Well, seemingly against my better judgement, here's another response amidst this "ruckus". I don't promise to keep on responding, so this might be my last, potentially excluding some sort of summing up or sign-off post.
guest_of_logic: Ah, loopy jupi, all you do is prompt the obvious question: how does one know that one is enlightened oneself?
jupiviv: By using one's mind to ascertain whether one's thoughts and actions are in accordance with the definition of enlightenment. That's the only way to know anything.
guest_of_logic: Which was my entire point! From where does one get the definition of enlightenment? From those who coined the term in the first place: i.e. from the Buddhist scriptures.
jupiviv: Well one could always coin a new definition oneself, and not everyone agrees on the meaning or validity of definitions coined by people in the past.
I covered that in my analysis: if David has coined a new definition, then there's really nothing to debate - who would bother to debate whether a man has "got" a term which he himself has defined? Of course he has!
jupiviv wrote:David didn't explicitly reject what you called Nagarjuna's "explicit" meaning [that samsara and nirvana are indistinct --Laird] because that was also his own meaning.
You apparently haven't read the debate very closely. David very clearly
does explicitly reject Nagarjuna's claim of the indistinctness of samsara and nirvana in his fourth post:
David Quinn wrote:Note that the very first line of the quoted verse reads, "So, when the victorious one abides, ......" This shows that Nagarjuna is already creating the distinction between the "victorious one" and the ordinary person from the outset. This, in turn, means that he recognizes the distinction between enlightenment and ignorance, and between nirvana and samsara. It is the same with the Dhammapada passages quoted at the beginning of this essay; they too create the distinction between nirvana (the other shore) and samsara (the world of ignorance). In fact, you can go to any Buddhist sutra you like, and you will find that they are all based on the distinction between nirvana and samsara, enlightenment and ignorance, the wise man and the fool. These distinctions form the basis of every spiritual teaching in existence, even Nagarjuna's.
David explicitly asserts that
distinction (i.e. and not indistinctness) forms the basis of Nagarjuna's teaching.
guest_of_logic: My understanding is that Robert was simply asserting that Weininger's views on Jews are so contemptible as to be endorsed by Hitler.
jupiviv: And that by extension David Quinn's views are contemptible as well since he supports Weininger.
guest_of_logic: Sure, but that's different to saying "David is Hitler!!!1!!!1".
jupiviv: Yes, it's an indirect personal attack as opposed to a direct one, both of which when used in a discussion detract heavily from the attacker's credibility.
Fine, whatever, that's beside my original point, which (the point) you just conceded.
David,
If you are suggesting that by "God", Jesus meant "the All", then you are deluded. A sane reading of the Gospels reveals that Christ believed in and prayed to a personal God. It remains the case that Jesus's saying which you quoted refers to a spiritual kingdom ruled by a personal God, which is an apostle's true home, as opposed to this material world, in which he is merely passing through. This is in contrast to your own words which draw from Buddhism but are incoherent to those such as yourself lacking a belief in a non-corporeal aspect to a person which can survive physical death, and thus can truly cease to engage in (physical) life and death.
As for my "hatred" of the world, I'm not sure where you get that from. I object to injustice, of which there is much in the world, and it might even be possible to say that I "hate" injustice, but I don't hate the world itself. As for my "ego-based" spirituality, I don't really care what you call it, I simply call it the most likely truth. Deal with it.
As for my soccer analogy, I'm afraid you can't squirm out of it that easily. It doesn't really matter whether or not one or the other (of soccer and enlightenment) is "a human contrivance", the point is that they are both complex and skilful practices, a fair judgement of the accomplishment of which is best made by a qualified third party, especially given the tendency of kooks (*cough*) to over-estimate their own achievements.
guest_of_logic: People are generally unable to assess themselves objectively, it takes a third party to do that, particularly one who is knowledgeable in the domain in question. Why do you think we have universities which assess degrees? How confident would you be in a man who told you, "Yeah, I'm a skilled mathematician - based on my own self-validation" versus a man who told you, "Yeah, I studied mathematics at university and graduated with honours"?
David: I would first become an expert in mathematics and then assess his achievements. I wouldn’t throw a hissy fit and dismiss it, while ignorant, on the grounds that it conflicts with what I happen to believe in.
And you don't see a problem with this approach? It takes
years and even
decades to gain skill in a field like mathematics, assuming you even have a good enough mind for it in the first place, not to mention that doing it yourself you cannot really be sure whether you've covered sufficient ground, or have sufficient skill - even if you are going to study independently, you would need to take external, objective tests to confirm your level of ability, wouldn't you? Do you really have years and decades to spend learning the craft of each supposed self-validated expert who comes your way so as to assess the credibility of their claims? Of course not - there are too many of them across too many different fields.
Leyla: Isn't the notion of not dying even when you've died (as you express is: "the true Eastern notion is a literal release, literally, upon death, ceasing to be reborn into this mortal realm") even more ridiculous and incoherent? (I don't find anything remotely plausible about it, myself!) Really, what's the flippen difference!?
guest_of_logic: To someone, as many on this forum are, without any inkling of a non-material aspect to one's being, it might well seem ridiculous and incoherent. That doesn't include me though. There is too much evidence for a spiritual aspect of the person for me to deny it. To do so seems, to me, short-sighted and foolish.
Leyla: Hm.
So... are you accusing such others as being foolish and short-sighted based on your own experience of/evidence for nirvana, or on your belief in someone else's experience of/evidence for it? In short, are you, unlike David, qualified to make plausible judgments about nirvana?
Ah, I see that I wasn't very clear in the above. I was calling short-sighted and foolish those who deny a spiritual (non-corporeal) aspect to the person, not those who deny nirvana as literal release from literal rebirth - the latter I don't know much about and wouldn't claim to.
Russell,
I don't see myself as "harping" on David's self-validation - it simply came up in a debate which I undertook to analyse, and so, naturally, I analysed it. There's not much more significance to it than that. And of course (this is addressed to Diebert too) there is "self-validation" in what I post here, but the claims I'm making are a far cry from enlightenment!
guest_of_logic: Deebs, you talk a load of nonsense sometimes, exemplified by your notion that Alex might have "hidden multiple accounts" - paranoid much? What a crazy idea!
Diebert: LOL! Yeah lets just say I know him a bit longer and better than you think.
Mate, if you think he would do something like that, then you don't know him at all.
guest_of_logic: David, Dan and Kevin never (as far as I have observed) disagree on anything philosophical
Diebert: Since they almost exclusively talk about philosophical fundamentals, it would be remarkable if they'd' differ on it and still cooperate.
I don't get it. You and jupiviv are both conceding the original point whilst continuing to argue. Do you simply like arguing for the sake of it? Here, you acknowledge that David, Dan and Kevin promote a common philosophy, implying that there
is "a coherent system of thought" behind this forum, which was the original point of contention, and which you originally denied.
guest_of_logic: And if you cannot recognise the "coherent system of thought" behind this forum
Diebert: Thought itself is behind it.
In that sense, delusions of grandeur are behind it.
So, would I rent out my place to you? Got any references? ;-)