Sue,
No - better to keep picking things apart if the meaning isn’t clear.
The meaning to myself was clear. I didn't want to keep expounding...that should have been clear to you.
Thoughts are mental constructs, but this doesn’t mean that they aren’t useful. They are all we have to understand anything.
I agree. My point lately is that we must understand our mental constructs.
You can’t be a thinker without offending most people...
Is this a good reason to offend people? Is it a good excuse? No. I think this is faulty reasoning, saying that most people will always be offended by a thinker. They will only be offended by thinkers who want to offend.
Choosing to be a thinker should be about making the right choice. If the budding philosopher wants to hurt others and isolate his or herself, then that's what their philosophy will do. It will offend and it will separate them. But if the budding philosopher recognizes that ignorance causes suffering, and truth sets a person free from suffering, then their message won't offend but it'll inspire hope.
Washed up philosophers should look at their message, and the meaning of it. They should ask themselves "Why would anyone care to listen to this?"
It's all about the delivery of the message. And the delivery is all about the intentions of the deliverer.
For example: if you have consciously reasoned out that love is one of the causes of hate; politely accepting another person’s point of view that “people will stop hating each other if everyone just showed more love†will only perpetuate their insanity, as well as perpetuate the hatred already existing in the world.
First of all, I never said to be polite. I said to be good. That means always choosing the better option, mindfully. Sometimes being polite isn't the better option.
Also, I haven't reasoned out that love is one of the causes of hate. Attachment to love is the cause of hate. Love itself is just love...the thing people call "love" is attachment. It's taking a person and imprisoning them, so that if they step outside the boundaries you set up for them, you become sad/mad/angry/hateful/bitter/whiney/etc.
So if someone said "everyone just needs to show more love" I'd probably agree, then talk to them about what I thought. That if people lost their attachment in love, they'd be a lot more peaceful.
If I chose not to talk to them about what I thought, it'd be because there were some reason that it wasn't good to do so. Perhaps if the person is just too stupid to ever understand, I would let them continue thinking this. You know, "Don't throw pearls to swine..." I realize that in time, as intelligence and laziness spreads, wisdom will also spread. Only when people have nothing to do, do they begin to think about these types of things. "What is the meaning?" Etc. Only when people are smart, do they have the drive to become smarter.
So I think the way our world is turning, soon more people will be interested in these types of things. With women taking over the world, more men will come to think about these things. With women having no men staring at them, women will come to think of these things...because first, philosophy is about boredom and frustration.
My point...letting stupid people remains stupid is okay. If we truly understand causality, we realize that it isn't even in our hands entirely. It's in the hands of God.
Also, to follow “religious rules†is to follow irrationality.
I disagree. I've found religious rules to be pretty rational. Care to give me an example of a few that aren't?
All of society’s rules stem from the need to keep society operating as a whole. The philosopher is an individual, and though he follows the laws of the land, he doesn’t accept or follow the mores and morals of society.
Society is merely a melting pot of potential philosophers. If the more and morals are illogical, then soon society will learn that and follow something more sensible...so long as the philosopher makes his theories known. So long as he carefully teaches his ideas...because the potential philosophers of society may not have the courage yet to withstand the scary thoughts of a philosopher, however true they are...however untrue the society's rules are.
So as you can see, the philosopher should inspire the people. He shouldn't just say things that cause unnecessary fear...take this for example:
A philosopher is walking through the city and stands up on a bench, and starts to teach. He says "Women don't understand anything, and never will. Men are lacking the balls to leave women, and seek understanding." People look at him as if he's insane, and some ask him, "Why can't women ever understand?" To which he proclaims, "Women are unconscious. Look at the way they dress, etc..."
Going about it this way would be wrong. Obviously the philosopher here is avoiding what "understanding" means, and instead talking about the way to understanding. He's purposely bringing up controversy...perhaps as a means to shock people into thinking for themselves. This way doesn't work for most, because it is a pointless teaching. The real teaching should be about the way things are. The philosopher should stand up and talk about the imperminence of things, and how it relates to the people's daily lives...to make them better understand how to cope with their lives, and their misery.
He should offer a message of hope...one that's true of course. He shouldn't say "When you know the truth, you will be in a magical land of unicorns and lollipops that grow out of the ground...which is made of chocolate." He should say what he got out of his philosophy...an ending of suffering, a wisdom, a peacefulness, an understanding of "why?" If he doesn't have those things, then he shouldn't be talking yet.
But like I said before, if he's talking with the interest of offending people, it'll be apparent and of course people will be offended. If he hasn't reaped the rewards of actual philosophy yet, he will be perpetuating his negative emotions on everyone who is listening through his inadequate thoughts. And they will mirror it back to him.
He values rationality, and thereby doesn’t need society to stop him from becoming a pedophile, racist, bigamist, sexist, liar, thief, murderer or from indulging in any other irrational occupation. He knows that all these things are based on false understandings, and therefore he doesn’t participate in any of them.
Yet, there are thinkers out there that have done or are these things. Which is why thinking needs to be made perfectly clear. Even if a person understands emptiness, they won't be free of these "evils" so long as they haven't fully integrated the truth into their awareness. True understanding is fully integrated truth. It's beyond "getting it"; it's "living it". Very few thinkers have done this, because to do this is to lose being a thinker.
So, if you want people to be the “best person†they can be, encourage them to become rational.
People that are rational aren't perfectly rational, and therefore aren't the best person they can be. That's why I'm here encouraging people to become perfectly enlightened, instead of just being stagnant philosophers. That's why I say that imperfect philosophers should try to be good, because in doing so they will align themselves with perfection.
Most people think the greatest harm you can cause someone is to take away their hopes and dreams. The philosopher does exactly this when he speaks the truth.
Those people may be right, but the philosopher doesn't take anything. The person either maintains their hopes and dreams, or gives them to the philosopher and takes the truth instead. It's up to the person...everyone gets what they ask for deep down. If the person wants understanding, he or she will lose everything for it (after some amount of time). If they truly, deeply, want to become the next American Idol...they will be on a path towards acheiving that and will be avoiding the truth in the meantime.
But is it harmful to reveal what's real? Is it harmful to perpetuate the cause of pain? What's real is unavoidable...and the cause of pain is delusion. So I don't think it's harmful to tell the truth.
You could say that in this way the philosopher is being “pure and goodâ€, because the suffering he causes may ignite a truthful thought in another. But, of course, most people have no interest in the truth, and consider the philosopher the most evil person on the planet.
This is kind of an exaggeration. Do you actually ever talk to people about this stuff? I think people get it...it's just that they lack the balls to follow through with living according to the truth. For example, my friend realizes the stupidity of dating girls, yet he does it as if he can't help himself. It's not like he doesn't understand that relationships like that cause suffering, and are pointless. He gets it...but he lacks the balls to follow through with his understanding. Most people are this way, as well. They lack the balls to take on a truthful life. A pastor at my church and I talked about religions, and despite the convincing arguments I put forth about all religions pointing to one truth, he stood firm in his faith. He agreed with me the whole time, yet at the end, couldn't bring himself to say I was right. He was just lacking the balls.
I've talked to a party girl, who only shops and drinks...those are the only things she does. She does nothing else. She doesn't even eat, because she thinks she's fat. I talked to her a few times about the things I thought, and she agreed...yet she still lived her life of drinking, shopping and anorexia. I tried to show her how it relates to her life, but she lacked the balls to become someone new. To live her life in light of the truth. She stored the things I talked with her about in a part of her brain separated from her life.
All of these people lack the balls...and they lack honesty...which ties in with the balls. If you are honest, you are brave.
As I pointed out above, the ‘good’ the philosopher does is hardly ever recognized by anyone else on the entire planet. Not that it is any concern of his, he is just a whim of The Infinite, and everything he does is the work of The Infinite – not his.
I suppose. Does this mean that the philosopher shouldn't continue doing good?
What you have written above Scott, would have to be some of the weirdest ideas I’ve read for some time.
I don't think they're weird...they are sharp logic.
Let's take a look -
First you've got as a criteria for enlightenment: “doing goodâ€, which in your mind translates out to being nice and kind to others. And then you write that if you can’t be nice and kind to others it shows that you’re not enlightened. You’ve also added that if you are being nice and kind to people it shows that you are “discerning the truth effortlesslyâ€.
You aren't understanding what I'm writing about, as is apparent here. Maybe I'm just horrible at explaining what I think. I want to take apart your analysis in parts, because it seems like you're being blatantly dishonest in your observation.
First you've got as a criteria for enlightenment: “doing goodâ€,
No, the criteria for enlightenment is "a total absence of delusion".
"doing good", which in your mind translates out to being nice and kind to others.
You don't know what's going on in my mind, so it's wrong to assume this.
Being nice and kind to others isn't how I translate being good. Being good is about doing the right thing. Choosing the better option. Obviously, the feelings of others are involved in it, since "good" comes from people's feelings.
If a person is threatening to kill five other people, obviously it's better to take out that violent person than let them kill five people. Five people have ten parents who are sad after their deaths. One person has two...therefore, it's better to kill that one violent person than to be good by not, and allow them to kill the five others.
You have to break some eggs to make an omelette. But breaking eggs without thinking of what you're making is wrong. That'll just be a mess. So the philosopher should always keep the purpose of his action in his mind, and should clearly think about the implication of each action. To put it simply: he should do what's right.
And then you write that if you can’t be nice and kind to others it shows that you’re not enlightened.
If you aren't good, you're unenlightened. The enlightened have no reason to be bad. Bad people have reasons to be the way they are..."I have strong feelings of lust, therefore I act on them"..."I feel horrible, therefore I take it out on others by being rude", etc.
If the enlightened person is thinking about women naked, there's obviously delusion in that person, and they're obviously unenlightened. Or if they're thinking about feeling horrible, or about taking it out on others. All of these types of things have nothing to do with an awareness of truth.
When a person has a permanent awareness of truth, with no delusion in them, there's no way they can do anything wrong. They will be celibate, because there are no thoughts of sex. Non-violent because there are no thoughts of violence. Peaceful, because there are no thoughts of suffering. All goodness is just a natural product of their awareness of truth.
Like you said before, the philosopher has no need for the evils of the world, because...
He knows that all these things are based on false understandings, and therefore he doesn’t participate in any of them.
However for the enlightened, it's not a choice. The enlightened can't choose between true understanding and false understanding, because all that there is for him is true. Therefore, the philosopher has the capacity for evil, but the enlightened is pure. Philosophers haven't perfected their philosophy until they live it...so they must align themselves with goodness. If they are unable to, they see their own faults and delusion. Say for example, if the philosopher attempts to become celibate and is unable to. If he's honest with himself, he'll see that his inability is caused by his unenlightened mind. He'll see that delusion springs up in him, despite his learned wisdom. Hopefully, he has the balls to recognize it.
You’ve also added that if you are being nice and kind to people it shows that you are “discerning the truth effortlesslyâ€.
I never said that. But if you're discerning the truth effortlessly, then you will be good naturally.
I think you need to consider these ideas a lot more.
Why not? It's definitely good to do so. It's good to have you here to question the ideas, so that I do so...so thank you, Sue.
