we were arging about a chair we could say, yup that 's a chair all right it equals that exact chair. But a word could mean differnt things.

Y:So it all must be ralitve but existing. Mind should equal mind and reality should equal reality!

X: So... A=A. But B=B

Y:yes argee.

You see in the art of discussion teh two fores must dissagree at first.

Did X win the arugment? A did =A but X knows what he's really talking about now and understands the full implications of A equaling A and saw the nature of reality from that. Y served as a refianment. A fliter if you would of the idea that in the end left truth.

Z:My guru can pwn you philosophical n00bs.

X and Y:But we now know that A=A

Z:My guru says that A=B.

X and Y:This guru is a hack and is dangerous. hedoes not knwo that A=A. He is worng and conning people. Let us tell people that.

People: This Guru intrests us, as he is worng. We shall hold the A=A aruemnt over his A=B argument

From this The A=A arument will become clearer and lead to more knowlege of the truth. Or it will be crushed by the A=B argument but they will reach one conculsion that will be true-er than they started out with.

This started out as a disagreement and....if they both start out trying to provesomthing tye will end up agreeing yet they will have gotten nowhere because A=A to them but they agreed with that to begin with and just told each other they were right. Nothing is gained. A=A did not have to work for that.

What this depends on is the honesty and freethought of X and Y and both willing to change.

Also from their argment they found that both had differnt ideas of A and so had to re-do some of their aruments but both came away with somthing.

My point is, in philosophy the two people having the argument should not agree on it because if they do... they get nowhere and they only get an ego boost.

I look back over the orginal and I wondering wht I just said has to do with it, but all I can say is that it made me think of all this.

[Fool Zero]

(Just popping in again. I realize I'm behind on replying to some of you and I apologize for it. I feel a bit like that guy in the ice shows who keeps the 20 plates spinning atop the 20 sticks. I do have quite a bit to say by now and I'll be back eventually.)

Right now I just want to drop this by:

Elizabeth Isabelle, your account...

When I was quite young, my mother spent a week telling me to do things, then as soon as I did them telling me that she did not say to do them...

...reminds me a lot of some of the family situations that R. D. Laing describes in several books and articles. I don't know if you've noticed but S_E has mentioned him, too. Have you perchance read anything by him?

[Fool Zero]

Whew! Looks like I get a breather.

I was falling behind in responding to most of the replies people have left here in the last day or so, wondering especially how I was ever going to understand JamesH's (three or so) sufficiently to have anything to say about them. In the meantime, however, James has raised some issues back in the long topic (http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=1019&st=270) (Oct 24 2006, 11:58 AM -- p.19) that I'm going to insist on seeing resolved before I engage further with him.

ObjectiveSubjective:
My point is, in philosophy the two people having the argument should not agree on it because if they do... they get nowhere and they only get an ego boost.

It sounds as though you're saying: it works better if they go through the process rather than just agree on the answer up front. That's sort of like the (Buddhist?) saying, "The journey is the destination."

Elizabeth Isabelle:
we could all be seeing the same thing, but calling it something different, or saying the same thing, but seeing something different - and all of the rules behind it, like the rules of the color wheel, would still be the same.

I've sometimes found that one of the best places to study how rules really work, is out toward the boundaries where they don't work quite the same way, or stop working altogether. Or, as you suggest, if we consider how it would be if the rules were different.

What I just said about "out toward the boundaries" reminds me (though it may take me a while to figure out the connection) of something I think William Blake said: "You never know what is enough until you know what is more than enough."

[Fool Zero]

In Which I Ponder "Out Loud" for a Spell

I'm wondering what to make of this Trevor Salyzyn who keeps getting in my face to tell me he doesn't want to play with me.

Over in the "Enlightened = Schizoid?" topic, another spinoff from the big GF topic, Trevor wrote (Oct 20 2006, 11:24 AM -- p.1):

Personally, I think I have excellent relationship skills. I say "I want this person to understand such-and-such", and I use whatever means necessary so that they understand my lesson -- even if it sacrifices their opinion of me.

and (Oct 22 2006, 06:40 AM -- p.3):

I am uncivil. I believe insults are an effective teaching method for certain types of people.

and (in the same post):

As I believe myself enlightened, I talk about it.

So when Trevor advises me, back in the big topic (http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=1019&st=210), (Oct 23 2006, 06:41 AM -- p.15):

You're trying to look like you're above the conversation, which simply distances you from the material. I don't think you'll be able to push boundaries doing that. You'll be like a scholar who is firmly assured that he knows what enlightenment is because he has arranged everything said on the topic into neat categories.

and later (Oct 23 2006, 11:53 AM -- p.16)

Read more carefully.

... how (I ask myself) am I to take this? There may well be some good advice in there for me; if so, though, it's apparently coming from someone who'll do whatever it takes to impose his viewpoint on someone else. But that's OK, isn't it, if he's enlightened? But is he enlightened, or is that just one more viewpoint he's out to impose for his own (let's call it) ego gratification?

This is a guy who was recently writing (on theother board):

Now that he's off-guard, I easily make his attacks look wild and idiotic, and before this post is done, I hit the most glaring of his pressure points (his fragile ego)... He's confused as to whether I'm being helpful or hurtful. Like dozens before him, he decides I'm an *******: not only did I make him look like a fool, I pointed out his greatest weakness for the world to see, and then patted him on the bottom like he's a little child... His clever trap sprung in his face, his fragile ego shamed and offended, he refuses to speak with me ever again.

and (in our big topic, Oct 23 2006, 11:42 AM -- p.15):

This is the second time I have been frustrated by [another member's] behaviour... He deserved every word I said. [The other member] has shown nothing but immaturity and paranoia to [other board] members. In that light, I like how I wrote what I wrote. Particularly, I love how I look like I'm conniving, and not that I'm making fun of someone who thinks that everyone else is plotting against him.

Still, maybe it was all meant for the other member's good in the end. Maybe enlightenment, like rank, has its privileges. And that brings us back to the same question: is he enlightened? More immediately: what test shall we use to determine that?

--------------------------------------------------------

Here's my own take on enlightenment: loosely speaking, it's the ability (by which I also mean the willingness) to tell the difference between what we actually know, and what we wish we did. Suppose I announce, "black is white". You get to choose a response from Column A or Column B. Since this BBCode doesn't do real columns I'll stack them one above the other:

Column A:
I believe him. Black is white.
I disagree. Black is not white.
What is this guy, some kind of racist?
He must be crazy to be telling me black is white!
Omigod, what if everything I've learned all my life were wrong and black really turned out to be white?
I don't understand how he got that. If only I'd paid more attention in school.
Well, if I were in a cave or someplace where it was totally dark, maybe black would look a lot like white.
The Apocalypse is coming any day now, and then black will be white.

[I kind of think that's enough examples but I could probably come up with more if necessary.]

Column B:
He said, "Black is white."

I'm saying that I personally consider the response(s) in one of these "columns" to be closer to the truth, hence more enlightened, than the other. Now I'll leave you, gentle readers, to discern which column I think that might be.

-- INTERMISSION--
Everyone go buy popcorn. I'll be back.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

FZ wrote:
that R. D. Laing describes in several books and articles. I don't know if you've noticed but S_E has mentioned him, too. Have you perchance read anything by him?

No, I don't believe that i have.

FZ wrote:What I just said about "out toward the boundaries" reminds me (though it may take me a while to figure out the connection) of something I think William Blake said: "You never know what is enough until you know what is more than enough."

My saying used to be "How will I know what my limits are if I don't cross them every now and then?"

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Fool Zero, you seem very desperate for my attention. I have no idea why you keep asking me to participate in these games of yours, but now that you've devoted an entire post to rummaging through a bunch of things I said, I believe my partipation is now unavoidable.

it's apparently coming from someone who'll do whatever it takes to impose his viewpoint on someone else.
Yes, that is exactly what I believe. I would rather someone knows what enlightenment is, or that someone values logical thought above all else, than even have them acknowledge my participation in their realization.

But is he enlightened, or is that just one more viewpoint he's out to impose for his own (let's call it) ego gratification?
If I am doing what I am doing for ego gratification, then I am by definition not enlightened. An enlightened being is egoless.

I believe that the fact I prefer someone knows the truth over having a good (or any) opinion of me, is sufficient evidence that I am not speaking for ego-gratification. I am not out to impose my conviction that I am enlightened; rather, I agreed with David's comment that someone is implicitly stating that they are enlightened the moment they try to say what enlightenment is. I do that, therefore I must believe I am enlightened. The thought that I might believe I am enlightened had never occured to me until David made his comment. After that, it was obvious.

is he enlightened? More immediately: what test shall we use to determine that?
If you want certainty, it is a waste of time asking whether or not someone else is enlightened. However, if you yourself are enlightened, you can judge whether what someone says in regards to enlightenment, the ego, and reality, adequately conforms to what enlightenment is.

Here's my own take on enlightenment: loosely speaking, it's the ability (by which I also mean the willingness) to tell the difference between what we actually know, and what we wish we did. Suppose I announce, "black is white". You get to choose a response from Column A or Column B. Since this BBCode doesn't do real columns I'll stack them one above the other:
You are implicitly stating here that you are enlightened, and tried to define it based on some capacity that you do have. However, enlightenment is not an "ability" any more than it is a "willingness" (or any other emotional state). What you are describing here is not enlightenment; perhaps "discernment" is a better word for this ability.

I'm saying that I personally consider the response(s) in one of these "columns" to be closer to the truth, hence more enlightened, than the other. Now I'll leave you, gentle readers, to discern which column I think that might be.
Your definition of enlightenment has changed considerably from the definition you used before your lists, probably because you assisted yourself by using an example. I assure you, though, you are still incorrect. A person is either enlightened or not; they either know the truth, or they do not. The enlightened response, in your example, would be "black is not white." It avoids all perception, as perceptions may be false. It does not matter what he said; if he did say that black was white, he was incorrect.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Eliza,
My saying used to be "How will I know what my limits are if I don't cross them every now and then?"
It is impossible to cross your limits, but it is possible to understand them. It is, for instance, impossible to conceive of anything beyond logic; if a person does not think logically, then they merely think illogically.

[Michael]

Actually, if you step back and look there is considerable concensus on this site.

There are a bunch of people who do recognise the underlying nature of things as being unknowable. And that is the only genuine concensus that I can see.

Everybody else is arguing their heads off about pins and angels, maths and quantum, belief and disbelief ad nauseum and in repetitive circles. But in all cases except where the participants agree they do not know (and this is so often a point of meeting and embrace and not infrequently laughter) conflict, ego and anger come into play. And, to be fair, even those who go the unknowable route do get caught up in the polemic of the site.

The Tower of Babel comes to mind.

There are a number of ego maniacs who use extensive quotation and counter quotation to 'prove' points, score off others and generally demonstrate how 'enlightened' and/or 'genious' and/or 'superior' they are. Their posts take up huge swathes of the forum justifying and substantiating themselves and contributing sweet f all to the sum of our knowledge, enlightenment or pleasure.

My point? Those who know know they don't.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Trevor wrote:
It is impossible to cross your limits

It is possible to cross one's limits, but one gets damaged in the process. Can I force myself to stay awake for 3 or 4 days to finish a project? Yes, but I get over-emotional and don't think as clearly as I would had I rested appropriatly. I consider that one example of crossing of limits.

Short of that is attempting something which sometimes I may succede at and other times may fail at. That could be considered "at" a limit, but I consider it crossing a limit if I can not be consistant at it (which makes the successes look more like luck shots, and "luck" would be beyond my personal limits).

Short of that is to try and fail, and perhaps get hurt in the process. That is just an unsuccessful attempt to cross one's limits.

[Thomas Knierim]

Trevor: It is, for instance, impossible to conceive of anything beyond logic; if a person does not think logically, then they merely think illogically.

At the risk of garbling this thread, I have to disagree. It is very well possible to conceive of something beyond logic. Logic is merely a framework of inference rules, and each single framework has well-defined limits. For example, modal logic is "beyond" propositional calculus, second order logic is "beyond" first order logic, multi-valued logic is "beyond" bivalent logic. Since there is no all-encompassing logic, we are left with a set of competing frameworks. What is more, human language is utterly beyond logic, as Wittgenstein had painfully discovered.

Cheers, Thomas

[Fool Zero]

Thomas:At the risk of garbling this thread...
Not to worry. So far, the apparent digressions all look like just that much more grist for the mill.

If this does turn into two or three intertwined subthreads, I'm open to continuing that way -- and maybe somewhere down the line letting one of the subthreads spin off into a new topic.

[Fool Zero]

Elizabeth Isabelle -- I'd mentioned R. D. Laing. The book where he particularly focuses on incidents/situations like yours is Sanity, Madness and the Family. An article where he discusses the mechanics of such situations is Mystification, Confusion and Conflict (http://laingsociety.org/biblio/mystification.htm). It was evidently written for family therapists so it does get a bit technical in places. An excerpt:A child is playing noisily in the evening; his mother is tired and wants him to go to bed. A straight statement would be:

"I am tired, I want you to go to bed."
or
"Go to bed, because I say so."
or
"Go to bed, because it's your bedtime."

A mystifying way to induce the child to go to bed would be:
"I'm sure you feel tired, darling, and want to go to bed now, don't you?"

Mystification occurs here in different respects. What is ostensively an attribution about how the child feels (you are tired) is "really" a command (go to bed). The child is told how he feels (he may or may not feel or be tired), and what he is told he feels is what mother feels herself (projective identification). If we suppose he does not feel tired, he may contradict his mother's statement. He may then become liable to a further mystifying ploy such as:

"Mother knows best."
or
"Don't be cheeky."
Here's more about him and his works (http://laingsociety.org/biblio/index.htm).

[Fool Zero]

Trevor Salyzyn (Oct 24 2006, 11:56 PM -- p.2):Yes, that is exactly what I believe. I would rather someone knows what enlightenment is, or that someone values logical thought above all else, than even have them acknowledge my participation in their realization.
Good. Thank you for making that clear.

If I am doing what I am doing for ego gratification, then I am by definition not enlightened. An enlightened being is egoless.
I expected all along that our views of enlightenment would turn out to differ, and this seems to be one of the differences. For me, an enlightened being can have an ego; what really matters is whether or not the ego has them.

I believe that the fact I prefer someone knows the truth over having a good (or any) opinion of me, is sufficient evidence that I am not speaking for ego-gratification.
Just as the devil is said to quote scripture for his purpose, so I can easily imagine the ego (itself sometimes symbolized by the devil) tricking someone into pretending to be an egoless (or close to it) devotee of the truth.

Personally I've found that whether or not I want someone to have a good opinion of me depends entirely on the attitude that I'm assuming toward them. I can think of a few people (the U.S. political advisor Karl Rove comes to mind) by whom I'd feel gravely dishonored if I should happen to find out they had a good opinion of me.

I agreed with David's comment that someone is implicitly stating that they are enlightened the moment they try to say what enlightenment is.
If I, in contrast, happened to believe that -- that someone is implicitly stating that they are enlightened, etc. -- the only conclusion I'd be willing to draw from it would be, not that that they are so stating... but that I've chosen to believe it.

I do that, therefore I must believe I am enlightened.
You wouldn't catch me drawing a conclusion like that. I do that, whatever it is, or I don't; I believe I'm enlightened, or I don't; but for me, neither one follows from the other.

Your definition of enlightenment has changed considerably from the definition you used before ... I assure you, though, you are still incorrect.
I don't know for sure if this is a true story but it's a good one anyway: I remember reading more than once that back in the early days of aviation, someone had worked out the aerodynamics of a bumblebee and concluded that it couldn't fly. The bumblebee (goes the punch line) doesn't know this, so it flies anyway.

I'd have to say that for me the bottom line goes something like this: definitions, calculations and other statements we can make about enlightenment, exist in one universe; the experience of enlightenment exists in another; and neither has any influence on the other.

[Fool Zero]

(One post, with two unrelated replies to the same conversation)

Re: crossing your limits, or not --

Trevor (being quoted) and Elizabeth Isabelle (Oct 25 2006, 02:12 AM -- p.2):It is impossible to cross your limits

It is possible to cross one's limits, but one gets damaged in the process.
It, sounds, first of all, as if you're talking about two different kinds of "limits". In that case, whatever either of you said about one kind might or might not apply to the other kind. I suspect there are going to be still other kinds, not all of them existing in the same universe.

Here's one kind I can think of: limits that exist because we say they do. A friend of mine recounts that once when she was little, she'd been climbing a tree and finally found herself hanging in midair from a branch, unable to get back up and crying for someone to help her down. A passing stranger pointed out that she was only this far (four inches) off the ground. All she had to do was let go of the branch.

----------------------------------
Re: whether it's possible to conceive of anything beyond logic -- Trevor (being quoted) and Thomas (Oct 25 2006, 08:09 AM -- p.2)

I remember reading Descartes's "ontological argument" for the existence of God, and afterwards having serious misgivings about the reasoning therein. Descartes, as I recall, defined God in some such way -- the sum of all perfections, etc. -- that He was also logically required to exist. If He didn't He wouldn't be perfect, would He?

What I (much later) realized had bothered me the most about Descartes's argument was that it made God -- who, being the First Cause, was presumably the creator of everything including logic -- himself subject to logic for His very existence. Not "God, therefore logic" but "logic, therefore God." I much preferred to imagine God able to say, "Logic, shmogic, I'll exist or not, just as I darn well please!" :nono:

[______]

I do that, therefore I must believe I am enlightened.
I've said it once (or twice.... or maybe more.... <_< ) and I'll say it again: "The fool who thinks himself a fool is far wiser than the fool who thinks himself wise."

[Trevor Salyzyn]

FZ,
I much preferred to imagine God able to say, "Logic, shmogic, I'll exist or not, just as I darn well please!"
Your personal preferences aside, pure logic cannot be used to make existential claims. It can, however, show tautologies and contradictions. The first order of business, as far as God is concerned, is defining exactly what it is you are speaking about. Once you have defined God, you can then proceed to determine if your definition is tautologically true (conforms to A=A) or contains contains contradictions. The last possibility is that God is neither necessary nor contradictory, in which case he is a being subject to other necessary laws. He would be a being, rather than Being, and would need to be proven to exist empirically within such-and-such probability of error.

psyche,
of course you must believe you are enlightened - you are a member of the 'genius' forum and are a male not a female - it is that simple isn't it - you start spouting what you first heard from the 'enlightened' ones there so now you are just as enlightened as they are
I've spent more than 4 years at Genius forum, and more than 8 years around the internet. Also, I used to read large volumes of spiritual and philosophical texts. I did not go "oh, I am enlightened because I have a penis and hang around with members of the Genius forum". My train of thought was much closer to: "after all this time, I am behaving in ways that necessitate a belief that I know first-hand what enlightenment is, therefore I will be authentic and admit it outright."

I have no idea whether or not David, Kevin, Dan, or anyone else at the Genius forum is enlightened. I have a strong well-grounded suspicion that many members, as well as all three moderators, believe themselves to be so. I believe myself to be enlightened, but it is hardly a given.


Dalai Lama face,
I've said it once (or twice.... or maybe more....* ) and I'll say it again: "The fool who thinks himself a fool is far wiser than the fool who thinks himself wise."
No, both are equally foolish. Whatever a fool believes is foolish, because fools do not base their beliefs on reason. Their beliefs are arbitrary, and could be anything for all a fool cares. Even if the belief is ultimately correct, it is insignificant since it could be very well be anything else.

Personally, if I were a fool, I would rather be a fool who believes himself wise, and hence tries to act in wise ways. A fool who believes himself a fool will always remain foolish, and may even glorify his own stupidity.

[Fool Zero]

Personally, if I were a fool, I would rather be a fool who believes himself wise...
I, on the other hand, would rather be a fool who doesn't believe anything. :dunno:

[Trevor Salyzyn]

psyche,
i read those books too trevor and i hung with teachers of vedanta and tibetan buddhism since childhood - i lived in the far east

yet i know that i am no ramakrishna
That's a shame. Maybe you didn't try hard enough.

Or, maybe you are a ramakrishna (whatever that words means... is it a name?)... why not? Not eloquent enough? Not enough followers?

I'm proud to report I have zero followers. That seems to be quite an achievement for an enlightened person.



FZ,
I, on the other hand, would rather be a fool who doesn't believe anything.
So do you hold nothing to be true?

[Michael]

I'm proud to report I have zero followers. That seems to be quite an achievement for an enlightened person.

Me too :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Fool Zero]

(Trevor, Oct 28 2006, 05:25 PM): So do you hold nothing to be true?
A student once asked [Joshu]: "If I haven't anything in my mind, what shall I do?"

Joshu replied: "Throw it out."

"But if I haven't anything, how can I throw it out?" continued the questioner.

"Well," said Joshu, "then carry it out."(#41 in this collection (http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/zenindex.html))

[______]

Personally, if I were a fool, I would rather be a fool who believes himself wise, and hence tries to act in wise ways. A fool who believes himself a fool will always remain foolish, and may even glorify his own stupidity.
I think you have proven my point. ;)

[schrodinger]

I'm proud to report I have zero followers. That seems to be quite an achievement for an enlightened person.--Trevor--

Hey, now that is quite an accomplishment! How do you manage it? I’m not enlightened, or anything like that, but I have these followers see, and I can’t seem to shake them. They’re starting to give me the creeps. Do you have any advice? I mean besides the usual not bathing sort of advice.


:cheesy:

[namtso]

Dalai Lama face - Trevor
neener


I've said it once (or twice.... or maybe more.... ) and I'll say it again: "The fool who thinks himself a fool is far wiser than the fool who thinks himself wise." - SFT
Personally, if I were a fool, I would rather be a fool who believes himself wise, and hence tries to act in wise ways. A fool who believes himself a fool will always remain foolish, and may even glorify his own stupidity.
- Trevor
SFT, hope you don't mind, I'd like to expand on your quote for Trevor's benefit. Might I suggest that a fool thinking themself a fool might in fact just not be overly proud. Maybe being secretly aware that they are not entirely foolish but in fact being ferociously committed to being humble? Wouldn't that be nice. Humility has the excellent side effect of not being inextricably attached to one's own opinions. Therefore more open to continuing learning, expansion of awareness etc. Also, Trevor, neener neener. Humility not being one of my stronger points. Neener.

[namtso]

Hey, now that is quite an accomplishment! How do you manage it? I’m not enlightened, or anything like that, but I have these followers see, and I can’t seem to shake them. They’re starting to give me the creeps. Do you have any advice? I mean besides the usual not bathing sort of advice. - schrodinger
Crap, does this mean I have to take down my schrodinger shrine now? I just finished it yesterday, what a bummer.

[schrodinger]

Sorry Namtso, you should shred the schrodinger shrine.
And for extra punishment, repeat that shix times.

[______]

SFT, hope you don't mind, I'd like to expand on your quote for Trevor's benefit. Might I suggest that a fool thinking themself a fool might in fact just not be overly proud. Maybe being secretly aware that they are not entirely foolish but in fact being ferociously committed to being humble? Wouldn't that be nice. Humility has the excellent side effect of not being inextricably attached to one's own opinions. Therefore more open to continuing learning, expansion of awareness etc. Also, Trevor, neener neener. Humility not being one of my stronger points. Neener.
This is quite a good explaination. Though I think that if he were truly enlightened, he would understand this simple concept. ;)

[Fool Zero]

Just a note:

I don't mind continuing with this conversation wherever it's headed . Right now, though, it looks as though the conversation that I originally intended to start here has rejoined the mother (Genius Forum) topic, here: Oct 31 2006, 02:25 PM -- p.31 (http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=1019&st=450&#entry32196).

[______]

Children often return home when exposed to the world for the first time, FZ. Give her time. :D ;)

[Trevor Salyzyn]

shrodinger,
Hey, now that is quite an accomplishment! How do you manage it? I’m not enlightened, or anything like that, but I have these followers see, and I can’t seem to shake them. They’re starting to give me the creeps. Do you have any advice? I mean besides the usual not bathing sort of advice.
Can't help you. I don't want you following me.

nammy,
Humility has the excellent side effect of not being inextricably attached to one's own opinions. Therefore more open to continuing learning, expansion of awareness etc. Also, Trevor, neener neener. Humility not being one of my stronger points. Neener.
"I'm humble because being humble automatically gives me a bunch of advantages over arrogant people."

When you are enlightened, it doesn't matter how humble or arrogant you are, because both are acts. They only affect how other people react to you: humility, like politeness, is a behaviour (usually a facade) you adopt in front of certain people.

My arrogance has nothing to do with my ego being too large or too small, or an inability to learn from others. It has much more to do with the type of jokes I find funny.

Dalai Lama face* - Trevor

neener - nam
heh

[______]

Trevor,

You say you're Enlightened? Why would one boast about this if they were truly Enlightened?

I personally consider HHDL and Prof. Thurman to be Enlightened and I see similarities in behavior and actions between the two. You resemble neither. I think you may be trying to draw attention to yourself for whatever personal reason.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Dalai Lama face,
You say you're Enlightened? Why would one boast about this if they were truly Enlightened?
Yes, I say I'm enlightened. Nobody who is enlightened would boast about the fact of their enlightenment, although there is no problem with stating it.

I personally consider HHDL and Prof. Thurman to be Enlightened and I see similarities in behavior and actions between the two.
Unless you are enlightened, you are not in any way able to gauge whether another person is enlightened. You are making a guess based on preconceived notions of what the higher regions of spirituality are like, not on facts discovered first-hand.

You resemble neither.
I don't need to. Enlightenment does not turn a person into a clone of every other enlightened person.

I think you may be trying to draw attention to yourself for whatever personal reason.
This is an incredibly vague statement that, even were it true, would not in any way disprove my claim. If my personal reason were to, say, promote an environment that allows for the free discussion of enlightenment and enlightened ideas, it would be perfectly acceptable -- indeed, necessary --to draw attention to the fact that I'm enlightened.

However, I believe you are implying that I have a psychological dependency on validation from others. Sorry, I don't. It is, however, perfectly reasonable for you to doubt my claim to enlightenment. In fact, it is impossible for anyone, enlightened or not, to know for sure if another person is enlightened (although an enlightened person can make much better guesses). But, if you are going to imply anything about my psychology or disagree with me openly, you better be able to have something tangible to hit me with.

"I'm not enlightened but I've heard of two guys who I think are enlightened and they don't talk or act like you," is hardly solid. It doesn't even open the floor for debate, because it's an admission that you don't believe yourself enlightened (which is the only sure way to understand it).

[Starry_Canopy]

I I I I I I I I I I I I I am enlightened! :)

[spiritual_emergency]

Yes, but enough about you. Let's all talk about my humility.

[spiritual_emergency]

Well, you know... I think the important thing is that I'm the best at it. ;)

[schrodinger]

Can't help you. I don't want you following me.--Trevor--

Ah! I see. The brilliance of the reflected light does not conceal the great depth of the water. You say “Can’t help you”, which is the reflection. Then you give me the answer I seek “I don’t want you following me.” And that is the message I must project to my would-be followers! Brilliant! Thanks! :P

[schrodinger]

Just a note:

I don't mind continuing with this conversation wherever it's headed . Right now, though, it looks as though the conversation that I originally intended to start here has rejoined the mother (Genius Forum) topic--Fool Zero--

The obvious point is that a discussion cannot go astray, unless it has a pre-determined direction; that is, if limits have been set.
If you have started a discussion about horses, we should probably not be discussing dogs or prepositional calculus. But, as far as I can tell, the field is wide open here, so while this discussion has jumped the rails and gone inter-thread it still has not gone astray. Even if I were to mention the low cost of living in Costa Rica, I would not be engaging in the fallacy of ignoratio elenchus.
For those who like tautology, here is one; “Tautology = boring”.
So can we now get past the A = A nonsense?
We are in Tbvet, not in Qrsland. :rolleyes:

[namtso]

Sorry Namtso, you should shred the schrodinger shrine.
And for extra punishment, repeat that shix times.* - schrodinger
bummer (ar ar)



"I'm humble because being humble automatically gives me a bunch of advantages over arrogant people."

When you are enlightened, it doesn't matter how humble or arrogant you are, because both are acts. They only affect how other people react to you: humility, like politeness, is a behaviour (usually a facade) you adopt in front of certain people.

My arrogance has nothing to do with my ego being too large or too small, or an inability to learn from others. It has much more to do with the type of jokes I find funny.
* - Trevor

I don't have time to respond to this to the extent that I'd like, unfortunately I need to log out soon and get a few hours shuteye before work tonight. I get arrogant myself when I think it's justified. But it's more like being "righteously indignant" or forcefully voicing an opinion and less like true arrogance. I don't have a problem backing off and apologizing if someone identifies an error in my viewpoint. And that's a form of humility. I'm not throwing out this "see how great I am" proclamation. I'm a mess sometimes and by no means a model citizen.

Here's the deal. I'm talking about real humility. That means that you accept the realization that no matter how hard you try, no matter how many books you've read, how much you have committed to memory so you can quote line and verse, there's always going to be someone out there who's smarter and sharper witted than you. Period. There's gonna be a faster gunslinger. That's just the way it is. It does not prohibit you from forcefully or dynamically stating your point or arguing a point. What it does do for you is that it allows you to join the rest of the human race symbolically. You start to really internalize the fact that you are just one in many and we all have our own strengths and weaknesses. Eventually you begin to see that the kind of arrogance that is fiercely clung to is really just immature conceit. It's a trait that rarely serves a purpose. Strong confidence is something different and resembles arrogance at times but it's not the same. The only profession that comes to mind where you really forgive the person for arrogance is a jet fighter pilot and even then they have to follow strict guidelines that don't allow for the hot shot kind of Top Gun stuff. You can deliver an idea or information without being condescending. You can truly respect all decent individuals and offer them your knowledge as a freely given gift. You'll be amazed at how people will respond to that. Compassion, true humility, empathy, kindness. Try it for a while in real life, face to face with people and over the telephone. You'll be amazed at the postive responses. I'm no where near perfecting that, got a long way to go. But I've made small gains year by year and I see a real change in my interactions with other people. And granted, politeness can and often is interpreted as being false but as you settle into it and start to feel that you want to actually be polite out of your respect for all decent people, you will mean it sincerely and more people will recognize it as being sincere. Not all, there's just some real cynics out there that don't accept anything. But if you are sincere, it does show through. But don't over do it because that does come off as false.

Right, feeling real tired, had a flu shot yesterday too, got to go to sleep. Have a good one.

[______]

Yes, I say I'm enlightened. Nobody who is enlightened would boast about the fact of their enlightenment, although there is no problem with stating it.
Just as there is no problem lieing? :rolleyes:
Unless you are enlightened, you are not in any way able to gauge whether another person is enlightened. You are making a guess based on preconceived notions of what the higher regions of spirituality are like, not on facts discovered first-hand.
This proves nothing. Stating that you are enlightened is "passive" boasting. Never once did the Buddha say, "Hey everyone! I'm enlightened! Hear what I have to say!" His followers were the ones who determined him to infact be enlightened. Perhaps un-enlightened beings can see Enlightenment when they haven't yet attained it. Kinda like seeing the finish line in a race before you cross it.
I don't need to. Enlightenment does not turn a person into a clone of every other enlightened person.
No, no, of course not. I never said that enlightened beings act exactly like one another. All I said was that they share common traits.
If my personal reason were to, say, promote an environment that allows for the free discussion of enlightenment and enlightened ideas, it would be perfectly acceptable -- indeed, necessary --to draw attention to the fact that I'm enlightened.
I suppose this is the closest to a confession of truth from you?
"I'm not enlightened but I've heard of two guys who I think are enlightened and they don't talk or act like you," is hardly solid. It doesn't even open the floor for debate, because it's an admission that you don't believe yourself enlightened (which is the only sure way to understand it).
Okay, yes, it's a weak argument when you boil it down. Had to start somewhere. As for me being enlightened: I'm nowhere near it. I'm reminded of this every day when I meditate. No rush though. I have eternity to get there. :D

[Starry_Canopy]

This proves nothing. Stating that you are enlightened is "passive" boasting. Never once did the Buddha say, "Hey everyone! I'm enlightened! Hear what I have to say!"

That's exactly what I was trying to say in the form of the parody:

I I I I I I I I I I I I I am enlightened!

psyche's counter-joke of pride of humility was also quite funny! :lol:

[______]

Yes, I say I'm enlightened.
Dude, if you were enlightened, you'd be infalable. You are clearly falable.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

nam, only problem is: I don't really care how I'm received by others. I'm not changing my attitude to suit the fancy of everyone I come across, especially when I firmly believe that the attitudes and behaviours that people tend to like are not conducive to my project.


Dalai Lama face,
Dude, if you were enlightened, you'd be infalable. You are clearly falable.
You are obviously incorrect. (Support your claims. It's only clear or obvious to you.)

Since when was infallibility a characteristic of enlightenment? You are describing the pope. In no way do I claim to be the pope. I merely -- and I assure you, this is not that big of a claim -- stating that I'm enlightened.

All I said was that they share common traits.
Okay, I'll grant you that. Which traits do they share? You said infallibility is one -- but I contest that.

1. I suppose this is the closest to a confession of truth from you?
2. Just as there is no problem lieing?

Two times in one post you accused me of being a liar. This seems like a knee-jerk reaction more than anything.

As for me being enlightened: I'm nowhere near it. I'm reminded of this every day when I meditate. No rush though. I have eternity to get there.
Wrong. You have exactly one lifetime to become enlightened.

If you are nowhere near being enlightened, stop making claims about who is or is not enlightened. Your opinions on the subject do not matter, as you may as well be arguing about who your favourite singer is.

[______]

Since when was infallibility a characteristic of enlightenment? You are describing the pope. In no way do I claim to be the pope. I merely -- and I assure you, this is not that big of a claim -- stating that I'm enlightened.
Well, from my understanding of Enlightenment, the enlightened being is omnicent. This implies infalablity.

Stating you're enlightened is just a softer boast than declaring.
Which traits do they share?
Spontaious compassion for all beings for one. you said that you disagree with showing respect to yourself and others elsewhere. If you were truly enlightened, the obvious truth of showing oneself respect leads to respect for others and all beings which eventually can become spontanious (of which you also disagree with for some reason).
Two times in one post you accused me of being a liar. This seems like a knee-jerk reaction more than anything.
Not a knee-jerk reaction at all. I just want to clarify how this particular "elightened" being thinks.

As for calling you a liar: I don't like calling people names, but yes, I think you are lieing. I will not deny that.
Wrong. You have exactly one lifetime to become enlightened.
Oh, boy. When the Buddha attained Enlightenment, he remembered every past life he had had. If you were enlightened, reincarnation would be a rather simple truth for you.
If you are nowhere near being enlightened, stop making claims about who is or is not enlightened.
So by claiming Enlightenment you gain some sort of judging power? Sorry, bud, not this time. The only one who can justly judge is no one.

[namtso]

Yes, but enough about you. Let's all talk about my humility. s_e
I'm way, way more humble than you are. Humility personified. Humility's poster boy. I'm almost invisible, almost don't exist. Let me know if you want to buy a bumper sticker - "I'm more humble than you are, neener neener"


nam, only problem is: I don't really care how I'm received by others. I'm not changing my attitude to suit the fancy of everyone I come across, especially when I firmly believe that the attitudes and behaviours that people tend to like are not conducive to my project. - Trevor
See, I'm not telling you what you should do. I can't make anyone do anything and it's not my desire to do that. I'm actually just sharing my own personal experience and if anyone finds it useful, fine. If not, fine. That's the nature of this discussion board. Sharing of ideas. You choose your own path. If that's what works for you then you accept all that goes with it.

And ok, I'll bite, what's your project?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Dalai Lama face,
Enlightenment is not omniscience. It is perfect wisdom, which only requires certain knowledge (not all knowledge is certain).

I agree with compassion, but with a full knowledge of cause and effect, you can see that compassion need not be overt. I wish that noone venerate me, but that they become enlightened themselves.

Lying is an intentional activity. I fully believe myself enlightened, so I am not lying when I say so. I may be deluded, which is different. In that case, you need to show which of my beliefs is false, and in which ways.

Your interpretation of reincarnation is false mysticism. The cycle of rebirth, when coupled with the idea of life being an ever-changing stream, only need refer to the changes that occur in this life. Anyone who believes in literal reincarnation is holding a delusional belief that is founded on nothing more than wishful thinking and analysis of a text that was passed down word-of-mouth for many hundreds of years (and hence diluted by unenlightened people). There is no reason to suppose that we literally reincarnate, or even that we do not reincarnate; all we can refer to is this life.

So by claiming Enlightenment you gain some sort of judging power? Sorry, bud, not this time. The only one who can justly judge is no one.
Yes, when you are enlightened, you find it much easier to tell whether or not someone else is enlightened. People who refer to enlightenment first-hand have an entirely different outlook on enlightenment than those who base it on false beliefs and wishful thinking. For one thing, and this gives many people away, enlightened people never speak mystically. They are not witch-doctors or shamans.

It is important to be able to judge whether something is true or false. The belief that judgement is impossible or somehow unjust is only detrimental to finding truth.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

And ok, I'll bite, what's your project?
My project is very simple: to speak in simple terms about philosophy and philosophic concepts, without being venerated in any way for doing so.

When I do go to school, I'm surrounded by academic philosophers who love their awards, big names, and three-dollar words. They have no desire to simplify themselves to intelligibility, and will spends their lives writing for other philosophers. They have no interest in wisdom, or spreading wisdom, or even speaking simply and clearly.

Right now, my project involves finding a clear explanation for enlightenment, preferably one that does not use that word but conveys all the same information (because, inevitably, a person only discovers they are enlightened after they already have been so for a while -- it is only useful to approach it directly from the concept-side the first time: to actually learn what it is requires that a person knows many things that do not seem related).

[bito]

Yes, when you are enlightened, you find it much easier to tell whether or not someone else is enlightened. People who refer to enlightenment first-hand have an entirely different outlook on enlightenment than those who base it on false beliefs and wishful thinking. For one thing, and this gives many people away, enlightened people never speak mystically. They are not witch-doctors or shamans.

Trevor, your thoughts on this link?

http://www.geocities.com/the_wanderling/Recognize.html

[namtso]

My project is very simple: to speak in simple terms about philosophy and philosophic concepts, without being venerated in any way for doing so.

When I do go to school, I'm surrounded by academic philosophers who love their awards, big names, and three-dollar words. They have no desire to simplify themselves to intelligibility, and will spends their lives writing for other philosophers. They have no interest in wisdom, or spreading wisdom, or even speaking simply and clearly.

Right now, my project involves finding a clear explanation for enlightenment, preferably one that does not use that word but conveys all the same information (because, inevitably, a person only discovers they are enlightened after they already have been so for a while -- it is only useful to approach it directly from the concept-side the first time: to actually learn what it is requires that a person knows many things that do not seem related). - Trevor

Oh Great Venerable One, sounds like a worthwhile venture to me. I figured you were just NSA doing a study on TBV members. Not like I'm paranoid or anything. You know they took the people's guns away in Louisiana where Hurricane Katrina hit and were not going to give them back even if the people had the serial numbers? At least according to an NRA web site a friend sent me. I think it's going to court now. Electronic voting machines bother me an awful lot too, supposedly they can be hacked with a Palm Pilot that has a wireless connection. I also hear that the CIA can control brainwaves using wireless home internet routers, but I digress. Where is my tin foil hat anyway?

[Starry_Canopy]

Trevor

I am sorry I am writing you after reading something you had written for SFT (Soldier For Truth, whom you call Dalai Lama Face). Please pardon my intrusion into your conversation, but I wish to say something to you that I think I have to as I wish well for you. It has reference to these words of yours:

Enlightenment is not omniscience. It is perfect wisdom, which only requires certain knowledge (not all knowledge is certain).

I fully believe myself enlightened, so I am not lying when I say so. I may be deluded, which is different. In that case, you need to show which of my beliefs is false, and in which ways.

Trevor, I believe that there are higher levels of enlightement than the one you are at. I am not basing this belief on heresay from ages back, but on evidences from the present and as recently as one generation back.

The present learning comes from a lady saint called Amritanandamayi Amma (www.ammachi.org). She is believed to be enlightened, too, and she can communicate with the spiritual beings of rivers, trees and fauna. People close to her, who have observed her doing so, have asked her about it and she has replied that it was possible to communicate with them and that there is 'life' (individual spiritual entities) in their existences also.

The one generation back learnings come from Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati, a Shankaracharya of the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam, India and Shirdi Sai Baba, Shirdi, India. Both were considered enlightened and both used to be able to understand animals' and birds' communications. This, I think demonstrates some kind of 'omniscience' as they did not learn these languages from any school, but came upon this ability purely because of enlightenment.

It appears to me, Trevor, that there could well be levels of enlightenment higher than the one you have attained and, while you still go about your noble project of helping others reach your state, I sincerely wish that you won't stop your progress here, but consider going further.

Best regards.

[spiritual_emergency]

namtso: I'm way, way more humble than you are. Humility personified. Humility's poster boy.

Well, okay, but I was way, way more humbler than you first. I was so humble I was like a wart on the ass of the poster boy of humility -- the flat kind you can't see unless you squint hard, not the bumpy kind that practically shouts: "Hey look at me, I'm a bumpy wart!". And that means ... I'm the humblestist.

http://www.forumfriends.net/files/auto004.gif

So there.

[namtso]

namtso: I'm way, way more humble than you are. Humility personified. Humility's poster boy.
Well, okay, but I was way, way more humbler than you first. I was so humble I was like a wart on the ass of the poster boy of humility -- the flat kind you can't see unless you squint hard, not the bumpy kind that practically shouts: "Hey look at me, I'm a bumpy wart!". And that means ... I'm the humblestist.
[funny!]


Hello, I am the empty space that used to be namtso who has dissolved into the all encompassing non-differentiated life force do to his complete dissolution of attachment to self. Please leave a message after the tone .. "beeeeeep".

[spiritual_emergency]

Hello, I am the empty space that used to be namtso who has dissolved into the all encompassing non-differentiated life force do to his complete dissolution of attachment to self. Please leave a message after the tone .. "beeeeeep"


While You Were Blissed Out (http://thefifthbody.homestead.com/blissedout.html)

[*snicker*]

See also: Tonight (http://www.allmusicvideocodes.com/n/Nina-Gordon/2422-Tonight-And-The-Rest-Of-My-Life/index.html)



[Edited for links.]

[______]

I am sorry I am writing you after reading something you had written for SFT (Soldier For Truth, whom you call Dalai Lama Face). Please pardon my intrusion into your conversation...
Go ahead and take over if you wish. I see Trevor for who he is (at least as far as what he presents of is personality here). There is no longer a point for me to debate whether or not he is elightened.
Dalai Lama Face
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Starry_Canopy]

Dalai Lama Face,

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Go ahead and take over if you wish. I see Trevor for who he is (at least as far as what he presents of is personality here). There is no longer a point for me to debate whether or not he is elightened.

It's not that I particularly want to debate that with him. But since he's being sincere and serious about the issue of enlightenment, I thought it only fair that I gave him the inputs that I had that might be of use to him. :)

I did that because he had said the following:
I fully believe myself enlightened, so I am not lying when I say so. I may be deluded, which is different. In that case, you need to show which of my beliefs is false, and in which ways.

Equestrian

:)

[namtso]

I see Trevor for who he is (at least as far as what he presents of is personality here). There is no longer a point for me to debate whether or not he is elightened. - SFT
I have to say, you showed a lot more respect and patience that I'm able to right now.

[clyde]

Never once did the Buddha say, "Hey everyone! I'm enlightened! Hear what I have to say!" His followers were the ones who determined him to infact be enlightened.
I don't think this is accurate. I think a reading of the Buddha's first teaching, the Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta (Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion; http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn...6.011.than.html (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html)), shows that Buddha did proclaim his awakening. I think he spoke of his awakening and liberation in other sutras as well.

The Buddha is said to have referred to himself as the Tathagata, which is sometimes translated as The Perfect One. Here is a definition from Access to Insight:
Tathagata [tathaagatha]: Literally, "one who has truly gone (tatha-gata)" or "one who has become authentic "(tatha-agata)," an epithet used in ancient India for a person who has attained the highest spiritual goal. In Buddhism, it usually denotes the Buddha, although occasionally it also denotes any of his arahant disciples.
-- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html

Do no harm <http://donoharm.us/>,
clyde

[Trevor Salyzyn]

bito, then SFT, then nam, then SC:
Trevor, your thoughts on this link?
To a surprising extent, the man's accurate, although he does babble in such a way that people who aren't enlightened could be mislead. It is much better for enlightenment to be described in few words: too many is confusing. Indeed, I am guilty of making enlightenment confusing by saying too many things about it.

I actually enjoyed it when he said that people who first become enlightened are surprised at how mundane it is. "This is what I was looking for?" In fact, I would extend that thought so far as to say that enlightenment is so blase that it makes SFT's comments ("I see Trevor for who he is") completely ridiculous. Enlightenment, when you know what it is, is not impressive or magical in any way. Being enlightened is no more magical than being skilled at mathematics.


SFT: there has never been a point to arguing whether or not I'm enlightened, and for two reasons. First, it is impossible for a person to make any more than a guess as to whether another person actually is enlightened. And second, I am confident that I am so, because I understand fully and first-hand what enlightened people are talking about when I read their writings.

That means that you can't definitively prove anything to yourself, to the audience, or to me. Unless of course, you resort to lying. So, the argument is useless. Deal with your own enlightenment. Don't make any assumptions about mine, because you can never be certain.


namtso,
I have to say, you showed a lot more respect and patience that I'm able to right now.
Changing your mind so soon? You were mislead about my initial intentions when I joined the forum (I don't post in forums if I don't see something potentially worthwhile), but now it actually seemed that you were going to give me a fair hearing when you heard my real motivations. Are you calling your word back and saying you no longer respect me, nor have patience?


SC,
The present learning comes from a lady saint called Amritanandamayi Amma (www.ammachi.org). She is believed to be enlightened, too, and she can communicate with the spiritual beings of rivers, trees and fauna. People close to her, who have observed her doing so, have asked her about it and she has replied that it was possible to communicate with them and that there is 'life' (individual spiritual entities) in their existences also.

She sounds like a liar, and the people who believe her sound superstitious. The belief that one can literally speak with trees and rivers is magical thinking; regardless, even were it possible as anything other than hallucination, it is empirical in nature and therefore does not provide pure knowledge. Consequently, it has nothing to do with enlightenment.

There is no higher type of enlightenment than the one I have reached. There is only one enlightenment, and there can be no other. I have gone all the way I can go in that direction, and have no further questions. There are things left to discover, but not on this matter.

[spiritual_emergency]

There is no higher type of enlightenment than the one I have reached. There is only one enlightenment, and there can be no other.

Dammit! If only I'd gone for the drugs!!

[clyde]

I have gone all the way I can go in that direction, and have no further questions. There are things left to discover, but not on this matter. [emphasis added]
I believe that is a key realization. Awakening is what actual human beings do and it changes their view profoundly, but it only subtly changes their personality and their lives. The flow of the universe and their lives continues, and as the Third Bodhisattva Vow states:

The dharmas are boundless
I vow to master them.

Awakening is not the end of insight (by omniscience). Awakening is not about special powers, but knowing clearly and directly, with certainty or as Trevor wrote, without “further questions” the nature of reality. That knowing does not confer any special ability or quality; i.e., nothing is attained. The awakened human being lives its life and experiences new insights.

Here is another realization: awakened is not a permanent state!

Do no harm <http://donoharm.us/>,
clyde

[namtso]

Changing your mind so soon? You were mislead about my initial intentions when I joined the forum (I don't post in forums if I don't see something potentially worthwhile), but now it actually seemed that you were going to give me a fair hearing when you heard my real motivations. Are you calling your word back and saying you no longer respect me, nor have patience? - Trevor

No way, I haven't changed my mind, you are a pain!!! But I'm a pain too so what the heck. I'm just not so p.o.'d at you any more. I'll go back and look at some of your stuff again but whether it's double talk or just over my head, it's difficult for me to stay focused when reading your posts. No I haven't changed my opinion at all. You stated your intention regarding discovering enlightenment or something and putting it in plain terms and I said that it sounded ok by me. Still does. You're still a pain in the butt. So am I but you're a bigger one. So there. You're also NSA, that's National Security Agency or "No Such Agency" to the uninitiated. It's why I'm wearing my tin foil hat right now and playing Nine Inch Nails full blast constantly. My neighbors are mad but I have to protect myself, they'll just have to get used to it.

Seriously though, I think you are very biased but I applaud any person's efforts in their exploration of spirituality, knowledge etc. That includes you. I just think you are way to protective of your self-identity, ego, whatever you want to call it. You seem to think that's Bollocks and you of course have a right to your opinion. You should have noticed by now that I backed off from attacking you directly. This is me giving you a fair hearing, I only stopped engaging you in direct conflict. Type on, by all means. And again, I'm not perfect myself, I get indignant plenty as you may have noticed.

[namtso]

A Bodhisattva chooses to stay within the cycle of birth and death to help others.

[clyde]

Namtso;

A Bodhisattva chooses to stay within the cycle of birth and death to help others.
We have chosen to be here, in the world,
and some of us have chosen to help others,
and some of us haven’t chosen to help others,
and that changes from moment to moment.

When we help others, we are Bodhisattvas;
When we don’t help others, we aren’t Bodhisattvas.

Do no harm <http://donoharm.us/>,
clyde

[namtso]

We have chosen to be here, in the world,
and some of us have chosen to help others,
and some of us haven’t chosen to help others,
and that changes from moment to moment.

When we help others, we are Bodhisattvas;
When we don’t help others, we aren’t Bodhisattvas.

Do no harm <http://donoharm.us/>,
clyde
I have no idea what your point is here.

[Starry_Canopy]

Nam

I have no idea what your point is here.

All that I can make out is that they are dangerous nuts to those who would believe them. Just trust in yourself and your good sense, Nam; there'll be no point in discussing anything with such egoists. Enlightenment is absence of ego, till that happens one hasn't reached the end of the journey. So let them go ahead and live in their false sense of achievement. There's no reasons for anyone to waste his or her time listening to them or trying to make sense of what they say.

[Starry_Canopy]

I was talking recently with a friend of mine with whom I have a shared interest in matters relating to the Truth. We talk over the messenger and phone and occasionally in person when we are in the same city. I've known him since our college days and we recently got in touch again and realised how we were both gravitating towards spirituality, but by slightly different paths.

I told him about some crazy guys here who go around proclaiming their enlightenment when they have very clearly not stopped being egoistic.

His reply gave me a lot of food for thought. His view is that these blokes and gals have a high need for ego gratification and that they are not able to get that in real life (outside cyberspace). So they haunt the internet and frequent sites such as this to get the recognition for which they are hungry.

Of course, that is a pain for people who are here in all sincerety to exchange ideas and experiences on a basis of mutual respect and mutual help. The only way out of that pain is to just ignore them so that it is no longer beneficial for them to be here, making them go and forage elsewhere.

[namtso]

All that I can make out is that they are dangerous nuts to those who would believe them. Just trust in yourself and your good sense, Nam; there'll be no point in discussing anything with such egoists. Enlightenment is absence of ego, till that happens one hasn't reached the end of the journey. So let them go ahead and live in their false sense of achievement. There's no reasons for anyone to waste his or her time listening to them or trying to make sense of what they say.
- Starry Canopy

(To all Big Viewers, I'm off and running again, sorry about the long post. It's about a subject I have personal experience with and I feel strongly about. And I honestly feel that it's important.)

So there are some antagonists coming over to TBV with only disruption in mind? That's precisely how some of the non-profit spiritual groups were infiltrated and taken over by con artists. It's exactly like the hostile takeover of a corporation. You have the point man who comes in and befriends people, becomes part of the group and then just starts disrupting things. This accomplishes a couple of goals. One is to disrupt or destroy the original focus of the group. Another is to use it as a means to test each individual in the group so as to identify who is submissive and who might be a threat to the takeover. After having learned this, then additional players come in with their game finely tuned to further dilute the original purpose of the group. This serves to further disrupt things and to change the "majority" that dictates the direction the group will take. In the case of the non-profit, the con artists try to get as many of their crew on to the board of directors as is possible before they are identified as to their true identity and as to what their true intent is. When they succeed in this, they skillfully just take over the organization but while still making gradual changes so the general membership won't get too upset and start a counter-reaction. If performed properly, the general membership just thinks that the general mood of the group has changed or the focus of the original organization has chosen to go in a new direction without realizing that the organization has in fact been "stolen" from the original founders. In the case of this discussion board, I'm not sure what the true purpose would be other than satisfying a vendetta, exacting vengeance. It could also be that they are committed to some ideology that teaches them that whenever they can disrupt the true commitment to "light", humanitarianism, common good by way of true enlightenment etc., then that is what they are expected to do. I'm just throwing out hypotheticals here but I have noticed that there seem to clearly be disruptors over here now. I know that I can be "disruptive" myself but my intentions are not destructive in my opinion. That is for others to decide though, not me. Anyways, in the case of con artists taking over non-profits, once they establish a foothold and know that they control the board of directors, they will become more and more callous and eventually they will turn nasty or use scare tactics to shake off the last of the stubborn holdouts who had hoped to salvage the organization. The catch 22 in this case is that the original founders of a spiritual group are often very committed to remaining compassionate, fair and kind but actually to a fault. To the extent that they don't fight with any fierceness. That's actually the real reason they lose control of the organization. Meekness. I've personally watched this process all the way through and it’s a sad thing to witness. Often times there's a choice piece of real estate that the con artists get in the process which was definitely the case with the organization I'm referring to. The damage is already done so I'm not going to name the organization that was taken over. Suffice it to say that it has been turned into a slick money making operation and they now control a beautiful piece of property in a very nice Southern California tourist town. What's more important is to learn how it's done and to be able to recognize the process if a con artist crew or their point man begins an attack on a particular group or organization. And this should be a warning to any non-profit organizations. Change your Charter so you can prevent this type of hostile takeover otherwise you will be next on the list of "properties" that these con artists will lay waste to.

Or there's way too many psych majors who are writing papers based on the kind of crap they are pulling here in this discussion board. Which would basically just make them a general pain. Could be anything or could be nothing, just personalities knocking heads. I prefer to believe it’s the propaganda branch of the NSA trying to control our minds and paving the way for the new world order, ha ha. Shadow government? Whatever, I'm being goofy.

There is one saving grace – it’s all experience.

His view is that these blokes and gals have a high need for ego gratification and that they are not able to get that in real life (outside cyberspace). So they haunt the internet and frequent sites such as this to get the recognition for which they are hungry.

Of course, that is a pain for people who are here in all sincerety to exchange ideas and experiences on a basis of mutual respect and mutual help. The only way out of that pain is to just ignore them so that it is no longer beneficial for them to be here, making them go and forage elsewhere. - Starry Canopy
That would definitely explain it.

[spiritual_emergency]

namtso: So there are some antagonists coming over to TBV with only disruption in mind?

I must admit, I don't see this happening. I don't see Dan or David coming in here to disrupt this place. They took part in the original conversation and although they are no doubt continuning to read, I can't see any evidence of disruption. I don't dispute that such things can happen, I just don't think they are happening here. If it was, it would require the complicit co-operation of every participant and I can't say they seemed to make a very favorable impression.

The catch 22 in this case is that the original founders of a spiritual group are often very committed to remaining compassionate, fair and kind but actually to a fault. To the extent that they don't fight with any fierceness.

I would agree that something like this is happening, but I don't see it happening in quite the same manner you might. I think Trevor is saying some things in this space that he couldn't possibly say at "The Genius Forum". In my short time there, I did see a few folks claim to be "enlightened". They were verbally shredded, post haste. I think the group here has been far more tolerant and this, in turn, has allowed Trevor to express his thoughts in that regard even if they've not been well received. He may find, as a result of his active participation here, that his role and status *there* has changed. He may not be welcomed back. He's been fraternizing and where would he fit into the box that only allows "a few people per century to be enlightened"? The last time I checked, that status was reserved for the hosts only.

That said, I also think his behavior is essentially a chip off the old block. It's almost as if he's taken David's script and is trying to see just how far he can run with it. Others might find his statements on "enlightenment" to be most offensive; I find it to be most disturbing that he's adopted the mindset that he's entitled to society's financial support because he's "mentally ill". Speaking of which...

Or there's way too many psych majors who are writing papers based on the kind of crap they are pulling here in this discussion board.

I don't know if this comment is directed my way. I also confess that I'm stinging at the moment from some statements made in a different (unrelated) cyber locale related to that very subject. Apparently, I'm some kind of anti-christ if I don't take drugs and accept that my brain is diseased. I'm supposed to be incurable and I'm not playing by someone's rules.

I slid into The Genius Forum as a result of a link; I arrived at this one the same way. I don't tend to be big on online discussions. I dive into them once in a while if the conversation captures my interest or allows the opportunity to further my own aims; broadening people's perspectives on what the "schizophrenic" experience is or could be all about. It also allows me the opportunity to share a bit of my own experience with others and learn from others. I nearly always find that something beneficial comes out of that exchange even if the lessons aren't digested until later.

Those who witnessed my own experience applied two labels in the aftermath: enlightened and schizophrenic. As noted, I rejected them both. I'm not either of those things. Maybe if I could stay in that space I'd be enlightened. Is that even what "enlightenment" is all about? I don't know. If it is, the only way I know of to get others there is via trauma -- which sorta nips the problem of any "followers" right in the bud. I can't get others there, I can only be of use to them if they should find themselves there. And even then, maybe not. Nonetheless, it's what I tend to give my online attention to and it's been lacking of late. I think I'm going to be laughing about that answering machine/message pad exchange for a long time but for now, Silence is calling.

[clyde]

Namtso (& Starry_Canopy);

I would explain further, but I’m not certain what your question is.

I did not disagree with your statement,
A Bodhisattva chooses to stay within the cycle of birth and death to help others.
But I elaborated on it: Bodhisattvas exist in this world and we are Bodhisattvas when we help others.

Do no harm <http://donoharm.us/>,
clyde

[Trevor Salyzyn]

s_e,
It's almost as if he's taken David's script and is trying to see just how far he can run with it.
Well, a lot of the things that David says are correct, and there are ideas that I blatantly took from him. Not all of my writing is David's script, though. There is a lot more of myself in what I write than David. In fact, there's a lot more of The Diamond Sutra in my writing than David.

I think the biggest similarity is that I'm in agreement with most of his choices for great philosophers. For a cheap analogy, it's like we're two people who prefer the smooth rhythms of improvised jazz when most people think that the best philosophy is either catchy head-banging rock'n'roll or the complicated intellectualized art of the classical musicians.

I think Trevor is saying some things in this space that he couldn't possibly say at "The Genius Forum". In my short time there, I did see a few folks claim to be "enlightened". They were verbally shredded, post haste.
I agree. I would not make any claims to enlightenment in the Genius forum, but not because I'd run the risk of being shredded. I was shredded here, too.

Enlightenment is such a common topic at the Genius forum that I have nothing to add to it there. Indeed, if someone asked me if I were enlightened or cared about it at all, I would completely avoid the word and just talk pragmatically: what I do with my life, what I value. Enlightenment is pretty irrelevant once everyone accepts it as a possibility.

That leads me to why I talk about it here. I noticed quite quickly that enlightenment is barely considered possible here. I believe that everyone I've talked to here is capable of enlightenment, in this life. Most have already done the ground-work. Enlightenment is not something for gurus: it is something that clear-thinking people can and do achieve.

Whether or not I'm enlightened is actually irrelevant. Whether or not you even believe enlightenment possible is also irrelevant. I wanted to bring it into the lexicon, and help get the facts of enlightenment sorted out from the myths and lies. Enlightenment is something that philosophers should be able to talk about, and make judgements about. It is part of our philosophic heritage, albeit it is more of an Eastern idea than a Western one; not knowing what it is is almost equivalent to not knowing what the concept of God refers to.

[schrodinger]

Trevor, after reading and analyzing what you have written here, I have come to a conclusion: You are just a kid who still lives at home with his Mom and fights with his sisters. You don’t know enough about the real world to be called “worldly” let alone “enlightened”. When is the last time you played any kind of sport, or traveled to another country, or in fact did anything interesting that wasn’t related to your keyboard? There is an old adage that no one should become a philosopher before the age of forty because you need to live first. You can’t live in cyberspace and you sure as hell are not enlightened until you have lived.

[namtso]

s_e,

First off I want to say no, I definitely didn't direct any of that towards you. In fact I pretty much threw that out too soon without actually identifying in my own mind exactly who came over from the other forum. I realize that Trevor has come over and he's a bit of a pain but I honestly did not have you in mind. And I didn't know you are a psych major, are you? My sister has her bachelor's in psychology and she was a social worker for a time. That comment was ill conceived and not directed at anyone in particular at all. It was pretty facetious and wasn't necessary.

Regarding infiltrators coming into spiritual groups, I need to clarify that. In my last post I did split off from my comment about antagonists coming over to TBV and began talking specifically about con artists taking over non profit groups. I probably should have just taken a breath and went out for a drive. The takeover of a non-profit that my Grandmother was involved with for years has left a sore spot with me and whenever I sense that the same sort of pattern might be re-emerging at all I do have a tendency to react strongly. That's pretty much what provided the impetus behind my last post, I guess I overreacted. I have a tendency to do that now and then, yes? It's true, just ask anyone.

Anyways, no, I did not intentionally include you in any group of alleged antagonists. Having said that, if David or Dan did have a mind to come over here to disrupt things, they could certainly do it by adopting a new screen name. Ever vigilant I am.

[namtso]

I don't know if this comment is directed my way. I also confess that I'm stinging at the moment from some statements made in a different (unrelated) cyber locale related to that very subject. Apparently, I'm some kind of anti-christ if I don't take drugs and accept that my brain is diseased. I'm supposed to be incurable and I'm not playing by someone's rules. - s_e

I fear you misinterpreted that statement from me. When I talk about "psych major", I mean a college student getting a college degree in psychology. Psych Major is a common term used here in the states in exactly the same way "Business Major" or "Arts Major" is used. There is normally no derogatory connotation at all and I really wasn't referring to psych major in a derogatory manner either, at least that was absolutely not my intention. And I was alluding to a hypothetical situation wherein a college student might assume a certain ideological position and present that to an online bulletin board discussion group. Then that hypothetical college student would see what sort of reactions follow from the rest of the bulletin board members. It would actually be a fairly clever tool to draw conclusions in regard to "communities", even though it's an online community. But this is the technological age and people interact to a much higher degree online. That is evidenced by all of the blogs, the heavy reliance on email, instant messaging etc. So it would be an appropriate study of human behavior in the context of an online community but would also of course be extremely annoying to the people who didn't want to take part and were likely not informed at all about what was taking place. In fact that would be a necessity in order to get valid results in any sort of psychological/social study of this sort.

I sincerely doubt you would ever catch me actually being critical or insulting to or about anyone who has gone through any psychological or physical difficulties. If it ever seems as if I have, I invite anyone on this discussion board to jump me and blacken my eye immediately. Get in line to give me major forehead slaps for days.

[spiritual_emergency]

We all have our sore spots, namtso. My own are throbbing right here [link edited] . No, I'm not a pysch major, but I have culled a lot from the work of Jungians and transpersonal psychology. I have consistently found it to be the most insightful and helpful to my self and others, in understanding, interpreting and moving through this experience that is called "schizophrenia" in this culture and setting -- other cultures have other labels.

Regarding infiltrators coming into spiritual groups, I need to clarify that. In my last post I did split off from my comment about antagonists coming over to TBV and began talking specifically about con artists taking over non profit groups. I probably should have just taken a breath and went out for a drive. The takeover of a non-profit that my Grandmother was involved with for years has left a sore spot with me and whenever I sense that the same sort of pattern might be re-emerging at all I do have a tendency to react strongly. That's pretty much what provided the impetus behind my last post, I guess I overreacted. I have a tendency to do that now and then, yes? It's true, just ask anyone.

That's what I would called "shadow" material. If we carry pain that's not yet resolved it can get triggered by something similar in our environment and we then project that material onto the triggering feature. In the process, we often render the other far more powerful than they really are. How do I know this? Well, that's a long story. ;-)

Otherwise, honest namtso -- no hard feelings. I do tend to retreat into Silence on a regular basis and damn, my own trigger points are really hurting at the moment. I can tend to that best in those places of quietude.

Trevor: Not all of my writing is David's script, though.

It's not your writing I'm referring to, it's your behavior: An inability to have a successful relationship with the opposite sex; the belief that you are enlightened and others are not capable of assessing that because they're not; dismissing the ideas or claims of anyone else as lies and superstitions that you are above; your belief that you're entitled to live off the efforts of those around you. I agree with schrodinger that you have a lot of growing up to do yet and I say as much knowing exactly how long you've been out of high school. It's not time to rest on your laurels and collect pogie. As namtso notes, it's all a learning experience -- for you as well as anyone else. Best of luck to you.


[Edited for links.]

.

[namtso]

That leads me to why I talk about it here. I noticed quite quickly that enlightenment is barely considered possible here. - Trevor
I think what is likely going on is that we seem to have widely differing views on what it means to be enlightened. When I think of the definition of enlightenment, I think of it in terms of the Buddha. That is probably quite a bit different than what the dictionary definition of enlightenment is. This may be the source of much difficulty in the discussions here.

http://www.answers.com/enlightened

[namtso]

If we carry pain that's not yet resolved it can get triggered by something similar in our environment and we then project that material onto the triggering feature. - s_e
I'm a big offender when it comes to reacting to my trigger issues. It's something I seriously need to work on, no doubt.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

shrodinger, that was an interesting round of attacks. I'll respond to each point in turn.
Trevor, after reading and analyzing what you have written here, I have come to a conclusion: You are just a kid who still lives at home with his Mom and fights with his sisters.
I moved out for a while, but needed to move back in after my second visit to the hospital. I don't fight with my sisters, and I'm buying the house from my mother in a couple years as she moves to the country. Who I live with has nothing to do with whether or not I'm enlightened; why I live with the people I live with, and how I act toward them is a much better indicator.

You don’t know enough about the real world to be called “worldly” let alone “enlightened”.
Worldliness is unrelated to enlightenment. There are many worldly people who are no closer to enlightenment than the youngest children.

When is the last time you played any kind of sport, or traveled to another country, or in fact did anything interesting that wasn’t related to your keyboard?
Since how you live your life is relevant to enlightenment, I will answer. I have daily conversations with people in tea and coffee shops around the city, walk my dog in the evenings, and play guitar. My life is about as lively as Schopenhauer's (people set their watches to his daily routine) or Kant's (who never travelled more than 20 miles out of his native city), or an average monk's.

Since when did playing sports and travelling to other countries make people interesting -- or more, enlightened? Some of the dullest people I know play sports constantly and love to travel.

There is an old adage that no one should become a philosopher before the age of forty because you need to live first.
There is another old adage that a person can know the entire world from his room. If you don't believe that one, then you have no idea what enlightenment is. (Gotama Buddha's enlightenment came while spending a week sitting under a tree, which is far more likely than obtaining it while in the process of climbing a mountain.)

You can’t live in cyberspace and you sure as hell are not enlightened until you have lived.
I spend an hour a day on my computer, tops. At the moment, Genius forum and this forum are the only things I do on the computer. As to this stuff about "living" and "being forty years old", I've heard from another source (one more credible than you) that if you aren't enlightened by 30, there's pretty much no chance of you ever becoming enlightened. You are far too settled in your habits to change. A person's 20's is a very crucial time.

[namtso]

There is another old adage that a person can know the entire world from his room. If you don't believe that one, then you have no idea what enlightenment is. (Gotama Buddha's enlightenment came while spending a week sitting under a tree, which is far more likely than obtaining it while in the process of climbing a mountain.) - Trevor

I have to respond to that one. I can't believe you said it. Isolating Prince Siddhartha’s enlightenment to a single event if sitting under the Bodhi Tree is completely ridiculous. All one needs to do is the read a short biography of Prince Siddhartha/Gautama Buddha/Shakyamuni Buddha to know that all of the events in his life contribute to his eventual enlightenment. Not only that, when he was born (or before?) a mystic told Prince Siddhartha’s Father that Siddhartha would either be a great leader of men or a great spiritual leader. My feeling is that the practice Siddhartha’s Father had of preventing Siddhartha from seeing poverty, sickness, death etc. was one of the prime contributors to his having such a strong reaction when he did finally see those things. So based on the story, his Father actually contributed to Siddhartha’s choice in leaving home, becoming an ascetic, exploring other religious/spiritual disciplines of that time and then finally choosing the "middle path". Only after all of that did he finally sit under the Bodhi Tree with the intent of staying there meditating indefinitely until he became enlightened. Then upon attaining enlightenment he smiled by the way which is supposed to be good news for us all.

Furthermore Einstein is known to have mentioned the places that he most often flashed on his inspiration regarding his physics problems. The Bedroom, the Bathroom and the Bus. The point of the story being that when a person has been struggling with a problem, idea etc., very often it is when they finally relax and stop thinking about the problem when the solution comes. It's a quirk of the brain where according to some theories various parts of the brain are simultaneously working out a solution but it's necessary to relax, take a break or whatever in order to allow the solution to come through. Just the same as the Bedroom, Bathroom and Bus, is taking a hike up a mountain, taking a walk, bike ride etc. Plus the positive effect on your cardiovascular system is supposed to improve your ability to think, focus etc. due to more efficient transport of blood to the brain. It might very well be wise to not dismiss taking a hike or a walk or whatever out of hand like that.

I'm also beginning to think that you are throwing this stuff out just to disrupt things over here on TBV.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Yes, nam, I've heard the story, which gives reasons why he wanted to be enlightened (or, in fact, why anyone would choose to be enlightened), and explains all the ways that he failed to gain it. When he finally becomes enlightened, it is after finally finding one way that works, and after that discovery, the actual process of attaining enlightenment is fast.

His years of being a prince did not help him become enlightenment. That was his personal history.

His visions at the four gates of the city did not help him gain enlightenment. That was his reason for looking.

His years of fasting did not help him attain enlightenment. They were a mistake.

His meeting the girl, and accepting her offering, was the first intelligent thing he did. That showed him the way, but only because he was wise enough to notice it.

His sitting under the Bodhi tree was the the only thing that brought him enlightenment. Had he never sat under the tree, he would never have been enlightened.

If Gotama's life teaches you anything, it is not to chase enlightenment down blind alleys. It is to learn how to attain enlightenment the wise way, right away. You do not need to spend your whole life to find what he learned; by knowing about his life and all the false paths, you are given a huge advantage.

I'm also beginning to think that you are throwing this stuff out just to disrupt things over here on TBV.
Is it working? Is anyone disrupted enough to rethink their childish opinions about enlightenment?

[namtso]

Flatly, you're wrong. All of the things in his life and according to the teaching, his previous incarnations too, led up to and absolutely contributed to his enlightenment. Things don't exist in a vacuum.

Is it working? Is anyone disrupted enough to rethink their childish opinions about enlightenment?

You only have the power disrupt and then only if people give that power to you. I have not seen any ability of yours to enlighten others.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

All of the things in his life and according to the teaching, his previous incarnations too, led up to and absolutely contributed to his enlightenment.
They contributed in the same way that doing daily chores contributes to retirement, or disciplining a child contributes to them choosing a career. That is to say, if you struggled, you could find some causal connection. But the attainment of enlightenment is not the result of the failed attempts, the person's autobiography, or even the reasons a person wants to be enlightened. It is mainly the result of knowing the correct way, and then walking it.

You do not need to live Gotama Buddha's life to become enlightened. You simply need to discern which parts of his life were actually important, and why he failed on his failed attempts... and learn from that.

[namtso]

But the attainment of enlightenment is not the result of the failed attempts ....................

I disagree with you.

Of course, that is a pain for people who are here in all sincerety to exchange ideas and experiences on a basis of mutual respect and mutual help. The only way out of that pain is to just ignore them so that it is no longer beneficial for them to be here, making them go and forage elsewhere. - Starry Canopy

I agree with you.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I disagree with you.
Keep failing and you won't suddenly succeed on account of that. Learn from him, and you can succeed much faster than Gotama.

[Fool Zero]

Two Viewpoints on Enlightenment

1.

Make a box, and into the box put everything that's worth knowing, like this. (I was going to use the "CODE" format to actually draw a box. It doesn't let me do white space, though, so instead I'll press the CODE box itself into service to represent my box):Everything worth knowing:
1.
2.
3.
4. A=A [optional, included only for illustration]
5.
6.
...
Now, as long as your point of view is restricted to what's in the box, you know everything worth knowing and you're enlightened.

2.

Make a box just like the one above, and into it put everything that's worth knowing, just as before:Everything worth knowing:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
...
This time, though, expand your vision just a little so that it includes you choosing what to put in the box and what not to.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Fool, I'm confused. Other than by the virtue of you choosing the wrong word, I can't see how these diagrams are related to enlightenment. Enlightenment has to do with wisdom, which is different than knowledge. From what I can tell, these diagrams represent an enumeration of knowledge -- a database, if you will -- and is only information (raw data). I would have a hard time even calling such raw information knowledge, let alone wisdom.

Attaining enlightenment is different than filling a database with trivia.

I think a very important question is: what is wisdom?

That is to say, given two men who have an identical amount of information stored in their memory, and identical knowledge, etc. etc.... the only difference being that one is wise and the other is not... what distinguishes the two?

[______]

...the only difference being that one is wise and the other is not... what distinguishes the two?
One is wise and the other is not.

Next question. :D

[spiritual_emergency]

namtso: I sincerely doubt you would ever catch me actually being critical or insulting to or about anyone who has gone through any psychological or physical difficulties.

Good morning namtso -- my sore spots are feeling considerably better this morning but I wanted to come back and address this point...

I wouldn't want to go away from this place and leave others with the impression that I've been talking specifically about a "psychological disorder". If you go back and review the very first quote I left in the ego death (http://www.thebigview.com/discussion/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=1103&st=0) thread... that's from a book by Jack Kornfield addressing aspects of Buddhist practice. In this culture, if you have that kind of experience, chances are very good that you'll be hospitalized and medicated. We don't live in a culture anymore where there are "elders" whose wisdom we could draw on to make sense of these kinds of experiences. Psychiatrists have become our gurus -- sometimes to our benefit and sometimes to our detriment, for psychiatry itself has a fairly brutal history. Meditation, contemplation, kundalini yoga, stress, trauma, ethnogens -- these are but some of the actions/activities that can produce spiritual emergency. If an individual is aware that this can happen, it makes it a lot easier to get through that experience. As it is, some don't make it and that's what was throbbing on me most yesterday...


- Isaiah was a med-student when he dropped a hit of acid on a beach with two friends in 1972. At some point in that experience, the sun that was just rising burst into full flower and spoke to him. The sun told him he was a child of god. Isaiah interpreted this to mean that he was Jesus Christ.

Isaiah's friends didn't know what to make of his god trip so they dropped him on the doorstep of the local psyche ward. According to him, he underwent more than 200 electro-shock treatments and 200 hours of insulin coma therapy. I always admired Isaiah for he was a tough cookie, but I also gave him a wide berth because he was rumored to have killed his psychiatrist.

- Michael was a young man I met a few years ago. He was both brilliant and sensitive. A graduate of John Hopkins mathematics program, he also wrote poetry. Michael began experiencing strange incidents of synchronicity in June of 2005. By December, his visions had become increasingly frightening and painful. He jumped off a bridge two days before Christmas... leaving a god-shaped hole torn in the fabric of the universe. I will never forget the anguish of his father.

- I didn't meet Benjamin, I met his mother. She was, truly, a lovely woman who was deeply grieving the loss of her 21 year-old son. A "schizophrenic" Benjamin had died due to a rare complication of anti-psychotic medication called Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome. His cause of death in the autopsy report was listed as "Natural". His mother just couldn't quite wrap her mind around that word. How could the death of her beautiful 21 year-old son be natural?



In case the point is missed, I'm not talking strictly about "schizophrenia". I've been talking about ego collapse/fragmentation.

Gotta go.

[______]

but dear one how do you know who has gone through 'extreme' experiences - not everyone talks about them - and even those who do may never speak of the deepest wounds

better practice is compassion to all for all have suffered more than we or they know
Amen sister!

[namtso]

but dear one how do you know who has gone through 'extreme' experiences - not everyone talks about them - and even those who do may never speak of the deepest wounds

better practice is compassion to all for all have suffered more than we or they know
- psyche

I think my challenge is the "not being insulting" part. The term critical is interpreted in both positive and negative ways, I could have chosen a better word. Critical thinking is of course very valuable. I agree with you in that it's much better to practice compassion for all. Generally speaking it's when I read certain things that are clearly mean spirited or just false, that's normally when I react more strongly. A personal goal for me is to not react right away and not allow these things to bother me so that when I do respond I have thought it through more thoroughly. The knee jerk reaction is what gets me into trouble more than anything else. It's embarrassingly evident when I end up having to apologize so often to people I have spoken harshly to, only to find out I missed key points of what they wrote. If only I could step back long enough to come to the realization that I need them to explain more fully. That'd be nice, eh?

psyche, certainly your statement here is not inflammatory in the least but I must admit that I'm not sure I'm getting the full meaning there, so following my own advice here, can you expand on what you meant here?

[schrodinger]

Worldliness is unrelated to enlightenment. There are many worldly
people who are no closer to enlightenment than the youngest children.-Trevor-

Your logic is incomplete. There are no enlightened persons who have not experienced worldliness, the Buddha being chief among those.

Since how you live your life is relevant to enlightenment, I will answer. I have daily conversations with people in tea and coffee shops around the city, walk my dog in the evenings, and play guitar. My life is about as lively as Schopenhauer's (people set their watches to his daily routine) or Kant's (who never travelled more than 20 miles out of his native city), or an average monk's.-Trevor-

Maybe your life is close to that of Schopenhauer and Kant, as both of them were skeptical of real world experiences, believing that only contemplation and imagination can offer an escape from the drudgery of life. But this is a far cry from the life of an average monk! How many monks do you know? I have been here in Thailand for many years now and can comment on this with confidence. The monks play a social role that is fundamental to daily life, both secular and religious. The monastery is the natural center of the community for social events. Also, the “villagers” turn towards it for help and advice in many different ways. A monk is accorded a position of authority and responsibility. He is not isolated from the lay world at all. Often the monk plays an important role in arbitrating disputes, providing technical know-how in artisan crafts as well as acting as a guardian, educator and moral counselor of the young.

Since when did playing sports and travelling to other countries make people interesting -- or more, enlightened? Some of the dullest people I know play sports constantly and love to travel.-Trevor-

Once again, your logic is off the rails. I did not speak of playing sports or traveling constantly, nor as an end in itself. What I am talking about is a way to obtain a more balanced life, which can certainly help one to achieve enlightenment.

There is another old adage that a person can know the entire world from his room. If you don't believe that one, then you have no idea what enlightenment is. (Gotama Buddha's enlightenment came while spending a week sitting under a tree, which is far more likely than obtaining it while in the process of climbing a mountain.)-Trevor-

Absolute rubbish! The Buddha’s enlightenment was as a result of a process of having lived, first as a member of the privileged class for 29 years, then as a wandering ascetic for 6 years in which time he also experienced self-mortification. His enlightenment allowed him to see the Middle Way, which he could not have seen without his previous life experience. If you think you will, or already have, achieved enlightenment in the confines of your own room, you are sadly deluded.

I spend an hour a day on my computer, tops. At the moment, Genius forum and this forum are the only things I do on the computer. As to this stuff about "living" and "being forty years old", I've heard from another source (one more credible than you) that if you aren't enlightened by 30, there's pretty much no chance of you ever becoming enlightened. You are far too settled in your habits to change. A person's 20's is a very crucial time.-Trevor-

That is at least the second time you mentioned “another source”. Seems whenever you are unsure of yourself you need to consult this other source. That is certainly not the mark of an enlightened person. Again, the Buddha did not realize enlightenment until the age of 35, so much for your theory. When you realize that the life expectancy was only about 30 in his era, he was already an “old” man, and even more remarkably he went on to live to be 80. In this present age with so much more information to absorb and the entire world now open for inspection, I don’t believe it possible to achieve enlightenment before the age of 40, but that is just my opinion.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

shrodinger,
Your logic is incomplete. There are no enlightened persons who have not experienced worldliness, the Buddha being chief among those.
I have experienced wordliness (such an insipid claim you made there, assuming that I haven't because at this moment I live with my mother and sisters -- I haven't always done so), but its only relation to achieving enlightenment is in recognizing its worthlessness. It does not take 29 years to push it away.

But this is a far cry from the life of an average monk! How many monks do you know? I have been here in Thailand for many years now and can comment on this with confidence.
I was not referring to the unenlightened monks of modern Thailand. I had the cloistered cells of Western monasteries in mind, where the appeal of the monastery is that it pulls a person away from worldly responsibilies, and into an environment favourable for learning and wisdom. In particular, I had Gregor Mendel in mind.

What I am talking about is a way to obtain a more balanced life, which can certainly help one to achieve enlightenment.
One only achieves enlightenment through single-minded dedication.

The Buddha’s enlightenment was as a result of a process of having lived, first as a member of the privileged class for 29 years, then as a wandering ascetic for 6 years in which time he also experienced self-mortification. His enlightenment allowed him to see the Middle Way, which he could not have seen without his previous life experience.
The enlightenment itself was the result of a matter of days, if not hours. His autobiography is irrelevant to the final goal of his teaching. It is only one way to explain why his way would be useful and pleasant. It is not worldliness, nor is it radical ascetism. It actually has nothing to do with either of those things. That should be clear from his teachings.

That is at least the second time you mentioned “another source”. Seems whenever you are unsure of yourself you need to consult this other source.
I'm referring specifically to a Genius moderator, David Quinn. It has nothing to do with uncertainty when I bring him up; I'm merely contrasting your unfounded claims (since you do not believe yourself enlightened, and do not have any authority on the matter) with the claims of someone who does believe himself enlightened.

In my own opinion, age has very little to do with enlightenment. Both you and David were mistaken on this point: I think your joint disagreement cancels each other out.

Again, the Buddha did not realize enlightenment until the age of 35, so much for your theory.
It wasn't really my theory, so whether or not it does disprove it (maybe Buddha was just really special, being capable of changing his life so late in it?), but it certainly does disprove your theory about needing to be 40 years old before even starting. He was still a pup before he started.

Honestly, age doesn't matter. I can imagine people younger than me being enlightened just as easily as I can imagine people older than me being unenlightened.

In this present age with so much more information to absorb and the entire world now open for inspection, I don’t believe it possible to achieve enlightenment before the age of 40, but that is just my opinion.
That's an opinion founded on nothing. Enlightenment has nothing to do with acquiring information: the only thing that would make it take longer in this age is that there is so much trivial information that is completely unrelated to enlightenment. Those are distractions.

[Fool Zero]

...the only difference being that one is wise and the other is not... what distinguishes the two?
One is wise and the other is not. :lol: Soldier for Truth _____ has a way with koans!

Trevor:Enlightenment has to do with wisdom, which is different than knowledge.
. . .
Attaining enlightenment is different than filling a database with trivia.
Well, I did say "everything worth knowing" rather than "trivia". But OK, fill the box with wisdom then.

You can even ask a sage exactly what to put in the box. My distinction then becomes: in 2. but not in 1.,you have to notice yourself finding a suitable sage, deciding exactly what to ask him/her, and choosing to accept the answer or not.

[clyde]

Trevor;

While I agree that age is not determinate, I believe that a certain degree of maturity is required. For example, a child lacks the capacity for awakening. One must first feel ignorant before one can experience enlightenment. And if one is to follow your path, then one needs a certain intellectual capacity that comes with age.

Do no harm <http://donoharm.us/>,
clyde

[schrodinger]

I'm referring specifically to a Genius moderator, David Quinn

So you are a Follower. QED
End of discussion.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

shrodinger,
So you are a Follower. QED
End of discussion.
You are very obtuse. I referenced the views of another philosopher, while telling you it was someone else's views. Since when was that not allowed in argument?

If you want to end the discussion, I'm fine with it. But you could do it with more dignity than pretending you mathematically proved something about me.

[namtso]

but dear one how do you know who has gone through 'extreme' experiences - not everyone talks about them - and even those who do may never speak of the deepest wounds

better practice is compassion to all for all have suffered more than we or they know
- psyche

I re-read this post of yours with a less rushed mind this time. It's crystal clear now, I don't know why I missed it (blocked it?). Compassion for all. That is absolutely one of my goals if not the primary one. Progress is slow with me in that department in case you haven't noticed. One of the major obstacles I have is my disgust with victimization. I have little or no patience with those who would victimize others. That is a huge obstacle in my development of compassion for all. I know they can coexist though. Compassion does not equal inaction. One need only look to the Dalai Lama ( Chenrezig! ) for an example of that.

[______]

:lol: Soldier for Truth _____ has a way with koans!
:lol:

Gotama Buddha's enlightenment came while spending a week sitting under a tree, which is far more likely than obtaining it while in the process of climbing a mountain.
How is sitting under a tree (or in any type of isolation) an absolute for Enlightenment while climbing a mountain isn't? Have you never heard the many stories of how enlightenment has been realized? Many involve very subtle things. Could one not attain enlightement from a mountain top overlooking a village? Could one not attain enlightenment while star-gazing? Attaining enlightenment has as many paths as there are personalities to attain it.

If you think you will, or already have, achieved enlightenment in the confines of your own room, you are sadly deluded.
I have come to an understanding of Trevor and realize that his enlightenment does not matter. He can still contribute to the TBV in a positive manner. We should not grow accustom to fixating ourselves on such insignificant claims to enlightenment. I will let him continue to believe what he will believe simply because there is no reason to change his belief if it is not harming himself or others. If anything, his claim is helping. It's keeping the sceptics on their toes and offering wisdom and insight to discussions. Despite my personal opinions, I say good for him! :thumbsup: