Does it matter or not?

[samadhi]

DT,

DT: You can't go wrong saying anything happened for a reason because to do so is simply to say that this something was caused. We then go on to delineate those causes to some extent but it doesn't matter how accurate we are in doing so, the fact remains that everything happens for a reason, the actions of enlightened beings notwithstanding.

Sam: I am not talking about casuality. Besides, saying everything is caused is just a way of saying we don't know why things happen but to appear knowledgeable while saying it.

DT: Sorry Sam but that's just pure hand waving with a bit of ad hom thrown in. The idea is that you either tell me why what I say is wrong or you agree with it.

Okay. First, I'm not interested in causality, we were talking about motive. Second, you want to argue by defining your conclusion; that is a pointless exercise. Third, saying everything happens for a reason is dogma, like saying God is great. You don't know the reason and you don't know God so there is no content in either one and nothing to argue.

DT: Motive just means whatever impels one to act, whether it be cognizant or not. Just as there is always a reason for whatever happens, so too there is always a motive for whatever act of a conscious agent. Motive describes a subset of reasons specifically applied to the acts of consciousness agents. That is to say that whatever act a conscious agent performs is caused, ergo there is a reason for it, ergo there is a motive for it.

Sam: I am talking about motive in a personal sense, not an impersonal one. In the sense you describe, everything has motive by definition. Sure, you can define it that way but it doesn't tell you anything about why any particular action is performed.

DT: This is why motive is the wrong word and your point is muddied thereby. All it means is whatever moves a conscious agent.

The point is WHAT IS THAT? Personal motive is what is being argued, not impersonal ones.

DT: You're talking about desires and needs Sam. ... Replace the word motive with desire in all of Sam's previous quotes above and you'll see what I mean. They also make a lot more sense that way.

Sam: Well, you can think what you want but desire isn't what I am talking about. Motive in this conversation is about an action done for the sake of something else. What I am saying is that not all action is taken with a goal in mind.

DT: And what is a goal if not a desire?

If the word desire makes you feel better, go with it.

This is how your point is muddied. You are highlighting premeditated action and suggesting that there is such a thing as unmeditated action - actions with a goal in mind and actions with no goal in mind - actions involving desires and actions involving no desires - actions involving an ego and actions involving no ego.

What I am saying is that not all actions have personal motives which you seem to be going along with. You want to substitute a word. Fine.

Sam: Nature isn't a motive, it is a description.

DT: One's nature has to be a motive. It's probably the only motive you could accurately ascribe to any conscious act whatsoever. Be it one's ego, intelligence, emotion, insight, height, strength, fearlessness, pain threshold, hair colour, cardiovascular health, that dodgy knee, or even one's enlightened consciousness; it's all one's nature.

Sam: Conflating the two makes the distinction I am drawing meaningless. You can do that but then you simply miss the point.

Conflating the two in fact illustrates that the distinction you are drawing is meaningless. It's meaningless because you are using the wrong word and words convey meaning. There's definitely a point being missed here.

Well, I think you are missing it. Nature is not motive, not in the sense we are discussing it at least.

You needn't be arguing the untenable position that acting out one's nature isn't necessarily indicative of motive, because what you're really saying is that acting out one's nature isn't necessarily indicative of desire - premeditation - goals - ego; a far more tenable position.

If you want to substitute desire for motive, go ahead. It works for you but Laird and I were discussing it in terms of motive.

And so confusion arises where it need not.

We are having a discussion, there is nothing wrong with a little back-and-forth.

Sam: Gravity has no motive, it just does what it does, that's all. Sure, you can say leaves want to fall to earth but that misses something important, namely that no one is deciding anything.

DT: Just as we can say that leaves want to fall to earth, so too we can say that consciousnesses want to decide things. This is of course on the understanding that we know we are speaking allegorically. Just as the leaf is actually caused to fall to earth by, amongst other things (read all things), gravity; so too the consciousness is actually caused to decide by, for non-controversial example, the circumstances.

Sam: Whether you are caused to decide or not, decisions happen.

DT: Well yeah that's right but the point was that they are caused.

But no one is talking about causation but you! And it's a dogmatic position anyway.

Sam: That is different than saying there is always a motive behind every decision.

DT: Indeed. I wasn't here suggesting that the fact that consciousness is caused implies that there is a motive behind every decision, although it obviously does as motives are reasons for the acts of conscious agents and reasons are causes.

Again, you are simply defining your conclusion.

My stating that there is always a motive behind any conscious action is quite simply based on the normal everyday definition of the word motive, and its etymology.

Well, that's fine. You can use your definition if you want.

Your over all point about the absence of motive in those that transcend ego and merely act out their nature is actually about the absence of desire in those that do such. It's so obvious. Ego and desire, not ego and motive. Those that transcend ego are still moved to consciously act - have motive - whilst they are yet desireless.

My point isn't about semantics which yours seems to be.

What you're saying is completely correct, it's just that you're using the wrong word, which in turn muddies the waters and invites irrelevant argument.

Well, I've enjoyed the discussion, whatever word you want to use.

[Dave Toast]

Ok. Carry on about your chit-chat then.

[samadhi]

Laird,

Your post was a long one so I'm only going to answer part of it now, I'll try to get to the rest tomorrow.

samadhi: I am not arguing a lack of will, the power to act. I am arguing that motivation is about ego.

Laird: Well sure, motivation is about ego, however I'm arguing that ego is both inevitable and inescapable (for conscious human beings, including the enlightened).

samadhi: Well, it's my understanding that enlightenment is from the ego, not by the ego.

Laird: See, it's statements like this that make me so skeptical of the traditional Eastern brand of enlightenment. If enlightenment is not by the ego, then what's the point in chasing after it with the ego? You read the Tao Te Ching and listen to lectures by Adya and that's probably only the tip of the iceberg of the ways in which you seek enlightenment with your ego. It's utterly contradictory.

Enlightenment is a paradox, no one is denying that. There are all different kinds of teachings including not doing anything at all, just look at the video in the first post of the Forget about Enlightenment thread. Or my own thread ( http://forum.commonascent.org/showthread.php?t=652 ) for that matter.

As much as you would like it to be otherwise, there is no one way to enlightenment. Not doing anything has worked, meditating every day has worked. There is no rule. Which is the point. You can't make enlightenment into a science. It doesn't mean if you have a scientific mind, not to take a scientific approach. Look at Einstein. Maybe he wasn't enlightened in the classical sense, but many have done worse.

And what exactly is this distinction that you're trying to make between "from the ego" and "by the ego" anyway? I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. It doesn't seem to me to be a concrete distinction.

The ego is the belief that "I am this," whatever "this" happens to be. That is the thought that turns the wheel. The ego cannot liberate you from ego, that would be a contradiction. Asking it to drop its image doesn't work, have you noticed? Nevertheless, there is insight. Whatever image there may be, there is no "I" in it. But that insight has to be embodied. Simply understanding it may be satisfying to some degree but it isn't enlightening to any degree.

This isn't the only issue that I have with Eastern-style enlightenment either. Ask someone who believes in it to describe exactly what it is and all that you'll get in response is something that in the end boils down to "it's ineffable".

It is ineffable to the ego! The ego is always grasping, trying to enhance its image. But you cannot grasp enlightenment. Thus the frustration.

Sure, we can say a couple of concrete things about it such as "enlightened people are compassionate", but when one asks for a plain and simple in-a-nutshell description, one comes up a blank.

You want it in a nutshell, okay, here it is: Everything you think you are is mistaken. That's simple, isn't it?

For example: is enlightenment a state; is it an understanding; or is it an attitude? Ah, but pose these questions to a true believer and all that you'll get in return is something vague like "No, enlightenment is none of these things. It is ungraspable." No one ever wants to pin down exactly what it is.

It is what is prior to those. And that doesn't make it some otherworldly phenomenon. What is looking through your eyes right now?

How is a sensible person to respond to this sort of vaguary? I put it to you that the only rational reaction is "Well, if you can't describe it clearly, then it's a meaningless concept. How is one to even determine whether oneself or someone else is enlightened when one can't even define it succinctly in the first place?!"

The fact that it can't be pinned down to your satisfaction doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Maybe you can't understand. No one is saying everyone can or needs to. Whether you can or can't is no matter in any event since understanding is only one approach. It probably isn't yours. So you will find another way.

No, Sam, this kind of wishy-washy thinking is not for me. It's as faith-based (in the worst, irrational sense) as any other set of religious beliefs.

On the contrary, it is all experienced-based. Belief won't help you in the least.

One has faith in this "ineffable" something (and it's telling that I have to use the word "something" there in place of a more specific descriptor), but because one doesn't even have a concrete idea of what exactly it is supposed to be, one is essentially placing one's faith in a phantom. Sam, I don't know you particularly well and I really hope that you don't take offence at this, but my opinion is that in this regard you are simply credulous. If you think that I'm being unfair to you then please describe clearly and succinctly the essential nature of enlightenment (state? understanding? attitude?).

See above for the explanations.

One thing that I will say of QRS-brand enlightenment, albeit that there are aspects of it that I disagree with, is that it certainly doesn't suffer from the problem of vaguary: "Enlightenment is the complete absence of delusion" - it doesn't get much more concrete than that (on the other hand some of David's ramblings about "going beyond duality" are, as I've already commented, in my opinion quite vague).

QRS knows some things, just enough to be dangerous actually.

My personal version of enlightenment differs in several ways from the version of enlightenment that you believe in. For one thing, you seem to mostly believe that enlightenment is an all-or-nothing affair: you give mikiel much credence and presumably that extends to his story of having a sudden breakthrough in which he lost his ego.

Yeah, I do give him credibility. In the discussions I have seen him in, he seems quite authentic.

What in the world does it mean to lose one's ego though, and in what way does it change one? I'm going to take a stab at it, and if mikiel's reading this then hopefully he'll clarify it for me: presumably one realises and experiences some feeling of oneness with nature and has the feeling of one's boundaries dissolving. Neat, that would be a pretty cool experience! But then...?... In what way is one any different for this experience, even assuming that this feeling of boundaryless oneness persists? One still has a mind that directs one's actions. One still has a body that functions in the physical world. Life goes on as a human being: that much is inescapable. Life is a series of choices to behave well or to behave poorly. In what sense does this breakthrough experience impact upon those choices? And if the answer is "not at all", then I don't consider it to be particularly enlightening, it's just a bit of a fun trip to be on.

Look at it this way, how does a dream change for you when you realize you are dreaming? There is a dream character but whatever happens to that character in the dream is of no matter to your real being. Would the dream change for you or would it stay the same?

For me, enlightenment is a matter of degree. Enlightenment is made manifest by how effectively one makes one's choices in one's life. Ask me whether enlightenment is a state, an understanding or an attitude and I can give you a firm answer: it is all three. The more enlightened a person, the better s/he understands how to think and behave as well as how other people think and why they behave as they do; the more positive, appropriate and balanced attitude s/he has to life: enlightenment is a state of heightened awareness.

Enlightenment certainly can affect your present state, understanding and attitude but there is no one way in which it does that. I would say that it leaves one undivided. How that manifests depends on the persona through which it is expressed.

samadhi: Ego as I am discussing it is the idea of self as a distinct entity, particularly a body/mind. Enlightenment doesn't get rid of the body/mind, they are quite useful as a persona, but they are no longer seen as self, as what I am.

Laird: So to "discard (or to 'transcend') the ego" is simply to "realise" that certain things that one once considered to be oneself are in fact not oneself.

See, even you can put it in a nutshell!

I put it to you as I put it to QRS that all that you're describing is an intellectualisation: one simply chooses to not view certain things as part of one's identity anymore. Fine, and ...?

What is being described in terms of ideas is not itself an idea. If it were, you could just adopt it and be done with it. But it doesn't work like that. Without the realization, it will remain inert.

Again, I'll ask: in what way does this meaningfully impact upon the way in which one lives one's life? As far as I'm concerned, such an intellectualisation has no practical consequences.

First, no one can say how enlightenment will impact an individual. Each individual has their own expression and enlightenment will be seen through that. As a generalization though, I would say its impact is a healing of division. An individual is no longer divided against itself.

Second, as an intellectualization, it is just the pushing of another idea and its value will depend on your attachment to the idea. But that would be a corruption anyway since the true value of enlightenment is not in its understanding but in its realization. If you simply intellectualize it, like QRS, well, you see for yourself the result.

Life goes on as a series of choices, whether you choose to view the agent making those choices as "me" or not. And I can't imagine the adoption of this intellectualisation as having any significant impact upon the way in which I make the choices in my life.

No one is saying your understanding is what's important. Getting you to adopt another idea is not what the value of enlightenment teaching points to.

As far as I'm concerned it's for the most part an irrelevancy. I'm not interested (except as an intellectual curiosity) in abstract ideas about who I "really" am, I'm interested in working out how to more effectively live my life.

Great. If you think an effective life is about perfecting your ego, go for it. There is no value to enlightenment apart from the value you find for yourself in it. If that happens to be zero, I suggest you pursue something of greater interest.

[Laird]

Your post was a long one so I'm only going to answer part of it now, I'll try to get to the rest tomorrow.

Sam, I appreciate you posting what you have so far, although it would have been fine with me if you'd saved it all up for a single post because I don't intend to respond until (if) you completely respond. Let me know if you decide not to respond to the rest and I'll go ahead with what you've given me so far.

[samadhi]

Laird,

This is a real monster post. I hope you're able to digest it all (as well as the previous one)!

So in what way does your interest in the idea that the mind/body are not really a part of the self "work" for you, practically speaking?

It allows for less identification which is always helpful.

samadhi: Not everyone who teaches enlightenment is a fraud. You are appealing to cynicism. And the basis for your appeal is that what they say does not conform to your belief.

Laird: Yes, that's exactly the basis of my appeal, however in contrast to what these "enlightened" people are teaching, my belief is reasonable: that all actions of conscious agents are motivated.

Okay. I'm sure it is reasonable to you. No one is asking you to adopt anything you find unreasonable. I would only ask that you refrain from calling someone a fraud only because his experience is not yours.

samadhi: The point isn't for you to believe what they are saying, it is about your own interest. If what they are saying appeals to you in some manner, then you can investigate on your own. If it comes across as nonsense, then you will ignore it in any case. Either way, you must find your own path, no matter what anyone says.

Laird: Well sure, but that's all a bit trite. I am finding my own path, and I'm trying to describe it to you. I'm by no means treading the path that I'd like to be treading particularly well, but at least I know where I'd like to be, as opposed to reaching after an illusion.

That's fine. I am just trying to show you that other paths are not ruled out simply because you do not agree with them.

samadhi: When it comes to enlightenment, you must rely on others until you can speak from your own experience. It's not a bad thing to get a little guidance. It doesn't mean you just swallow everything whole. It's okay to ponder things without passing judgment immediately.

Laird: I first came into significant contact with the Eastern version of enlightenment in my final two years of high school back in 1993/4 through one of my subjects, "Studies in Religion". I'm certainly not passing "immediate" judgement. I gave the concept a good go. I "relied on others" to explain what enlightenment was. I found, though, that the explanations were for the most part too vague and contradictory to be taken seriously.

I can point you to several good teachers if you're interested.

Now don't get me wrong, as I wrote earlier there are definitely aspects of the Eastern version of enlightenment that can be described clearly. It's just its essential nature that is ineffable (and hence in my eyes meaningless). Some of the solider aspects of Eastern enlightenment are:
* compassion and generally "moral" behaviour
* treading a middle path between ascetism and over-indulgence
* an understanding of the nature of reality.

Good points.

As far as those aspects go, I'm pretty much in agreement, although I don't think that the type of understanding of reality preached by, for example, Buddhism, is the same as the type of understanding that I'd like to cultivate: that understanding is particularly abstract and in my opinion largely irrelevant. I'll add that I believe that QRS generally conform to this understanding of reality: in particular I'm referring to notions of "emptiness" and "non-inherent existence".

Buddhism doesn't "preach" an abstract reality. It invites an investigation based on the three characteristics, namely, impermanence, suffering and no self. Those three anyone can verify for themselves. What you do in your investigation depends on how interested you are.

samadhi: The Tao Te Ching uses poetry because the Tao is ungraspable. You cannot use math and science to discover it. If you are looking for something to grasp, go with science.

Laird: Yeah, see, this is the kind of wishy-washy thinking that I'm talking about. "The Tao is ungraspable". Then what exactly is the point of it? If there's no meaning to be grasped at, then why do you present it to me as if it's meaningful?

I can tell you what meaning there is for me but after that it's up to you. I am not insisting that you see what I see. No one needs to see anything other than what they do see. If you don't see anything, great; then it would be best to do your looking somewhere else.

samadhi: But then, please be honest and say you are not interested in the Tao or enlightenment.

Laird: I'm interested in the Tao to the extent that it's fascinating to me that so many people take so seriously something that by your own admission can't be grasped and hence is largely meaningless.

Not being able to grasp "no self" doesn't make it meaningless. It just means you can't make it into a science, it is an inward exploration, not an outward one.

Sure, it makes for great poetry, and those who've been following my contributions to this forum from the beginning will already know that I really dig paradox, but as for the paradoxical writings in this book being of any particular use to me in guiding my behaviour and understanding: they're just not. I'll qualify this paragraph by saying that it's been a while since I really looked seriously at the book and for all I know I'd find more use for it were I to take a thorough look again.

It's funny that you call it great poetry after saying that it's basically meaningless. What makes it great if it doesn't speak to you?

As for enlightenment: no, I'm not interested in the vague phantom of the Eastern tradition; yes, I'm very interested in the further development of my personal understanding of my own version of enlightenment.

I wouldn't call what you're interested in enlightenment. It sounds more like a well-adjusted ego. I'm not putting that down by the way. A well-adjusted ego can make the world a much happier place, for itself and others.

samadhi: The point isn't whether it is better to be actively involved or not. There isn't one way to be in the world.

Laird: Sure, but there are more and less responsible ways to be in the world.

As long as you are not harming, that's being responsible enough.

samadhi: And no true teacher of enlightenment says "drifting along in harmony with the Tao" is what it's about. The verse is about surrender. Maybe you have no interest in surrender. Maybe you're not there yet. That's fine but it doesn’t mean that surrender can be safely ignored when it comes to approaching the Tao. It just means you are not interested.

Laird: I'm at the very least interested in working out exactly what you mean. Surrender to what?

The Tao, what else?

Surrender is generally about giving up. Now, you would probably like to couch this in a favourable light by saying something like "one 'gives up' one's attachments to worldly desires". Fair enough, and I appreciate that kind of surrender. I want to note though that there's another way of viewing surrender, and that is that it is the decision that it's impossible to make a realistic difference in the world - to give up on effecting change. Such surrender is in my opinion irresponsible and far from commendable.

Surrender is tricky because of course, the ego can't do it. Asceticism is a symbolic kind of surrender but I'm sure you understand that isn't what it is really about. But people do those kind of practices for a number of reasons that may be quite useful. The ego is a hard nut to crack and there is no one way to do it. What works is all that matters. And often that comes down to having the ego broken simply because nothing works. Surrender tends to happen spontaneously when one reaches the end of their rope.

The surrender you are talking about isn't surrender at all, that is cynicism. As for effecting change, the greatest and most effective change you can bring to any situation is your own being purged of ego. Without an agenda to tie you down, things are seen much more clearly.

Laird: Nevermind, Sam, that's not really directed at you, it's more of a harsh self-criticism. Here I sit, idly composing - largely for my own indulgence - semi-relevant posts to a semi-relevant corner of the internet, when on the other side of the world people suffer under brutal regimes, starve in poverty and generally suffer in ways that I can't even imagine. All I've managed so far is to sponsor a child through some charity, and even that wasn't a particularly conscious decision, I simply couldn't bear to say no to the woman who approached me on the street and asked me (quite assertively) to make a regular contribution - it just made too much sense.

samadhi: Your self-judgment is more of a hindrance than anything you actually do. If you want to help people, then help them; if you don't, then don't.

Laird: Fair call mate. It was a bit of a (drunkenly) self-indulgent paragraph really. If I were truly enlightened then I wouldn't judge myself harshly anyway because I would always act rightfully.

Here is where an enlightened perspective really helps. You have a thought, you are a "bad" person in some way. Why the need to identify with the thought? And what makes the thought "right"? After all, you are always doing the best you can, you can't do anything but that, right? So what is really going on when self-judgment arises? It's a perfect picture window into the ego. Rather than simply submit, why not turn to spotlight around and see what you find.

samadhi: What you do isn't as important as who is doing it. Passing judgment is the ego's way of being smart while not actually having to prove how smart it is. It conveniently divides itself into the one who knows and the one who doesn't care so it can enjoy its pronouncements while dismissing them at the same time. It's a setup for failure, which the ego of course enjoys because it reinforces the judgments. What would happen to the ego if you didn't judge yourself? I bet it would be very pissed with you. It hates to be ignored.

Laird: You're doing something a little strange in this paragraph: you're talking about my ego as if it were distinct from "myself", whereas the ego by my (and the dictionary) definition is my self.

Self-reflection is the ego's way of distancing itself from what it doesn't like. It reflects on a thought, feeling or action, and then judges them. But it's just a magic act because the judgment is also a thought and in no way different from the one being judged. One thought reflects on another, decides it is real and the other some kind of aberration and thus creates the split that isn't really there.

Granted, you've clarified that by your definition, ego is the mind/body, but in this you deviate from the dictionary definition, which says nothing about mind and body but describes it simply as "the self of any person".

The dictionary gives conventional usage, the ego or self is the body/mind. I am saying the ego is the thought that says "I am the body/mind."

In other words, me and my ego are one and the same, and to say that "it" would be pissed with "me" is to construct an artificial duality out of a singularity.

Yeah, but notice that is what you are already doing when self-judgment arises. You are pissed at yourself. The problem is splitting yourself in two and deciding one part is right while the other is wrong. But you can't actually split yourself so when you create that wrongness, you feel it. It is the judgment itself that locks it in place. So instead of looking at the wrongness, a better idea is to look at the judgment. What keeps that going? And who is the judge that is apart from the wrongness?

But OK, I'll be fair to you and grant you your definition of ego as "a distinct entity, particularly a body/mind".

No, that is the dictionary definition. A body is a body, a thought is a thought, the ego is the thought that says, "I am the body, I am the mind."

You claim that the enlightened person no longer sees the body/mind as the self, but this leads to the obvious question: what does the enlightened person see as him or herself? I mean, s/he still uses the words "me" and "I". So exactly what does s/he mean by these words then?

They refer to a persona. Everyone, enlightened or not, has a persona. The persona isn't a problem, it's just a means of expression. And an enlightened person doesn't seem him/herself as anything in particular, just as if you were dreaming, there wouldn't be anything in particular in the dream that would be "you." All of it in fact is you.

samadhi: Well, in my experience I don't look for motive in order to act.

Laird: It doesn't matter whether you look for it or not, it's there regardless.

samadhi: I act and then maybe later if things don't go well, try to figure out why I did what I did.

Laird: Right, and the fact that you do that indicates that you do believe that your actions are motivated.

samadhi: The point is that motive is really about justification.

Laird: No, it's not. Justifications can mask real motives.

samadhi: Look at something huge, like the invasion of Iraq. If it had gone well, would anyone have cared what the motive was?

Laird: Is it relevant whether anyone cares? The motive exists whether anyone cares or not.

samadhi: Liberty! Freedom! Democracy! Yeah! But it didn't go well. So the search for motive which is just a means of justification.

Laird: The motive is the true reason for the invasion. The justification is the way that the invaders try to avoid censure.

My point about motive is that you find it after the fact, not before it.

samadhi: Enlightenment is not about awareness of the ego's motives, it is about awareness that the ego itself is just a thought. And like I said, becoming aware of one's motives isn't a bad thing. Just don't mistake it for enlightenment.

Laird: I can't really say any more in response to this than what I've already said: that we simply differ here on what constitutes enlightenment. To me, a belief that "the ego itself is just a thought" is a pretty waffly one, is not a particularly helpful one, and is not part of my conception of enlightenment (which is admittedly different to the traditional one), whereas becoming aware of my motives greatly enhances the effectiveness of my behaviour, which is quite an enlightened thing to do. To me, that's the main reason to meditate: to "clear blockages" - in other words to reconfigure one's system of motivations so that it is an enlightened one.

Okay. My point is only that enlightenment is not about perfecting an ego. Perfecting an ego, while it has its uses, will always be problematic.

samadhi: Please note, there is nothing wrong with becoming more aware of your motives. For an ego, that's a good thing, by all means, become more aware. But you still seem to have the idea that enlightenment is about knowing more and having more control.

Laird: Yes, I do. As well as being the enlightened way to live one's life, it's also the responsible way to live one's life.

samadhi: This may be our core disagreement then.

What do you think about this quote from the New Testament:

He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. (Mat. 10:39)

It's a very basic teaching, you don't get there by getting, you get there by losing.

Laird: To be honest with you, I had to think a little carefully about that quote before I saw how it related to our conversation. Yes, it can be interpreted as being about surrendering control of one's life. "Losing" one's life might not be - as I initially interpreted it - about death, but rather about loss of personal control.

Indeed. That is much scarier than death.

As for what I think about it, it doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. How exactly does one "lose" one's life in the sense of giving up control? As I've been arguing, one can't avoid being motivated. In this sense, one can't give up control.

True. The ego cannot give up control. Being in control is its whole reason for being. That's why the above quote presents such a conundrum. No one wants to lose control, everyone wants to FIND control.

All that one can do is to try to choose (as far as is possible - some motivations are pretty ingrained) one's motivations wisely. I think that a Christian would interpret it as giving control over to God - in other words, praying for guidance, reading the Bible and attempting to follow in Jesus' footsteps: turning the other cheek, loving God and one's neighbour, etc. Somehow I don't think that you're a Christian though and I would guess that you have no particular belief in God either.

Right, that is the Christian way. And it does work for some. The point isn't about any particular way to do it, whether Christian, Buddhist, etc., it is about the need to do it if one is seeking a spiritual path.

samadhi: I certainly understand where you are coming from, but I don't think you have a clear idea on enlightenment teaching. Wisdom is certainly a big part of it, but it's not all of it. Without the surrender, wisdom becomes another accoutrement of the ego, knowledge to wield and display for its benefit.

Laird: I certainly don't claim to be an expert on enlightenment teaching, but I get the general idea: as I've written enough in this post, it makes little enough sense to me that I've constructed my own slightly alternative version of enlightenment. The ego is unavoidable. One can certainly become less selfish, but one cannot live without a self (ego) altogether.

Have you noticed that the ego isn't interested in becoming less selfish, that is has to be prodded in that direction? That is the problem with simply using a moral code to "perfect" the ego. You are always pushing a rock uphill. Enlightenment is about the rock rolling downhill. When you are always at war with yourself, what kind of peace can you expect to find? But when you find the natural order, you no longer need a moral code to regulate your behaviour.

samadhi: I'm fine if you don't want to look at what others have discovered. You have to discover it all for yourself anyway. But then you cannot discuss about what the teaching is or what enlightenment points to. All you can do is give me your belief about a motive for everything. Since the belief obviously applies in your life, it can't be wrong for you. But what about others? Mightn't they have a different experience?

Laird: You haven't been able to explain to me how that would be possible, beyond saying that they might act according to their nature, which as I've already argued is to admit that they are motivated.

The point I have been making from the beginning is that this kind of so-called motivation has nothing to do with what you understand ordinary motivation to be. The distinction is important if you are looking for a way to be and act that does not require an endless calculus that misleads more often than it illuminates.

samadhi: You are using the word enlightened in a watered-down sense.

Laird: I prefer: "alternative sense".

If you use "enlightened" on this board, I'm going to call you on it. You could just as easily say, "a more pragmatic approach" an get your point across without the fuss.

samadhi quoting the Tao wrote:
The Master does nothing,
yet he leaves nothing undone.

Laird: If I liked inane contradiction then this would be right up my alley. As it happens, I'm pretty unimpressed.

samadhi: The Tao Te Ching teaches with paradox. Do you understand how something seemingly contradictory can be true at the same time? Do you understand why paradox can provide insight where a straightforward description cannot?

Laird: Yes, I love and use paradox myself. I have a collection of self-created insights and affirmations on my website, many of which are paradoxes. I just don't happen to find this particular "paradox" very meaningful. Let's take the second part of the sentence first: "yet he leaves nothing undone" - the implication is that he is acting in some way: note in particular the word "leaves" which suggests some sort of activity that he is returning from; but then looking at the first half of the sentence we see that he is said to do "nothing". So by the second half of the sentence, he is acting in some way, and by the first half of the sentence he is not acting. This isn't a paradox, it's a straightforward contradiction. It isn't "seemingly" contradictory, it is contradictory. There is no sense in it.

You miss the paradox because of the way you think of motivation which relates to doing. The master doesn't do anything because he has no agenda. He is not trying to "make the world a better place." In the same way that water doesn't flow downhill because it is trying to find the bottom, the master doesn't act for a particular purpose but because that's where he is "flowing." It doesn't take effort to flow. Without effort, no one is doing anything. But because he "flows," nothing is undone. Anything that needs to happen, happens naturally.

samadhi: "No will of his own" points to surrender. Surrender isn't about gaining power from a higher source by giving up your own power. That is bargaining, not surrender.

Laird: It's surrender rather than bargaining because one doesn't "gain power" in the sense of personally benefiting, one rather acts as a proxy for the benefit of the higher power. In the end, of course, one does benefit, because the higher power is benevolent and has one's interests at heart.

There is a paradox in this that you have to recognize. Surrender is not about getting, it is about giving up. Nevertheless, you lose your life to find it. The ego will never reconcile those two. It will either take surrender as a bargain or losing your life as a calamity. That's all it can understand. Before the paradox can be resolved, the ego has to be seen through.

samadhi: Seeing what isn't within duality is about discovering what you are. Are you an ego? The question isn't meant to get an answer, yes, no, maybe. It is meant to get your attention. What are you really? Are you interested in looking?

Laird: I have a pretty conventional understanding of what I am, and that includes the possibility that I have a soul, and I don't see any reason to doubt or to challenge my understanding. It's tricky to express clearly, but roughly speaking I am an agglomeration of parts and processes roughly bounded by my skin, and there are parts that are more "me" than others - in particular my mind is more "me" than my body, and if my soul is a reality then it would be more "me" than my mind.

Your understanding sounds pretty much like what others would say. Nothing wrong with it. As long as it's working for you, no reason to look for something else.

samadhi: The whole thing is a paradox. Try or not try is all the ego understands. That's what its got, that's where you and me start. Is it where it ends? Have you ever hit a brick wall? Have you ever had that experience? You've tried as hard as you could but it just ain't working. At that point, it isn't that you can just turn around and say, "okay, now I'm just not going to do anything, maybe that will work." You simply give up, not only trying but not trying, as a strategy. Nothing works, period. Tell me what happened when you reached that point.

Laird: In my books, to "give up" is to "stop trying". It's not a third alternative, it's one of the two. So what happened when I reached that point is that I chose to "not try" anymore.

Okay, you decided not to try. That is different than what I was trying to point to, when you can't go forward and you can't go back. It would be akin to something like when a hurricane blows your house away. Some people actually find liberation in a moment like that, not everyone but some. No one goes there voluntarily but sometimes circumstances bring you to that place. When you get there, you'll know.

samadhi: The ineffable nature of what we're discussing I'm sure comes as no surprise to you. If enlightenment could be taught like mathematics, people would be out there getting enlightened every day. Doesn't happen like that, does it? Yet some are still interested. From what you've said, it's hard to tell if enlightenment is really interesting to you. You may be looking for something more literal than anyone can actually offer.

Laird: Exactly, except that I can offer myself a literal brand of enlightenment. You on the other hand seem to be looking for something to put your faith and hope into.

Trusting to the ego is problematic at best. Why? Because as an illusion, the ego will always let you down at some point. It is in the very nature of ego to fail, it is just a question of when. That is what your literalness overlooks and where your own faith and hope come to the fore. The call to enlightenment is really asking, do you want to give up your faith and hope now or later?

Laird: You acknowledge that actions can be "rationalised" but on the other hand you assert that the enlightened person has no motive. What in the world is the basis of his/her behaviour then? "He/she is simply expressing his/her nature" just doesn't cut it for me, because as I've already explained, when you analyse it, "one's nature" is as much a source of motivation as anything else.

samadhi: The source will always be a mystery, whatever enlightenment happens to appear. If you want to call the source a motive, I guess you can do that but my problem with it is that it muddies the water between how an ordinary individual decides and acts and someone who is enlightened. If you don't want to recognize a distinction, okay. I just think it is valuable to do so.

Laird: I'm happy to recognise a distinction if you can explain exactly what that distinction is.

The motivation of an ordinary person is based on ego, what can I get, what can I become, what's in it for me? The so-called motivation of an enlightened person is where the prajna (heart-wisdom) points.

samadhi: The Tao doesn't say how you as a person should act, nor can it.

Laird: Nothing whatsoever? So there's no way to recognise Taoists other than asking them to identify themselves?

It's just a label. Recognizing a person by their actions is what matters.

samadhi: In fact it plainly says, a foolish man laughs when he hears it.

Laird: And the Bible says that foolish people go to hell.

Laughing is a little more believable than going to hell. And after all, your own reaction is to scoff which is what laughter is about anyway.

samadhi: It is not understandable on that level. It is pointing to another level where most people do not care to venture. The question is, are you interested? You don't have to be. But I would assume since you've come this far, there must be something in it that has got your attention.

Laird: Oh, don't get me wrong, I do find some value in it. The poetry is quite contemplative too. I was a little harsh on it earlier. It's just not a source that I can guide my life by because to me it doesn't have enough meaning.

Maybe it will grow on you.

samadhi: When egos "try" spontaneity, problems arise. That's because the ego is using it as an agenda, not to think, not to care, not to be responsible. True spontaneity has no agenda, that's why you can trust it.

Laird: I don't believe that the argument that true spontaneity has "no agenda" is in any way a rebuttal to my argument that spontaneous actions can quite easily be the wrong ones, and that serious actions demand serious consideration. True spontaneity might have "no agenda", but it will have consequences. What convinces you that we can automatically trust that the consequences of true spontaneity are positive ones?

Because the source is pure. A pure source can only give pure results. When you know the source, you trust it. Like flowing down a river, you don't ask where it is going each time you round a bend. You simply trust that the river knows its way to the sea.

[Unidian]

Sam's been reading some Taoism for sure. The bit about "the valley spirit is the source of Nature; use it, it will never fail" springs to mind. Chapter 6 of Lao-Tzu, I believe. Good stuff. It has really made a qualitative difference somehow, I think.

Sam, do you get a decent amount of face time with Adya? If so, I suspect he might give you the nod to teach fairly soon. I know you'd probably deny being ready for it, but I'm making the prediction anyway. You have the whole rap down pretty well these days, and Adya is pretty liberal about clearing people to teach anyway.

[samadhi]

Nat,

Sam's been reading some Taoism for sure. The bit about "the valley spirit is the source of Nature; use it, it will never fail" springs to mind. Chapter 6 of Lao-Tzu, I believe. Good stuff. It has really made a qualitative difference somehow, I think.

Actually, I mostly just stick to the Tao. I think I would do well to read a bit more, I am open to your suggestions.

Sam, do you get a decent amount of face time with Adya?

Adya hasn't been around since June. He is always busy and then he got sick in November with something called Bell's palsy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_palsy ) and won't be back until at least April. I did get a great CD from him though about after enlightenment. But I still kind of miss him.

If so, I suspect he might give you the nod to teach fairly soon. I know you'd probably deny being ready for it, but I'm making the prediction anyway. You have the whole rap down pretty well these days, and Adya is pretty liberal about clearing people to teach anyway.

Uh, no, I won't be teaching any time soon. The people he anoints I'm sure have been around him for a while and certainly must have had a direct experience of what they teach. I feel very comfortable with what I understand but you cannot really connect with people face to face without that direct experience.

You know, I write this stuff for myself more than anyone else. I feel most connected, most happy, and most myself when I write about it. It's a kind of self-inspiration. Because the truth is, my words are often wiser than me! I read them later sometimes and it helps me a lot.

[Unidian]

Ah, I see. Okay, then.

[Philosophaster]

Sam, I don't think I've encountered anyone else who has the tenacity to write such long posts so consistently. Well, maybe Warrior Seer, but he's insane, so I don't know if he should count. :-P

[Laird]

Sam, I'm in the process of trying to work out exactly what it is that you believe and what meaning and consistency those beliefs hold. It's proving to be a frustrating and mind-bending endeavour. I've read through your two posts twice now and I'm preparing for a third reading. I don't know how many times I'm going to actually read them in the process of working you out to my satisfaction. I've read your Common Ascent thread. I'll probably read it again. At this point I have only vague inklings of what, if any, response I'm going to make to you, but I hope to have something for you in the next few days.

[samadhi]

Philo,

I don't think I've encountered anyone else who has the tenacity to write such long posts so consistently. Well, maybe Warrior Seer, but he's insane, so I don't know if he should count.

Thanks Philo. Like I said, I get a great deal of energy from writing about these things. The difference between me and WS (other than he is crazy and I'm not, really!), is that it's okay for anyone else to believe what they want. But when someone like Laird shows an interest, then I become really engaged, like his interest is a catalyst for my own. It’s quite a nice thing to experience and I'm very appreciative of Laird for his willingness to discuss at length.

Laird,

I'm in the process of trying to work out exactly what it is that you believe and what meaning and consistency those beliefs hold. It's proving to be a frustrating and mind-bending endeavour.

Well, I hope it isn't that hard! I am not being mystical, am I (except for prajna, of course!)?

I've read through your two posts twice now and I'm preparing for a third reading. I don't know how many times I'm going to actually read them in the process of working you out to my satisfaction. I've read your Common Ascent thread. I'll probably read it again. At this point I have only vague inklings of what, if any, response I'm going to make to you, but I hope to have something for you in the next few days.

I look forward to it and just want to thank you for all that you've shared as well. It's been very enjoyable talking to you.

[Laird]

OK, Sam, here it is. I've read through your two posts thrice now, extracting relevant quotes on the third occasion. I've read through your Common Ascent thread twice, extracting relevant quotes on the second occasion. I've watched (for the second time) the video of your teacher, Adyashanti, that David posted in the "Forget about Enlightenment" thread. I've spent hours pondering what possible validity there might be in the notion of "no self"; in particular I spent about half an hour of concentrated effort on it pacing around my house trying to look at it from every possible angle.

I want to warn you that I'm going to be quite harsh on you, but that it's well-intended criticism, and I want to mitigate that criticism by saying that I find you to be a decent bloke regardless.

So, the end result of all of this reading, viewing and thinking is that my opinion hasn't changed. In fact it's crystallised. The notion that it's possible to transcend one's ego is a patently absurd one, and you are simply credulous to believe in it. The only way to let go of your ego is to die or to fall into a deep, dreamless sleep.

Sam, your thoughts are often vague and lacking in substance, and at times - and which is worse - simply wrong. I'll try to point out where this is the case.

I'm going to start off by quoting the extracts of things that other people wrote to you and that I wholeheartedly endorse from your Common Ascent thread: "I got it!" Actually, I'll start off by giving you my general impression of that thread, but I'm not going to put it in my own words because Rairun already expressed it well enough:

Samadhi, after I skimmed through your first post, I thought, "It seems like he has finally realized that the whole enlightenment business is bullshit." But then I read the other posts, and you fell right back into it.

When you say that there's no enlightenment as the ego understands those terms, you are right. But there's no other way of understanding, experiencing, "taking it in," or whatever you want to call it. What you call the ego is all there is. The other part, the one that is supposed to be enlightened, doesn't exist at all.

I won't pass much comment on the other quotes that I've extracted, because they pretty much speak for themselves. Victor did a fine job in that thread:

samadhi: That's true but where does the conceptual paradox leave you?

Victor: At living. That is all you ever have. All you get from 'enlightenment' -- which is meaningless and unattainable -- is the understanding that simply living, the sheer mundane process of live[sic], of pleasure and pain, happiness and sorrow, is all there is. You can no more transcend yourself, lose your ego, than you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps. All you can do is realize what it is you cannot do, and instead dedicate your thoughts and efforts to the reality of life.

When you speak of non-conceptual understanding (or 'taking in', to use your euphemism), you are just playing the same enlightenment delusion-game that everyone else in this business is playing. Nothing intrinsically wrong with it of course, it's just not what you think it is. It's a snake oil.

samadhi: Enlightenment is not something to be understood. If you think you understand it, that isn't it.

Victor: Exactly. And so all this enlightenment talk is just hot air.

You can talk about how things happen, instea dof [sic] being caused by you, but that will not change the reality of your cognition. What you identify as 'self', the ego -- a clump of cells and information processes and memories -- is no more 'unreal' by reason of being thusly composite, than a tree is unreal by dint of consisting of individual cells.

You are still playing off the same conceptual confusion. You simultaneously define the ego away, and require it, the latter by virtue of talking about things like 'overcoming' and 'your control'. The brute fact is that this simply isn't something that can be meaningfully discussed, so don't even try -- just go and have a life. Whether we do or do not control ourselves is a meaningless question (if we do not, then you do not control your actions in making this post either, but then why make it? but the question 'why make it' isn't under your control either; etc. ad infinitum), and your displacement of identification by means of disassociating the ego from causal efficacy is just another illusion, as much so as the idea of chasing enlightenment.

Illusion happens. The ego tells itself that it's not an ego. The ego tries to transcend itself -- with predictable lack of result. This is why anyone who claims to be a guru is a fraud by dint thereof. If you see a buddha, kill him.

[I've always been confused about what that phrase meant. Now I know. Thanks Vic! --Laird]

samadhi: Yes, this is my point. If you think you understand, you don't. You must give up the understanding itself, which is a paradox. You won't figure it out, nor can anyone do it. Nevertheless the apparent contradiction points to a truth that cannot otherwise be expressed.

Victor: That's where we disagree. There is no such inexpressible truth. Your assumption that there are such 'truths' beyond ego, beyond conceptualization, beyond comprehension, is exactly the 'more refined delusion' I was talking about.

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

I also have some comments on a couple of things that you wrote in your thread-starting post:

And of course what I got is that there is nothing to get.

Exactly! Bingo! There is nothing to get = there is no such thing as enlightenment. About the most enlightened that you can get is to realise that enlightenment is a phantom. You had this realisation and yet, as Rairun commented, you then fell straight back into the game of enlightenment.

The writing is just what happens. It's not me writing.

And yet there is a me. The plain, utter, undeniable, irrevocable truth: there is a me, no matter how much you want to conceptualise or "realise" it away.

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

Now I'll move on to respond to your two posts in this thread. I've done a lot of heavy snipping, because this exchange has become very verbose and I think that we should focus on the key points now. I've reordered some of the quotes for coherency.

On paradox:

Enlightenment is a paradox, no one is denying that.

My response to this is summed up in one of my replies to Steven Coyle in the thread, "Another Wisdom Test". I'll quote here the most relevant bit of what I wrote there:

Don't you see what all of this is pointing to? The obvious answer is that there is only one true paradox to enlightenment, and that is that "enlightenment is the realisation that there is no such thing as enlightenment". But we don't even have to phrase it as a paradox, we can phrase it more directly as "enlightenment has no true meaning, it's a phantom for people to chase after until they realise that it doesn't actually exist".

Now to your muddled conceptions on the ego:

[T]he ego is the thought that says, "I am the body, I am the mind."

and

The ego is the belief that "I am this," whatever "this" happens to be.

Actually, according to the dictionary (and my understanding), the ego is neither a thought nor a belief, it is the actual self. This to me is an example of the vague wrongness of your thinking. The ego is one, single, particular, individual thought or belief? Give me a break - you, yourself are more than a mere single thought or belief, and you, yourself is what the ego is.

Laird: But OK, I'll be fair to you and grant you your definition of ego as "a distinct entity, particularly a body/mind".

samadhi: No, that is the dictionary definition.

Erm, actually, no. And again, here's where your thoughts are less than rigorous. I quoted the dictionary.com definition to you earlier. All that you had to do was to scroll up to see that what you wrote is not the dictionary definition. Here, again, is the dictionary.com definition of "ego":
the “I” or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought
I'll grant you that "distinct entity" is implied, so I'm not quibbling with you on that, but there's nothing about "body/mind" in that definition, and you failed to capture the essence of the definition, which is that the ego is simply the "self of any person" (italics mine). That's not the only definition of ego on that page either, and none of them mention "body/mind". Simply "self".

Now to your beliefs about realising that there is no self:

Whatever image there may be, there is no "I" in it. But that insight has to be embodied.

and, later:

Without the realization, it will remain inert.

So exactly how can I realise that there is no I? What sense does that make to you? It makes none to me. Descartes expressed the most fundamentally undoubtable fact of existence as "I think therefore I am" but this can really be shortened to "I am". You're trying to throw this fact into doubt. No sir, I don't buy into it one little bit. That way madness lies...

Laird: So exactly what does [an enlightened person] mean by [the words "I" and "me"] then?

samadhi: They refer to a persona. Everyone, enlightened or not, has a persona. The persona isn't a problem, it's just a means of expression.

And whose persona is it? Try as you might, you can't avoid the fact that there is an identity, an "I" behind the persona.

Now to your beliefs about what enlightenment consists of:

You want it [enlightenment] in a nutshell, okay, here it is: Everything you think you are is mistaken.

More sloppy thinking. I'm asking you for a description of enlightenment and you're presenting me with an assertion of fact. Moreover, it's not even a positive assertion, it's a negative assertion. Enlightenment to you isn't even the realisation of what the self actually is, just the realisation that you're wrong about it. So is there any possibility of actually being right about what the self is?

On the one hand you want to believe that there is no self, and on the other hand you implicitly affirm the existence of the self by talking about what you think you are. The word "you" conveys the notion of self - you just can't get away from that.

Laird: So to "discard (or to 'transcend') the ego" is simply to "realise" that certain things that one once considered to be oneself are in fact not oneself.

samadhi: See, even you can put it in a nutshell!

And yet, despite whatever conceptualisations and realisations one might have, the self remains. I'll throw your questioning rhetoric back at you: who is having the realisation? Do you see that the question itself affirms the notion of self? When are you going to recognise that the notion that one can ever "realise" that there is no such thing as the self is an insane mind-fuck?

Look at it this way, how does a dream change for you when you realize you are dreaming?

Right, so the world in which we live is a "dream" - implication being that there's some other higher reality into which we can wake up. I'm totally open to that possibility, but I suspect that it's not what you mean. I suspect that you're actually trying to conflate "reality" with "dreamworld" and thereby reduce to meaningless the word "real". Nothing is real anymore - everything is an illusion. OK, so instead of saying that reality is real, I say that reality is illusory. What have we achieved through this semantic manipulation? Do we suddenly stop experiencing pain as painful? Or love as blissful? Do we stop experiencing ourselves as ourselves? How can that even be possible? Hint: it isn't.

As a generalization though, I would say [enlightenment's] impact is a healing of division. An individual is no longer divided against itself.

(emphasis mine)

Oh for crying out loud Sam, you supposedly don't believe that the self is real, and yet here you are talking about healing it.

Now to some miscellany re teachers, poetry and self-reflection:

I can point you to several good teachers if you're interested.

Not particularly. I gave up on the game a while back. I'm more interested in what you can explain to me about your beliefs.

It's funny that you call [the Tao] great poetry after saying that it's basically meaningless. What makes it great if it doesn't speak to you?

Poetry doesn't have to have any true meaning for me to appreciate it. The Jabberwocky is basically meaningless and I consider it to be great poetry.

Self-reflection is the ego's way of distancing itself from what it doesn't like.

I disagree. I would describe self-reflection as the means by which we learn who we are and how we can do better.

Now to your thoughts on "surrendering":

Surrender is tricky because of course, the ego can't do it.

What is there other than the ego? Exactly what is doing the surrendering if not oneself, which is what the ego is?

Laird: Surrender to what?

samadhi: The Tao, what else?

The vagueness of the thinking behind this response is mind-boggling. You've described the Tao as ungraspable. So what does it mean to surrender to something that you can't even describe? Let's look at it more closely. Surrender is a ceding of control. So rather than you controlling your life, somehow this mystical thing that you call the Tao is controlling it. But exactly how is it in control? It's not even conscious. Clearly there's no literal sense in which you can surrender to the Tao. But I'm going to give you some credit and assume that you're not a moron and that you do mean something by this. So what might that be? A cynical interpretation is that you have a death-wish, or that at the very least you have a desire to avoid personal responsibility for your actions. A kinder interpretation is that you're talking about becoming less self-concerned, about caring more for other people than for yourself. Care to elaborate?

The point I have been making from the beginning is that this kind of so-called motivation [the motivation of an enlightened person] has nothing to do with what you understand ordinary motivation to be.

The motivation of an ordinary person is based on ego, what can I get, what can I become, what's in it for me? The so-called motivation of an enlightened person is where the prajna (heart-wisdom) points.

Here I have to say: thumbs up to Dave Toast for recognising that what you're really talking about, Sam, is not motive but desire. Desire is to motive as emotion is to feeling: desire is a specialised type of motive. One can rid oneself (in the unattainable ideal) of desire, but not of motive.

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

Now to my comments on the Adyashanti satsang that David linked to. Basically my thoughts correspond to those of Ataraxia, namely that:

He never SAYS anything.Standard guru.

His lecture was wishy-washy and largely devoid of any substantial insight or anything that one could actually use to help oneself in one's everyday life. Please excuse the sarcasm in this critique, but you present this guy to us as someone substantial who can teach us about life but the reality is that he has little of real value to contribute, at least in this video.

"Awareness is empty."

Oh, well thanks for that. What am I supposed to do with an observation like that? In what sense is it even true? Awareness surely consists of something or we wouldn't be able to talk about it.

"Awareness is, it's universal."

It's universal huh? And on what basis does he make that claim? My awareness seems to be different to your awareness, so unless somehow they're the same awareness it seems likely that an individual person's awareness is not universal. Or is he trying to suggest that awareness permeates physical reality such that rocks, walls and keyboards are "aware"? I mean, what is he actually trying to say here?

"Awareness is self-aware."

This is perhaps the most insightful thing that he says in the entire lecture, and even at that it's something that I'd expect most people to have realised on their own without Adya's assistance.

"A well-being that spills over."

Great, so there's this well-being in all of us - and exactly how do we go about tapping into it? I've got not the slightest clue, because he doesn't mention it in his lecture, beyond some waffle about an awakening to pure awareness. What, in practical terms, does this awakening consist of and how does it help me to find my "well-being"?

"To be, egoically speaking, self-less. To let go of the tendency of the egoic self to do what it does."

This is patent nonsense. What is there other than what the egoic self does? That's what you are! You can't "let go of it" without killing yourself.

"The blames, the judgements, the opinions - that's all egoic self stuff."

Oh, sure, living in a world where no one had an opinion and no one judged or blamed anyone would be just top stuff. Forget about dealing with bad behaviour - anyone can just get away with whatever they want.

"You'll realise you're free, you always were free"

I'm just as much a prisoner of circumstance as I am free.

"[Once you have an awakening and the foot gets in the door, then:] all of that little ego stuff - mmm, that's gotta go."

Ego stuff is "little" - the guy wants to devalue the ego whilst at the same time practicing as a teacher - surely an act of ego if ever there was one.

"You know that when you let of the egoic self, what you're getting in exchange is the whole universe."

This is his concluding sentence (bar one if I recall correctly) and it pretty much sums up the lack of substance of his monologue. You can't "let go" of the egoic self - you are the egoic self - and if you think that you're getting the whole universe in exchange then you surely haven't lost your ego.

[samadhi]

Laird,

OK, Sam, here it is. I've read through your two posts thrice now, extracting relevant quotes on the third occasion. I've read through your Common Ascent thread twice, extracting relevant quotes on the second occasion. I've watched (for the second time) the video of your teacher, Adyashanti, that David posted in the "Forget about Enlightenment" thread. I've spent hours pondering what possible validity there might be in the notion of "no self"; in particular I spent about half an hour of concentrated effort on it pacing around my house trying to look at it from every possible angle.

Well, I appreciate the effort. I would say that if you want to talk about Adya, look at this thread ( http://p088.ezboard.com/fponderersguild ... 1868.topic ). I posted his talks and dialogs for over two years. Here is a straightforward talk on enlightenment ( http://p088.ezboard.com/fponderersguild ... 1&stop=241 ) for instance. It is much easier to reference and discuss than a video and I'm sure he says nothing different.

I want to warn you that I'm going to be quite harsh on you, but that it's well-intended criticism, and I want to mitigate that criticism by saying that I find you to be a decent bloke regardless.

I never take these type discussions personally. No one needs to agree with me. I just enjoy the topic because I love it.

So, the end result of all of this reading, viewing and thinking is that my opinion hasn't changed. In fact it's crystallised. The notion that it's possible to transcend one's ego is a patently absurd one, and you are simply credulous to believe in it. The only way to let go of your ego is to die or to fall into a deep, dreamless sleep.

Are you sure? Lol.

Sam, your thoughts are often vague and lacking in substance, and at times - and which is worse - simply wrong. I'll try to point out where this is the case.

Go for it. I've tangled with the best!

I'm going to start off by quoting the extracts of things that other people wrote to you and that I wholeheartedly endorse from your Common Ascent thread: "I got it!" Actually, I'll start off by giving you my general impression of that thread, but I'm not going to put it in my own words because Rairun already expressed it well enough: ...

The problem with this approach is that I addressed all the quotes you are citing. I am not going to go over every reply I gave but here is a for instance. When Victor says: "There is no such inexpressible truth. Your assumption that there are such 'truths' beyond ego, beyond conceptualization, beyond comprehension, is exactly the 'more refined delusion' I was talking about.", I replied, "Right, because you want to deny the paradox. You simply want to say there is nothing to get and leave out the 'I got it.' Duality/ego does not deal in paradox. It likes its truths out in the open, its concepts cut and dried. Paradox is not what it is looking for." Like Victor, you are only interested in "there is nothing to get." That is absolutely true, there is nothing to get. But it is equally true when I say, "I got it." The ego cannot reconcile those two. Simply coming down on one side misses the whole point. Without the recognition that enlightenment is paradox to the ego, it will remain beyond your grasp. And that's fine. You don't have to see it. But it would be more honest for you to say that it is something you don’t see rather than everyone who does see it must be a fraud.

samadhi: And of course what I got is that there is nothing to get.

Laird: Exactly! Bingo! There is nothing to get = there is no such thing as enlightenment. About the most enlightened that you can get is to realise that enlightenment is a phantom. You had this realisation and yet, as Rairun commented, you then fell straight back into the game of enlightenment.

You are missing the paradox. Yes, there is nothing to get. That is absolutely true. But you are not taking that in, you are taking it on face value. When you take it in, aha! There is nothing to get! I got it! That is exactly what enlightenment is, nothing to get! It's beautiful. You want to treat it like a lump of coal in your Christmas stocking because to the ego, it is a lump of coal! The ego can only treat it like a lump of coal. "Nothing to get, ah, a bunch of crap like I thought. I can't use nothing, you have to give me SOMETHING!"

samadhi: The writing is just what happens. It's not me writing.

Laird: And yet there is a me. The plain, utter, undeniable, irrevocable truth: there is a me, no matter how much you want to conceptualise or "realise" it away.

There is a body, there is a mind, there is no "me" who owns them. I am not trying to get rid of the body or the mind, I am just asking you to look at your sense of ownership of them.

samadhi: Enlightenment is a paradox, no one is denying that.

Laird: Don't you see what all of this is pointing to? The obvious answer is that there is only one true paradox to enlightenment, and that is that "enlightenment is the realisation that there is no such thing as enlightenment". But we don't even have to phrase it as a paradox, we can phrase it more directly as "enlightenment has no true meaning, it's a phantom for people to chase after until they realise that it doesn't actually exist".

I already discussed this above. If you want to rest in "there is nothing to get," then you should do that. All I am saying is that it isn't the lump of coal you take it to be. As long as you only see the coal, the diamond will be of no value.

samadhi: The ego is the thought that says, "I am the body, I am the mind." The ego is the belief that "I am this," whatever "this" happens to be.

Laird: Actually, according to the dictionary (and my understanding), the ego is neither a thought nor a belief, it is the actual self. This to me is an example of the vague wrongness of your thinking. The ego is one, single, particular, individual thought or belief? Give me a break - you, yourself are more than a mere single thought or belief, and you, yourself is what the ego is.

If you are just going to go by the dictionary, there is nothing to talk about, is there? Of course you can do that, but then just say that you are only interested in conventional usage. For me, the ego is about identification, the identifying of a perception as what is perceiving. I can show you how you are doing that. But you must see it for yourself. I can't do the seeing for you.

Laird: But OK, I'll be fair to you and grant you your definition of ego as "a distinct entity, particularly a body/mind".

samadhi: No, that is the dictionary definition.

Erm, actually, no. And again, here's where your thoughts are less than rigorous. I quoted the dictionary.com definition to you earlier. All that you had to do was to scroll up to see that what you wrote is not the dictionary definition. Here, again, is the dictionary.com definition of "ego": the "I" or self of any person; a person as thinking, feeling, and willing, and distinguishing itself from the selves of others and from objects of its thought

I'll grant you that "distinct entity" is implied, so I'm not quibbling with you on that, but there's nothing about "body/mind" in that definition, and you failed to capture the essence of the definition, which is that the ego is simply the "self of any person" (italics mine). That's not the only definition of ego on that page either, and none of them mention "body/mind". Simply "self".

Look, you want to make a distinct entity out of the ego using a dictionary. Great. I have told you what I am referring to when I use the word "ego." I am not asking for your agreement. But if you want to discuss it with me, we have to agree on our terms. If you want to discuss the ego as a distinct entity apart from a body and mind, all I would ask is that you show me. If you want to call it a body/mind, then you are missing the nuanced usage ego has in ordinary conversation.

samadhi: Whatever image there may be, there is no "I" in it. ... But that insight has to be embodied. Without realization it will remain inert.

Laird: So exactly how can I realise that there is no I?

People have been asking that question since the Buddha.

What sense does that make to you? It makes none to me.

The ego cannot grasp paradox, how many times do you want me to say it? Your ego is not going to get anything! Zero, nada, zilch. It's not going to get it. Make this your mantra, "there is nothing to get, there is nothing to get!" Lol

Descartes expressed the most fundamentally undoubtable fact of existence as "I think therefore I am" but this can really be shortened to "I am". You're trying to throw this fact into doubt. No sir, I don't buy into it one little bit. That way madness lies...

Yes indeed, I am. But what am I?

Laird: So exactly what does [an enlightened person] mean by [the words "I" and "me"] then?

samadhi: They refer to a persona. Everyone, enlightened or not, has a persona. The persona isn't a problem, it's just a means of expression.

Laird: And whose persona is it? Try as you might, you can't avoid the fact that there is an identity, an "I" behind the persona.

You keep looking for ownership. But you can't find it. That's the whole illusion. The ego does not want to hear that. Thus your frustration.

samadhi: You want it [enlightenment] in a nutshell, okay, here it is: Everything you think you are is mistaken.

Laird: More sloppy thinking. I'm asking you for a description of enlightenment and you're presenting me with an assertion of fact.

You wanted it in a nutshell and I gave it to you. I have told you there is nothing to get which is all my quote embodies. If you think there is something to get, what could it be?

Moreover, it's not even a positive assertion, it's a negative assertion. Enlightenment to you isn't even the realisation of what the self actually is, just the realisation that you're wrong about it. So is there any possibility of actually being right about what the self is?

Nothing to get is a particular view. It negates the ego because the main impediment to enlightenment is that there IS something to get. That's the ego's approach, the one you keep coming back to. If you want to know what the self is, find out what it isn't. You have to surrender your life to find it (there's that damn paradox again!), remember? You come to knowing by not knowing, paradox at every turn.

On the one hand you want to believe that there is no self, and on the other hand you implicitly affirm the existence of the self by talking about what you think you are. The word "you" conveys the notion of self - you just can't get away from that.

When I say there is no self, I mean the entity that claims ownership of the body/mind does not exist. If you think there is such a self, by all means, show me. On the other hand, I AM. The point is, you cannot say what you are, only THAT you are. It is the ego that identifies with a percept, out of which arises your sense of self. You don't need to try to get rid of the percept, just see it for what it is.

Laird: So to "discard (or to 'transcend') the ego" is simply to "realise" that certain things that one once considered to be oneself are in fact not oneself.

samadhi: See, even you can put it in a nutshell!

Laird: And yet, despite whatever conceptualisations and realisations one might have, the self remains.

Like I said, it isn't about any idea you have. Don't confuse realization with conceptualization. You can conceive of what it means to be wealthy but without the realization of wealth for yourself, your life will remain what it is.

I'll throw your questioning rhetoric back at you: who is having the realisation?

Yes, who indeed!? You are still looking for an owner.

Do you see that the question itself affirms the notion of self? When are you going to recognise that the notion that one can ever "realise" that there is no such thing as the self is an insane mind-fuck?

If affirms the notion of the ego's sense of self. The ego simply cannot drop the idea of ownership because that is what it IS. It IS the owner of its ideas and will claim ownership of realization if you let it.

And no one is saying there is something wrong with you for not seeing that. So you don't see it, fine. It's okay, you don't have to see it. Remember, I'm not trying to give you anything. It won't help you. My ideas won't help you. YOUR ideas won't help you. Nevertheless, if you're interested, we can talk about them. Just don't think it is about ideas (yeah, paradox again, lol).

samadhi: Look at it this way, how does a dream change for you when you realize you are dreaming?

Laird: Right, so the world in which we live is a "dream" - implication being that there's some other higher reality into which we can wake up. I'm totally open to that possibility, but I suspect that it's not what you mean. I suspect that you're actually trying to conflate "reality" with "dreamworld" and thereby reduce to meaningless the word "real". Nothing is real anymore - everything is an illusion. OK, so instead of saying that reality is real, I say that reality is illusory. What have we achieved through this semantic manipulation? Do we suddenly stop experiencing pain as painful? Or love as blissful? Do we stop experiencing ourselves as ourselves? How can that even be possible? Hint: it isn't.

It's a metaphor, not to be taken literally. But there is an underlying truth there. Reality is about what you perceive to be real, not about what is real apart from what you perceive. And again, you keep thinking it is about achieving something. Remember the mantra I gave you, nothing to get, nothing to get ... lol.

samadhi: As a generalization though, I would say [enlightenment's] impact is a healing of division. An individual is no longer divided against itself.

Laird: (emphasis mine)

Oh for crying out loud Sam, you supposedly don't believe that the self is real, and yet here you are talking about healing it.

Paradox, remember? Of course I can talk about individuals, that's all you see, isn't it? It doesn't mean that from the standpoint of realization, there is an individual who realizes. There is simply a character through which realization is expressed.

samadhi: Self-reflection is the ego's way of distancing itself from what it doesn't like.

Laird: I disagree. I would describe self-reflection as the means by which we learn who we are and how we can do better.

Well, I didn't mean self-reflection per se, but the splitting of ego where one thought reflects on another as something with which it attempts to disassociate from.

samadhi: Surrender is tricky because of course, the ego can't do it.

Laird: What is there other than the ego?

This is what you need to see for yourself.

Exactly what is doing the surrendering if not oneself, which is what the ego is?

It is the ego itself that must be surrendered. But you as an ego cannot do that as I explained above.

Laird: Surrender to what?

samadhi: The Tao, what else?

The vagueness of the thinking behind this response is mind-boggling. You've described the Tao as ungraspable. So what does it mean to surrender to something that you can't even describe?

You keep bumping up against the paradox. What is the Tao? It's right here, right now. But when you persist, "no, I mean what IS it!", what do you want me to say? You are trying to grasp it. You cannot grasp this moment, you can only be this moment.

Let's look at it more closely. Surrender is a ceding of control. So rather than you controlling your life, somehow this mystical thing that you call the Tao is controlling it. But exactly how is it in control?

Just look! What is happening? That's how it is in control!

It's not even conscious. Clearly there's no literal sense in which you can surrender to the Tao.

No, the ego cannot do it. There is nothing the ego can get, period.

But I'm going to give you some credit and assume that you're not a moron and that you do mean something by this. So what might that be? A cynical interpretation is that you have a death-wish, or that at the very least you have a desire to avoid personal responsibility for your actions. A kinder interpretation is that you're talking about becoming less self-concerned, about caring more for other people than for yourself. Care to elaborate?

The ego cannot surrender, do you understand that? The ego is surrendered but you don't do that. That is a paradox. Do you understand that? Without seeing paradox the Tao will always be nonsense to you. I'm sorry if that frustrates you, but if it makes you feel any better, you have a lot of company! Lol

samadhi: The point I have been making from the beginning is that this kind of so-called motivation [the motivation of an enlightened person] has nothing to do with what you understand ordinary motivation to be. ... The motivation of an ordinary person is based on ego, what can I get, what can I become, what's in it for me? The so-called motivation of an enlightened person is where the prajna (heart-wisdom) points.

Laird: Here I have to say: thumbs up to Dave Toast for recognising that what you're really talking about, Sam, is not motive but desire. Desire is to motive as emotion is to feeling: desire is a specialised type of motive. One can rid oneself (in the unattainable ideal) of desire, but not of motive.

You brought up motive so I was speaking on your terms, not Toast's. If in the way you were speaking of motive, you did mean desire, then of course I agree with Toast. So what did you mean?

Now to my comments on the Adyashanti satsang that David linked to. Basically my thoughts correspond to those of Ataraxia, namely that: He never SAYS anything. Standard guru.

I am going to pass on the Adya comments since I cannot see the context. If you want to talk about Adya, I would suggest you read this, Enlightenment Straight Up ( http://p088.ezboard.com/fponderersguild ... 1&stop=241 ) and we can discuss. He says it much better than I can because of his direct experience. Or this example of how he relates to an ordinary person like yourself trying to grasp enlightenment ( http://p088.ezboard.com/fponderersguild ... 11&stop=11 ). But again, let's be clear, he may not be your cup of tea. I never said he is for everybody. He isn't. People like yourself who have a difficult time with paradox may not be suited for non-dual teachings. It doesn't mean you are slow, stupid or in any way less than. It just means what you see is what you see. You get to say what your path is, not me. In non-dual teaching, all paths take you to the same place anyway. The most important thing is not the path you walk but the heart you walk it with.

[Laird]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!

Yes, Sam, I am very, very frustrated right now!

No, Sam, it's not because I think that I just can't get it, it's because I think that you just won't see sense! It's like I'm talking to a fundamentalist Christian except that instead of believing in the contradiction of an omnipotent God who permits an Earth full of suffering you believe that the self is an illusion whilst simultaneously believing that the self can be healed, to mention but one of several many contradictions in your thinking. The only significant difference between you and the fundamentalist Christian is that you actually acknowledge most of the contradictions in your thinking: indeed you go so far as to glorify them as paradoxes!

In the end, I guess that I'm just going to have to let it go - it obviously gives you pleasure to think in this way and, really, as far as I can see it's not doing any harm - it's a fun enough game to play for those who enjoy it I suppose. Really, who am I to tell you that your lollipop isn't sweet after all? Actually, that reminds me of an instructive story on the hoax that is enlightenment teaching. I once at university attended a class given by a Buddhist nun. She began the class by handing out a block of chocolate to each person, instructing us to eat it and at the same time to realise that we didn't actually like the taste of it. Uh huh. Dudette, I like the taste of chocolate. Just like you like the taste of your enlightenment lollipop. And I think that I'm done being a Buddhist nun here.

It doesn't take much thought to realise that the game is a sham, so clearly those such as you who continue to follow teachers, read teachings and participate in communities of enlightenment-seekers are doing it simply because they enjoy that mode of thinking and possibly because they get on well with the other sort of people who enjoy it too. So just as you say to me to follow whatever path is right for me, I say to you: if you enjoy this (illusory) path then by all means continue. The real measure of a man is how well he treats other people anyway, and so far your behaviour has been polite and friendly.

As I said above (done being a Buddhist nun) I probably won't continue this dialogue, and I haven't as-yet looked at any of the links that you posted. In any case, I have a couple of other things that have been queuing up whilst I've been focussing on our discussion so if I do respond more specifically, it won't be soon. I'll try to remember to let you know if I decide definitively not to respond beyond this message.

Aside from the frustration, I've appreciated our exchange so far.

[samadhi]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!

Yes, Sam, I am very, very frustrated right now!

No, Sam, it's not because I think that I just can't get it, it's because I think that you just won't see sense!

But I understand you very well. I do see what you see, but that isn't ALL that I see. There is something else that you are missing. You are not wrong for not seeing it and I am not right for seeing it. It's just what each of us sees.

It's like I'm talking to a fundamentalist Christian except that instead of believing in the contradiction of an omnipotent God who permits an Earth full of suffering you believe that the self is an illusion whilst simultaneously believing that the self can be healed, to mention but one of several many contradictions in your thinking.

When I say an individual is healed, that is expressing an idea conventionally so that you will understand it. If you want to play the literal game, no, there is no individual ego being healed by enlightenment. Enlightenment has nothing to do with a better ego.

The only significant difference between you and the fundamentalist Christian is that you actually acknowledge most of the contradictions in your thinking: indeed you go so far as to glorify them as paradoxes!

Fundamentalism is about proclaiming a single path as the way. I am just the opposite. All paths are fine with me. It doesn't mean that as an individual I am not attracted to a particular path. I am and I talk about it. And the fact that non-dual teaching incorporates paradox is a plus, not a minus. The world itself is paradox, something out of nothing. Without paradox, you get nonsense like Christianity that tries to take everything literally. And people like you who denigrate Christianity while attempting to foist your own literalism on me! What is the point of abandoning one literalism to take up another?

In the end, I guess that I'm just going to have to let it go - it obviously gives you pleasure to think in this way and, really, as far as I can see it's not doing any harm - it's a fun enough game to play for those who enjoy it I suppose. Really, who am I to tell you that your lollipop isn't sweet after all?

Bingo! What you see is just what you see. People think there is a "right" way to see. That would be something to get, wouldn't it?

Actually, that reminds me of an instructive story on the hoax that is enlightenment teaching. I once at university attended a class given by a Buddhist nun. She began the class by handing out a block of chocolate to each person, instructing us to eat it and at the same time to realise that we didn't actually like the taste of it. Uh huh. Dudette, I like the taste of chocolate. Just like you like the taste of your enlightenment lollipop. And I think that I'm done being a Buddhist nun here.

The nun was trying to offer a non-dual teaching on the level of ego. That won't work. Egos definitely have likes and dislikes. Nothing wrong with that. Non-identification however is not about getting rid of them.

It doesn't take much thought to realise that the game is a sham, so clearly those such as you who continue to follow teachers, read teachings and participate in communities of enlightenment-seekers are doing it simply because they enjoy that mode of thinking and possibly because they get on well with the other sort of people who enjoy it too.

See, you are doing it again, projecting wrongness because it isn't what you see. Wouldn't it be more honest to say that some people have different perspectives and you don't know why that is? Simply differing from your perspective doesn't make people frauds.

So just as you say to me to follow whatever path is right for me, I say to you: if you enjoy this (illusory) path then by all means continue. The real measure of a man is how well he treats other people anyway, and so far your behaviour has been polite and friendly.

Just so. I enjoy the discussion. Obviously it doesn't go anywhere. Yet we enjoy the ride. What could be simpler?

As I said above (done being a Buddhist nun) I probably won't continue this dialogue, and I haven't as-yet looked at any of the links that you posted. In any case, I have a couple of other things that have been queuing up whilst I've been focussing on our discussion so if I do respond more specifically, it won't be soon. I'll try to remember to let you know if I decide definitively not to respond beyond this message.

Okay. It's been fun.

Aside from the frustration, I've appreciated our exchange so far.

The frustration is because you wanted to convince me. From my perspective, no one needed convincing, thus I could simply enjoy our discussion. Do you see why "nothing to get" can be so enlightening? There is nothing that needs to happen other than what is already happening. You can't get more perfect than that!

[Tomas]

.



-Larry-
Laird - For some people, everything should be in its right place, words are precious instruments to be used very carefully, and perfect concentration should be applied to every task that one embarks upon.

-tomas-
With my limited vocabulary, this makes sense. The only thing I would add is that I type about 20 wpm, so in the middle of a sentence, my thought has already gone to the next thought-frame.




-Larry-
These are the sort of people who have immaculate homes, who work diligently at their jobs and whose relationships are typically intimate.

-tomas-
Who wants to live in a pig sty?

Having something to do (a job) "a mission" fills the empty areas of one's soul.

Intimacy is an artform.




-Larry-
For other people, it doesn't really matter what you do because in the end one thing is as good as another. These are the sort of people who throw rubbish out of their car windows, who laugh at social conventions, who experiment with drugs and who couldn't care less whether or not you like what they have to say.

-tomas-
This sounds like "you" at some time in your past life. (weren't we all?)

I've not had a bad acid trip, though. (you mentioned once you had)




-Larry-
So what I want to know is this: is it enlightened to believe that every single thing that one does is infinitely important, being that its effects stretch out infinitely into the unknowable future, and to place the utmost concentration and effort into making every single act a "perfect" one, or is it rather enlightened to believe that whatever happens, will just happen, and that active attempts to direct progress are futile: that "God's plan will unfold regardless of my intentions"?

-tomas-
Jezuz, that's a long sentence! You are too long-winded in your thoughts. Lighten up, really :-)

A girlfriend would do you good. Get away from Tasmania.

Lose that avatar from 1999. What do you look like now?

Be yourself :-)




-Larry-
I have my own opinion on this but I'd like to read other people's opinions.

-tomas-
But, they're seem to be a lot of people (guests) that graze here for knowledge and understanding. That's why I post here SOBER. No drugs, booze, pills whatever.


Trevor was treated rather poorly here. Someone was pushing his buttons and he flipped out.


When I volunteer (because I like to) at homeless shelters, domestic violence shelters, ride with the police on their beat.

Treat all with R-E-S-P-E-C-T



Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason


.

[Laird]

Sam!!!! Holy cow dude, you sure know how to pile up frustration upon frustration. You talk a hell of a lot of nonsense.

But I understand you very well. I do see what you see, but that isn't ALL that I see.

Oh, please, two can play at that game.

If you want to play the literal game, no, there is no individual ego being healed by enlightenment. Enlightenment has nothing to do with a better ego.

So then what is being healed?

All paths are fine with me.

See, this is the kind of sentiment that's so frustrating to read. My path is to brutally rape and murder nine year old girls because I believe that the pleasure that I get from it far outweighs any pain that they suffer. Is my path just hunky dory with you? Whatever happened to standards, Sam? Whatever happened to values? Don't you strive to find the best possible moral code that you can, and don't you feel that it's important to impose that moral code upon other people when they stray too far from what you hold to be reasonable? Not all paths are "fine" with me, and to be honest, the only reason that I've decided to be "fine" with your path is that it's a particularly innocuous one and I can view it as just another recreational behaviour much like some people fly model planes or swim laps. I don't, however, think that there's much sense in it.

Without paradox, you get nonsense like Christianity that tries to take everything literally. And people like you who denigrate Christianity while attempting to foist your own literalism on me! What is the point of abandoning one literalism to take up another?

The point is that some sets of beliefs are saner than others.

People think there is a "right" way to see. That would be something to get, wouldn't it?

Yeah, that sure would be something to get. There's no right and wrong after all - I'm perfectly free to run around raping little girls. I'm sure that we'd have quite a workable society if we all just decided that ultra-permissiveness was the way to go.

See, you are doing it again, projecting wrongness because it isn't what you see. Wouldn't it be more honest to say that some people have different perspectives and you don't know why that is? Simply differing from your perspective doesn't make people frauds.

Yes, I'm projecting wrongness because it "isn't what I see". I have a set of beliefs and a perspective on the world that I've worked hard to cultivate. I'm more than willing to speak up when someone deviates significantly from that perspective into what I consider to be insanity and fraud. Clearly you're not. Fine, then don't complain when the fundamentalist Christians ban the teaching of evolution in your schools. After all, it's just another valid path.

The frustration is because you wanted to convince me.

No shit. Not just you, but everyone reading. The only way that the world improves is through people becoming convinced that certain ideas are better than others. I'm just playing my part. If at least one person has implanted in his/her mind that perhaps this enlightenment business isn't quite all it's cracked up to be, and finds it in his/her capacity to seriously question the next "guru" s/he comes across, then I'll consider it time well spent.

From my perspective, no one needed convincing, thus I could simply enjoy our discussion.

Well sure, part of the reason that I'm participating is for the pure pleasure of a back-and-forth, and I've lost hope of being able to convince you, but you're not the only reader.

Do you see why "nothing to get" can be so enlightening? There is nothing that needs to happen other than what is already happening. You can't get more perfect than that!

Yeah, sure Sam. Forget about advancing society - everything's just fine the way that it is.

Who wants to live in a pig sty?

Not me, but I'm willing to tolerate a little disorganisation. I'm not as bad as Kev though - jeez you should see the state of his computer desk, it's like a bomb's hit it.

Having something to do (a job) "a mission" fills the empty areas of one's soul.

GF is my current mission.

Intimacy is an artform.

Indeed. And one worth cultivating. I've noticed that you have a talent for poetry.

Laird: For other people, it doesn't really matter what you do because in the end one thing is as good as another. These are the sort of people who throw rubbish out of their car windows, who laugh at social conventions, who experiment with drugs and who couldn't care less whether or not you like what they have to say.

Tomas: This sounds like "you" at some time in your past life. (weren't we all?)

Well I've twice had a mohawk - on the second occasion I dyed it blue and purple - does that count as "laughing at social conventions"? And I've taken some drugs, but certainly not everything that I could have. The rest doesn't really apply.

I've not had a bad acid trip, though. (you mentioned once you had)

Worst experience of my life. Spiritually invaded. I felt the presence of evil.

Jezuz, that's a long sentence! You are too long-winded in your thoughts. Lighten up, really :-)

Haha, OK.

A girlfriend would do you good. Get away from Tasmania.

Yeah, a girlfriend would do me good. I'm in an internet relationship, but a physical relationship would be nicer. I'd like to get back to Sydney but I just can't afford it (I know, I know - get a job ya dole-bludging bum!).

Lose that avatar from 1999. What do you look like now?

I like the avatar so I'm not going to lose it, but here's a piccie of myself that Kev took of me in his backyard late last year so that a friend could see what I look like: http://members.dodo.com.au/~netocrat/ph ... _Kevin.jpg (I took my ugly glasses off for that one so you'll have to imagine the lenses).

Be yourself :-)

Since I happen to be a decent enough guy at heart, that's great advice.

Trevor was treated rather poorly here. Someone was pushing his buttons and he flipped out.

That's a little bit unfair. I talked to his sister on Facebook and she told me that he had been acting strangely at home for a while - she described some pretty weird behaviour. I don't and won't take responsibility for Trevor's mental problems. I will say, though, that had I known that he was so close to the edge I would have been a little easier on him, but in the end, he knew that it was a joke and it was his decision to take it seriously.

Treat all with R-E-S-P-E-C-T

I'm 100% with you on that one.

[samadhi]

Laird,

Holy cow dude, you sure know how to pile up frustration upon frustration. You talk a hell of a lot of nonsense.

Lol, so you've said.

samadhi: But I understand you very well. I do see what you see, but that isn't ALL that I see.

Laird: Oh, please, two can play at that game.

Okay, I'm listening.

samadhi: If you want to play the literal game, no, there is no individual ego being healed by enlightenment. Enlightenment has nothing to do with a better ego.

Laird: So then what is being healed?

From your standpoint, it is the individual. That is what you see. From the standpoint of realization, there was nothing to heal in the first place.

samadhi: All paths are fine with me.

Laird: See, this is the kind of sentiment that's so frustrating to read. My path is to brutally rape and murder nine year old girls because I believe that the pleasure that I get from it far outweighs any pain that they suffer. Is my path just hunky dory with you?

This is what happens when enlightenment is conceptualized and incorporated by an ego rather than realized as one's true nature. The ego takes it for an agenda and either slams it as nonsense or pushes it as license. Enlightenment is not in an ego agenda; it is neither a license for depravity nor a get-out-of-jail free card. As an ego, you are only interested in an agenda. But stuffing enlightenment into your bag of tricks is an ego ploy, it is not a reflection of what enlightenment points to.

Whatever happened to standards, Sam? Whatever happened to values? Don't you strive to find the best possible moral code that you can, and don't you feel that it's important to impose that moral code upon other people when they stray too far from what you hold to be reasonable?

I have no problem with moral codes per se. And as I said, enlightenment is not an excuse to indulge the ego. Misrepresenting it in that way shows a profound misunderstanding on your part.

Not all paths are "fine" with me, and to be honest, the only reason that I've decided to be "fine" with your path is that it's a particularly innocuous one and I can view it as just another recreational behaviour much like some people fly model planes or swim laps. I don't, however, think that there's much sense in it.

When I say "all paths are fine with me," it is not an endorsement of rape or murder or any other such nonsense. It is not meant as a political statement. It means that people get to choose how to live their lives regardless of how I feel about it. If those choices create suffering for others, I get to choose to address that. But simply condemning certain choices is an avoidance of why such choices are made. You cannot deal with other people's choices by mere condemnation. Do you remember "just say no to drugs"? It didn't work and often creates the very thing you are trying to suppress. The supposed war on terror is another good example.

samadhi: Without paradox, you get nonsense like Christianity that tries to take everything literally. And people like you who denigrate Christianity while attempting to foist your own literalism on me! What is the point of abandoning one literalism to take up another?

Laird: The point is that some sets of beliefs are saner than others.

It is not a question of saner, it is a question of whether you care to recognize in yourself what you condemn in others. You see how literalism makes nonsense of Christianity but when I point to your own literalism, suddenly nonsense makes perfect sense. And maybe it will continue to make perfect sense to you. Okay. But then just ask yourself why you need to point the finger at others for the perfect sense they continue to see.

samadhi: People think there is a "right" way to see. That would be something to get, wouldn't it?

Laird: Yeah, that sure would be something to get. There's no right and wrong after all - I'm perfectly free to run around raping little girls. I'm sure that we'd have quite a workable society if we all just decided that ultra-permissiveness was the way to go.

Again, you think I am talking about politics. I'm not. It is about incorporating ideas as an identity and using them as an excuse to elevate oneself at the expense of others.

samadhi: See, you are doing it again, projecting wrongness because it isn't what you see. Wouldn't it be more honest to say that some people have different perspectives and you don't know why that is? Simply differing from your perspective doesn't make people frauds.

Laird: Yes, I'm projecting wrongness because it "isn't what I see". I have a set of beliefs and a perspective on the world that I've worked hard to cultivate. I'm more than willing to speak up when someone deviates significantly from that perspective into what I consider to be insanity and fraud. Clearly you're not. Fine, then don't complain when the fundamentalist Christians ban the teaching of evolution in your schools. After all, it's just another valid path.

Your ego is jumping in full force. Do you see it? We were not having a political discussion but suddenly everything is about politics. Why? Because the ego certainly knows right and wrong when it comes to politics. By making it political, I am easily pigeon-holed so one of us can be right and the other wrong. Why the need to do that?

samadhi: The frustration is because you wanted to convince me.

Laird: No shit. Not just you, but everyone reading. The only way that the world improves is through people becoming convinced that certain ideas are better than others. I'm just playing my part. If at least one person has implanted in his/her mind that perhaps this enlightenment business isn't quite all it's cracked up to be, and finds it in his/her capacity to seriously question the next "guru" s/he comes across, then I'll consider it time well spent.

Well, I am not trying to sell anything to anyone. Anyone reading along can make up their own mind just fine without my cajoling or importuning. I am not trying to gain a following. It appears in that sense that you would be playing guru here and not me since followers are important to you. The ego loves to project onto others what it deems unseemly while surreptitiously embracing it at the same time.

samadhi: From my perspective, no one needed convincing, thus I could simply enjoy our discussion.

Laird: Well sure, part of the reason that I'm participating is for the pure pleasure of a back-and-forth, and I've lost hope of being able to convince you, but you're not the only reader.

But don't you see how your agenda actually hurts your ability to make your case? It is only when you are not egoically invested in the outcome that making your best case is even possible.

samadhi: Do you see why "nothing to get" can be so enlightening? There is nothing that needs to happen other than what is already happening. You can't get more perfect than that!

Laird: Yeah, sure Sam. Forget about advancing society - everything's just fine the way that it is.

<Sigh> It's not a political statement. It is about the way things are. Would my wanting to change your mind have made my words any more effective than they already are? Adding an agenda to one's actions is a sure way to anxiety, stress and often duplicity. It never helps. No one is saying you can't do whatever it is you want to do. But investing yourself in results rather than the actual love you feel for what you are doing is clearly a more stressful, more divided, more problematic and less satisfying way of being.

[Tomas]

.



-Larry-
Not me, but I'm willing to tolerate a "little" disorganisation. I'm not as bad as Kev though - jeez you should see the state of his computer desk, it's like a bomb's hit it.


-tomas-
Keep my home office tidy. But my "get away from it all" hobby office (where I am now) is a cyclone. Cleaned (perhaps) three times a year. Not ants tho.




-Larry-
GF is my current mission.

-tomas-
Yes, the best I've ever come across :-)


-Laird-
Indeed. And one worth cultivating. I've noticed that you have a talent for poetry.

-tomas-
Lost the thread, was gonna post a couple but the bots must've dumped them?




-Laird-
For other people, it doesn't really matter what you do because in the end one thing is as good as another. These are the sort of people who throw rubbish out of their car windows, who laugh at social conventions, who experiment with drugs and who couldn't care less whether or not you like what they have to say.

-tomas-
Slobs everywhere!




-Laird-
Well I've twice had a mohawk - on the second occasion I dyed it blue and purple - does that count as "laughing at social conventions"?

-tomas-
Best I did was have the head shaved once for the Army, basic training. The other on a "head lice" scare, for precautionary's sake. Now, it's about 20% white. Temples mainly.



-Laird-
Worst experience of my life. Spiritually invaded. I felt the presence of evil.

-tomas-
I'm good to go with 'cid about every five years about. Keep the battery charged :-)


-Laird-
I like the avatar so I'm not going to lose it, but here's a piccie of myself that Kev took of me in his backyard late last year so that a friend could see what I look like: http://members.dodo.com.au/~netocrat/ph ... _Kevin.jpg (I took my ugly glasses off for that one so you'll have to imagine the lenses).

-tomas-
Much better!



-Laird-
Since I happen to be a decent enough guy at heart, that's great advice.

-tomas-
You'll do alright :-)



-Laird-
That's a little bit unfair. I talked to his sister on Facebook and she told me that he had been acting strangely at home for a while - she described some pretty weird behaviour. I don't and won't take responsibility for Trevor's mental problems. I will say, though, that had I known that he was so close to the edge I would have been a little easier on him, but in the end, he "knew" that it was a joke and it was "his" decision to take it seriously.

-tomas-
He's one of the few decent people on this forum. Hope he comes back.

Thanks for tying up the loose ends, Laird. See you on some other thread (and beyond).



Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason


.

[Laird]

Oh, the delicious irony of your thoughts. Here's the quote that says it all to me:

By making it political, I am easily pigeon-holed so one of us can be right and the other wrong. Why the need to do that?

Your concluding question implies that I should consider the possibility that I am wrong to do what I'm doing - in other words you're implying that from your perspective I am wrong - in other words you're doing to me exactly what you're objecting to me doing to you.

Face it, to take a strong position in a debate as both of us have done in this thread so far is to make a statement as to what is right and what is wrong, and you're no less guilty of it than I am, and yet "guilty" isn't even the right word because it implies that there's something wrong with it, whereas in reality there's nothing wrong with taking a stand on an issue and deciding that certain beliefs are more correct than others - that's just what we do as human beings.

For more irony, consider your statement that all paths are fine with you - the implication is that all paths are equally valid. And yet this leads directly to a contradiction. What if I believe that my path is the only valid path? According to you, my path is valid, and yet if that's the case then it means that your belief that all paths are equally valid is invalid. No, the belief that all paths are equally valid is simply an unsupportable one.

samadhi: If you want to play the literal game, no, there is no individual ego being healed by enlightenment. Enlightenment has nothing to do with a better ego.

Laird: So then what is being healed?

samadhi: From your standpoint, it is the individual. That is what you see. From the standpoint of realization, there was nothing to heal in the first place.

To write that realisation has a "standpoint" is to personify it. There are no standpoints other than those of an ego, so if realisation is to have a "standpoint", then it must be from that of an ego. In other words, the implication of what you write is that egos are realised, but then on the other hand you want to deny that enlightenment is "by the ego".

samadhi: All paths are fine with me.

Laird: See, this is the kind of sentiment that's so frustrating to read. My path is to brutally rape and murder nine year old girls because I believe that the pleasure that I get from it far outweighs any pain that they suffer. Is my path just hunky dory with you?

samadhi: This is what happens when enlightenment is conceptualized and incorporated by an ego rather than realized as one's true nature. The ego takes it for an agenda and either slams it as nonsense or pushes it as license. Enlightenment is not in an ego agenda; it is neither a license for depravity nor a get-out-of-jail free card. As an ego, you are only interested in an agenda. But stuffing enlightenment into your bag of tricks is an ego ploy, it is not a reflection of what enlightenment points to.

Jeez mate, I get so little sense out of that paragraph that it's not funny. I asked a friend what she thought that it might mean and she responded that "he's saying that you're challenging him and trying to prove him worng[sic] because you have a big ego (or an ego... not sure)". I don't know whether she's hit the mark or not, but I'm at a loss for any other interpretation.

In any case my first comment is: bzzzzt, UNRESPONSIVE! I asked you whether my path was OK and you completely failed to answer yes, no or even maybe. So let me ask you again, if all paths are fine with you, and if I take the path of a paedophile rapist, then is my path fine with you?

Let me put another question to you: if enlightenment is one's true nature, then what's the point of all of this blather about it? We're all enlightened already and there's nothing more that needs to be said. And in any case, you've defined enlightenment as the knowledge that everything that you believe about yourself is wrong - how can this meaningfully be said to be a "true nature" - is one's true nature to doubt oneself?

When I say "all paths are fine with me," it is not an endorsement of rape or murder or any other such nonsense.

Well then you need to qualify it.

It is not meant as a political statement.

I don't know how you get politics out of rape and murder.

It means that people get to choose how to live their lives regardless of how I feel about it. If those choices create suffering for others, I get to choose to address that.

Why would you address that if you didn't believe that those choices were in some way wrong? You seem to be intent on maintaining unmaintainable positions. First you try to maintain the position that there can be such a thing as a totally unmotivated act by a conscious agent, now you're trying to maintain that it's possible to operate effectively in the world as a human being without having a sense of right and wrong - or at least that's the impression that you're giving me.

But simply condemning certain choices is an avoidance of why such choices are made. You cannot deal with other people's choices by mere condemnation.

What gives you the idea that I'm "merely condemning" you? I've gone to a lot of trouble to present cogent arguments to convince you of the problems in your thinking. If I were to merely condemn you then I wouldn't have gone to that trouble.

samadhi: Without paradox, you get nonsense like Christianity that tries to take everything literally. And people like you who denigrate Christianity while attempting to foist your own literalism on me! What is the point of abandoning one literalism to take up another?

Laird: The point is that some sets of beliefs are saner than others.

samadhi: It is not a question of saner, it is a question of whether you care to recognize in yourself what you condemn in others. You see how literalism makes nonsense of Christianity but when I point to your own literalism, suddenly nonsense makes perfect sense. And maybe it will continue to make perfect sense to you. Okay. But then just ask yourself why you need to point the finger at others for the perfect sense they continue to see.

Again, the irony of this paragraph is utterly delicious. You talk about the need for me to recognise in myself what I condemn in others, and here is you, implying that I am wrong (i.e. that my literalism is "nonsense") whilst simultaneously criticising me for trying to show you how you're wrong!

In any case, you most certainly have not in any way demonstrated how my "literalism" is nonsense. As far as I'm concerned you're simply throwing around a label. What in particular is nonsensical about what I've said to you?

samadhi: People think there is a "right" way to see. That would be something to get, wouldn't it?

Laird: Yeah, that sure would be something to get. There's no right and wrong after all - I'm perfectly free to run around raping little girls. I'm sure that we'd have quite a workable society if we all just decided that ultra-permissiveness was the way to go.

samadhi: Again, you think I am talking about politics. I'm not. It is about incorporating ideas as an identity and using them as an excuse to elevate oneself at the expense of others.

For a start, I don't think that you're talking about politics. I thought that we were both talking about belief paths that people choose to follow, which paths naturally affect their behaviour. Secondly, whilst I'll take your point that accurate criticism generally has the effect of inflating the ego of the criticiser and deflating the ego of the criticised, that's not the primary purpose of constructive criticism: its primary purpose is the general improvement of the belief systems of both parties.

samadhi: See, you are doing it again, projecting wrongness because it isn't what you see. Wouldn't it be more honest to say that some people have different perspectives and you don't know why that is? Simply differing from your perspective doesn't make people frauds.

Laird: Yes, I'm projecting wrongness because it "isn't what I see". I have a set of beliefs and a perspective on the world that I've worked hard to cultivate. I'm more than willing to speak up when someone deviates significantly from that perspective into what I consider to be insanity and fraud. Clearly you're not. Fine, then don't complain when the fundamentalist Christians ban the teaching of evolution in your schools. After all, it's just another valid path.

Laird: Your ego is jumping in full force. Do you see it? We were not having a political discussion but suddenly everything is about politics. Why? Because the ego certainly knows right and wrong when it comes to politics. By making it political, I am easily pigeon-holed so one of us can be right and the other wrong. Why the need to do that?

Yes, my ego is in action - I don't deny the value (and necessity) of the ego. I value rationality and I react against people who promote irrational beliefs.

Again with the politics!? I don't care whether we call it "politics" or "morality" or whatever, the point is that you're advocating that I should not project my ideas of right and wrong onto other people, and I utterly reject that notion. The need to do that is obvious. Having said that I'm tolerant enough - there's a variety of behaviour that I find acceptable.

I am not trying to gain a following. It appears in that sense that you would be playing guru here and not me since followers are important to you.

I was originally going to say to you something like this: "How did you get the idea that I'm trying to gain followers? I'm simply trying to provide critical thoughts that I hope that other people find credible." Then I looked inside myself and I had to admit that I do like to find that people agree with me, and in some ways I do have dreams of leadership, but certainly not in the sense of being a "guru" where people regard me as an ultimate authority on spirituality, more just as a guy who generally can be trusted to talk sense and to identify and to solve philosophical/moral problems, or to at least be able to provide some generally good guidance for them. I don't know how well I'm capable of adequately fulfilling the role though, and anyway it's more of an idle dream than anything that I'm pursuing intently.

But don't you see how your agenda actually hurts your ability to make your case?

This is a somewhat contradictory statement - wanting to "make a case" is having an agenda, and is even very similar if not identical to the "agenda" that you're criticising me for having: wanting to convince people.

It is only when you are not egoically invested in the outcome that making your best case is even possible.

That might be true in some cases; I wouldn't hold it as a general rule though.

samadhi: Do you see why "nothing to get" can be so enlightening? There is nothing that needs to happen other than what is already happening. You can't get more perfect than that!

Laird: Yeah, sure Sam. Forget about advancing society - everything's just fine the way that it is.

samadhi: <Sigh> It's not a political statement. It is about the way things are. Would my wanting to change your mind have made my words any more effective than they already are?

I don't buy that you have absolutely no investment in influencing/convincing me. Why else do you bother to present counters to my arguments?

By the way, I've decided that I don't have the patience and energy to respond to your longer post, although it now looks like this meta-dialogue is morphing into another monster...

[samadhi]

Laird,

samadhi: By making it political, I am easily pigeon-holed so one of us can be right and the other wrong. Why the need to do that?

Laird: Your concluding question implies that I should consider the possibility that I am wrong to do what I'm doing - in other words you're implying that from your perspective I am wrong - in other words you're doing to me exactly what you're objecting to me doing to you.

It's not about right and wrong for me. It is you who want to make it about right and wrong and I am asking why you want to do that. Do I think it is wrong to do that? No, simply misguided because you are misunderstanding me and thus it isn't very useful. But if you want to do that, I can't say, "don't do that!" You'll do what you want in any case. I am just asking you what is the point?

Face it, to take a strong position in a debate as both of us have done in this thread so far is to make a statement as to what is right and what is wrong, and you're no less guilty of it than I am, and yet "guilty" isn't even the right word because it implies that there's something wrong with it, whereas in reality there's nothing wrong with taking a stand on an issue and deciding that certain beliefs are more correct than others - that's just what we do as human beings.

Look, you are not "wrong" in your thinking. Think whatever you want. We can still have a discussion about it, what works, what doesn't. I don't think it works to make my ideas about politics simply because it mischaracterizes them and me. "All paths are fine with me" is not a political statement, pure and simple. If you want my political views, just ask me.

For more irony, consider your statement that all paths are fine with you - the implication is that all paths are equally valid. And yet this leads directly to a contradiction. What if I believe that my path is the only valid path? According to you, my path is valid, and yet if that's the case then it means that your belief that all paths are equally valid is invalid. No, the belief that all paths are equally valid is simply an unsupportable one.

Fine, your path is the only valid one. See where it takes you. I am perfectly okay with that. You get to make your own choices. All I would do, if you are interested in exploring further, is ask you why you want to make spirituality into a dogma. How does that serve you? Why should others not be free to find their own path?

samadhi: If you want to play the literal game, no, there is no individual ego being healed by enlightenment. Enlightenment has nothing to do with a better ego.

Laird: So then what is being healed?

samadhi: From your standpoint, it is the individual. That is what you see. From the standpoint of realization, there was nothing to heal in the first place.

Laird: To write that realisation has a "standpoint" is to personify it. There are no standpoints other than those of an ego, so if realisation is to have a "standpoint", then it must be from that of an ego. In other words, the implication of what you write is that egos are realised, but then on the other hand you want to deny that enlightenment is "by the ego".

You are going literal on me again. Standpoint is used conventionally to get a point across. Your arguing about semantics doesn't help you since you already know I'm not making a semantic point. You are beginning to sound like Kevin.

samadhi: All paths are fine with me.

Laird: See, this is the kind of sentiment that's so frustrating to read. My path is to brutally rape and murder nine year old girls because I believe that the pleasure that I get from it far outweighs any pain that they suffer. Is my path just hunky dory with you?

samadhi: This is what happens when enlightenment is conceptualized and incorporated by an ego rather than realized as one's true nature. The ego takes it for an agenda and either slams it as nonsense or pushes it as license. Enlightenment is not in an ego agenda; it is neither a license for depravity nor a get-out-of-jail free card. As an ego, you are only interested in an agenda. But stuffing enlightenment into your bag of tricks is an ego ploy, it is not a reflection of what enlightenment points to.

Laird: Jeez mate, I get so little sense out of that paragraph that it's not funny. I asked a friend what she thought that it might mean and she responded that "he's saying that you're challenging him and trying to prove him worng[sic] because you have a big ego (or an ego... not sure)". I don't know whether she's hit the mark or not, but I'm at a loss for any other interpretation.

It's not hard to understand. You are making enlightenment into an ego agenda. It isn't that.

In any case my first comment is: bzzzzt, UNRESPONSIVE! I asked you whether my path was OK and you completely failed to answer yes, no or even maybe. So let me ask you again, if all paths are fine with you, and if I take the path of a paedophile rapist, then is my path fine with you?

Lol. Again, you want to make it about politics. Okay, here you go. Harming others is not okay for me, satisfied? But we are discussing spirituality, not politics. Spirituality is not about harming others. It is about asking and exploring the three questions, who am I, where did I come from and where am I going? You get to say who you are, not me. If you insist that you are a murderer, fine, you are a murderer. It doesn't mean I can't put you in jail.

Let me put another question to you: if enlightenment is one's true nature, then what's the point of all of this blather about it? We're all enlightened already and there's nothing more that needs to be said.

Exactly. If you are happy with your life, there is nothing to talk about. The question of enlightenment only arises for those who feel called to answer the three questions. If you have your answers, your search is over, isn't it? For many people without answers, the search for meaning and purpose goes on.

And in any case, you've defined enlightenment as the knowledge that everything that you believe about yourself is wrong - how can this meaningfully be said to be a "true nature" - is one's true nature to doubt oneself?

Is mind your true nature? Is what you think about yourself what is true? Don't your thoughts change everyday?

samadhi: When I say "all paths are fine with me," it is not an endorsement of rape or murder or any other such nonsense.

Laird: Well then you need to qualify it.

I did so.

samadhi: It is not meant as a political statement.

Laird: I don't know how you get politics out of rape and murder.

Politics is about how societies choose to govern themselves. Criminal activity is governed by politics.

samadhi: It means that people get to choose how to live their lives regardless of how I feel about it. If those choices create suffering for others, I get to choose to address that.

Laird: Why would you address that if you didn't believe that those choices were in some way wrong? You seem to be intent on maintaining unmaintainable positions. First you try to maintain the position that there can be such a thing as a totally unmotivated act by a conscious agent, now you're trying to maintain that it's possible to operate effectively in the world as a human being without having a sense of right and wrong - or at least that's the impression that you're giving me.

Again, our discussion wasn't about politics, how people choose to live together. It was about spirituality. You want to conflate the two. I guess you can do that but as you can see, it leads to misunderstanding and confusion.

samadhi: But simply condemning certain choices is an avoidance of why such choices are made. You cannot deal with other people's choices by mere condemnation.

Laird: What gives you the idea that I'm "merely condemning" you? I've gone to a lot of trouble to present cogent arguments to convince you of the problems in your thinking. If I were to merely condemn you then I wouldn't have gone to that trouble.

Making spirituality about right and wrong implies condemnation. But perhaps you have confused spirituality with politics. You can clarify it now.

samadhi: Without paradox, you get nonsense like Christianity that tries to take everything literally. And people like you who denigrate Christianity while attempting to foist your own literalism on me! What is the point of abandoning one literalism to take up another?

Laird: The point is that some sets of beliefs are saner than others.

samadhi: It is not a question of saner, it is a question of whether you care to recognize in yourself what you condemn in others. You see how literalism makes nonsense of Christianity but when I point to your own literalism, suddenly nonsense makes perfect sense. And maybe it will continue to make perfect sense to you. Okay. But then just ask yourself why you need to point the finger at others for the perfect sense they continue to see.

Laird: Again, the irony of this paragraph is utterly delicious. You talk about the need for me to recognise in myself what I condemn in others, and here is you, implying that I am wrong (i.e. that my literalism is "nonsense") whilst simultaneously criticising me for trying to show you how you're wrong!

Once again, it is not about right and wrong. If you want to condemn in others what you practice yourself, go ahead. I am just asking why you would want to do that.

In any case, you most certainly have not in any way demonstrated how my "literalism" is nonsense. As far as I'm concerned you're simply throwing around a label. What in particular is nonsensical about what I've said to you?

You have dismissed all paradox as nonsense. You want to compare the Tao Te Ching to gibberish poetry. You have no concept of a spirituality that goes beyond a body/mind because all you can fathom is what your senses tell you. That is literalism. Again, you are not wrong for believing all this. You get to believe what you want. But we are having a discussion, looking at different ideas. I am not trying to prove you wrong. I am asking that you not dismiss others simply because they don't agree with you and are able to understand ideas, specifically non-dual teachings, that you cannot. Must you label nonsense everything you don't understand? That is also an indication of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism isn't wrong. But it does make for conflict. Maybe conflict is your goal. But if it isn't, you might want to rethink your fundamentalism.

samadhi: People think there is a "right" way to see. That would be something to get, wouldn't it?

Laird: Yeah, that sure would be something to get. There's no right and wrong after all - I'm perfectly free to run around raping little girls. I'm sure that we'd have quite a workable society if we all just decided that ultra-permissiveness was the way to go.

samadhi: Again, you think I am talking about politics. I'm not. It is about incorporating ideas as an identity and using them as an excuse to elevate oneself at the expense of others.

Laird: For a start, I don't think that you're talking about politics.

I am NOT talking about politics, you are when you bring in rape and murder!

I thought that we were both talking about belief paths that people choose to follow, which paths naturally affect their behaviour.

We were discussing spirituality. All paths of spirituality are fine. I don't deny there are fundamentalist paths that create conflict. People will take those paths whatever you want to preach about their evils. Harming others is not okay with me. It doesn't mean I can tell someone else what is the right path for them. I can tell them my experience but that's about it. They will take their path regardless of my pronouncements. That is fine with me. They have to learn for themselves what works and what doesn't. Harming others doesn't work. My telling them that won't impress them. So they will find out some other way, usually by being harmed themselves. That is how these things go.

Secondly, whilst I'll take your point that accurate criticism generally has the effect of inflating the ego of the criticiser and deflating the ego of the criticised, that's not the primary purpose of constructive criticism: its primary purpose is the general improvement of the belief systems of both parties.

Offer all the criticism you want. I am not saying it is a bad idea to discuss spiritual paths. I do it all the time. My point is only, people will find their own way regardless of what you say. Yes, it is bad to harm people as a spiritual path. Tell them that if that is what you believe. But if someone goes down that path, your pronouncements will be of little help in understanding why. Why would someone choose that spiritual path? Condemnation won't help you find that out, understanding might.

samadhi: See, you are doing it again, projecting wrongness because it isn't what you see. Wouldn't it be more honest to say that some people have different perspectives and you don't know why that is? Simply differing from your perspective doesn't make people frauds.

Laird: Yes, I'm projecting wrongness because it "isn't what I see". I have a set of beliefs and a perspective on the world that I've worked hard to cultivate. I'm more than willing to speak up when someone deviates significantly from that perspective into what I consider to be insanity and fraud. Clearly you're not. Fine, then don't complain when the fundamentalist Christians ban the teaching of evolution in your schools. After all, it's just another valid path.

samadhi: Your ego is jumping in full force. Do you see it? We were not having a political discussion but suddenly everything is about politics. Why? Because the ego certainly knows right and wrong when it comes to politics. By making it political, I am easily pigeon-holed so one of us can be right and the other wrong. Why the need to do that?

Laird: Yes, my ego is in action - I don't deny the value (and necessity) of the ego. I value rationality and I react against people who promote irrational beliefs.

But your reaction is itself irrational, turning spirituality into politics! That's what I have been pointing out.

Again with the politics!? I don't care whether we call it "politics" or "morality" or whatever, the point is that you're advocating that I should not project my ideas of right and wrong onto other people, and I utterly reject that notion. The need to do that is obvious. Having said that I'm tolerant enough - there's a variety of behaviour that I find acceptable.

My point is you are conflating spirituality with politics. Our discussion becomes confused when you do that.

samadhi: I am not trying to gain a following. It appears in that sense that you would be playing guru here and not me since followers are important to you.

Laird: I was originally going to say to you something like this: "How did you get the idea that I'm trying to gain followers? I'm simply trying to provide critical thoughts that I hope that other people find credible." Then I looked inside myself and I had to admit that I do like to find that people agree with me, and in some ways I do have dreams of leadership, but certainly not in the sense of being a "guru" where people regard me as an ultimate authority on spirituality, more just as a guy who generally can be trusted to talk sense and to identify and to solve philosophical/moral problems, or to at least be able to provide some generally good guidance for them. I don't know how well I'm capable of adequately fulfilling the role though, and anyway it's more of an idle dream than anything that I'm pursuing intently.

Okay. If that's what you want, it's good to be upfront with it. Otherwise, you project it on to me.

samadhi: But don't you see how your agenda actually hurts your ability to make your case?

Laird: This is a somewhat contradictory statement - wanting to "make a case" is having an agenda, and is even very similar if not identical to the "agenda" that you're criticising me for having: wanting to convince people.

Your case is simply your ideas. Your agenda is wanting to be right and make me wrong and having others on your side. When the agenda is more important than the ideas, the ideas tend to get shuffled, witness the introduction of politics here.

samadhi: Do you see why "nothing to get" can be so enlightening? There is nothing that needs to happen other than what is already happening. You can't get more perfect than that!

Laird: Yeah, sure Sam. Forget about advancing society - everything's just fine the way that it is.

samadhi: <Sigh> It's not a political statement. It is about the way things are. Would my wanting to change your mind have made my words any more effective than they already are?

Laird: I don't buy that you have absolutely no investment in influencing/convincing me. Why else do you bother to present counters to my arguments?

I enjoy the discussion but I have no illusion about convincing you of anything. Even if you see something new, it is YOUR seeing, not mine. I'm not saying I'm without ego in all this but it helps to see clearly what is going on. As soon as I would take credit for an idea or for helping you see something new, I would be abandoning the very things I am talking about. Now that would be a contradiction you could point to.

By the way, I've decided that I don't have the patience and energy to respond to your longer post, although it now looks like this meta-dialogue is morphing into another monster...

Okay, maybe later.

[Laird]

Sam,

For the most part I'm not going to respond to individual quotes in this conversation because it's grown kinda large and unwieldy again. I've also decided to try to be a little more conciliatory in this post.

So, to start with: on the subject of right and wrong. I'm not some absolutist who divides behaviour and beliefs strictly into boolean categories of right or wrong. Apparently neither are you. I view it more as a spectrum: some beliefs make more or less sense to me than others; some "facts" are more or less objectively true than others; some behaviour is more or less acceptable to me than others. Isn't this the same for you?

As for why I ever make a big deal about what's right and wrong to me: it's simply because I'm human and part of my humanity is caring about what I believe in. Isn't it the same for you? I mean, if you came upon fundamentalist members of some religion who believed that non-believers should convert or be killed, wouldn't you just want to shake some sense into them? Wouldn't that be one particular spiritual path that isn't fine with you?

By the way, you seem to have misinterpreted me - when I wrote "What if I believe that my path is the only valid path?" I didn't mean that I actually do believe that (I don't): I was presenting you with a hypothetical to demonstrate to you why your ultra-tolerant statement that all paths are fine with you leads to a contradiction. I still think that as a bald, unqualified statement it is naive, but I'll give you credit and assume that by it you meant something like "I believe in the right of every person to practice any non-harmful personal spiritual path of his/her choosing, regardless of whether I personally believe that that path makes sense." If that's what you meant then I'd be more inclined to agree with you - the only problem is that the "non-harmful" criteria is quite hard to satisfy. I brought up the example earlier of fundamentalist Christians banning the teaching of evolution in schools - this could quite easily be considered to be a harmful consequence of an otherwise tolerable spiritual path.

Further than that though, one might consider it harmful in itself for a person's mind to be filled with irrational beliefs when that person might better contribute to and live truthfully and/or joyously in the world with a saner set of beliefs. I guess I'm a little less inclined than you are to grant people the right to spread like a virus beliefs that in my opinion are nonsensical, and yes, to a large extent I judge your beliefs to fit into that category - not all of them of course, but this idea of enlightenment as pertaining to an understanding of "no self" is just a crock in my opinion. I'm reasonably tolerant though - as I said earlier, if you like your lollipop then keep sucking on it - you're not doing anyone any explicit harm. I wouldn't be quite so tolerant if you preached the death of non-believers, or even if you advocated the institution of enlightenment teaching as a mandatory class in primary schools - I'd be OK with giving kids an objective idea of what exactly enlightenment teaching is as part of a broader course of religious education but certainly not as a standalone class predicated on the notion that enlightenment is a meaningful concept.

As for my "literalism", well jeez, one of my primary beliefs is that I will probably never as a human being be able to comprehend the ultimate nature of the existence of the universe, probably because the understanding just doesn't conform to logic as we know it: how "literal" is that belief? As far as I'm able to apply logic, though, I do so, and as far as I can see your beliefs about "no self" enlightenment are completely amenable to the application of rational thought - they just happen to fail that test. However you want to slice and dice it, the existence of the self and of the subjective experience thereof is undeniable. The "paradoxes" of your brand of enlightenment are better described as contradictions rendering the notion senseless. You talk of enlightenment as being beyond the ego, and yet beyond the ego the self does not exist. So an ego cannot be enlightened - you can't be enlightened - and it exists purely as an inapplicable notion floating out there in the ether. Yes, though, there are different perspectives that one can take on the ego. One can speculate that thoughts simply arise beyond the control of the "self". Perhaps that's true. On the other hand I experience "my" will, and it seems as though I have some say in my actions, and I consider it mostly a matter of science rather than spirituality to determine to what extent my will is a reality and to what extent it is illusory. In the meantime it doesn't particularly much matter whether I believe that my will is real or illusory, does it? I mean, I can't change my will's nature through that belief.

On the issue of my literalism, when I questioned you as to what you mean, you wrote several things. The first was that I have "dismissed all paradox as nonsense". This is an irritating statement to read, because I have most certainly done no such thing. All that you're demonstrating in making this statement is that you're not putting a fraction of the effort into understanding my position as I've been putting into understanding yours. Here, for example, are two statements that I've made in prior posts:

[T]hose who've been following my contributions to this forum from the beginning will already know that I really dig paradox

Yes, I love and use paradox myself. I have a collection of self-created insights and affirmations on my website, many of which are paradoxes. I just don't happen to find this particular "paradox" very meaningful.

Do those sound like a blanket dismissal of paradox to you? Here, Sam, let me share with you a paradox that I invented and that is part of the webpage that I alluded to in the second quote. This is a paradox that has a lot of meaning to me, much more than the quotes that you presented to me out of the Tao Te Ching. See if you get any meaning out of it:

I cling to a rock: that there is no rock to cling to. When I find it I discard my ignorance.

You also wrote on the issue of my literalism that I "want to compare the Tao Te Ching to gibberish poetry". I can see how you could have formed that impression but it wasn't my intent to directly compare the two. I was simply giving an example of other poetry that, despite not being in the same basket as the Tao Te Ching (it makes up its own nonsense words for heaven's sake - how could you really think that I was trying to directly compare the two?), I likewise don't find much meaning in yet appreciate as poetry anyhow.

Finally on the issue of my literalism you write that I have "no concept of a spirituality that goes beyond a body/mind because all you can fathom is what your senses tell you". Frankly, I find it disrespectful that you charge me with such an attitude based on the limited discussion that we've had. You have no idea what I actually believe because I haven't told you, I've simply criticised your beliefs in "no self" enlightenment. So let me then share with you some of my actual beliefs. I tend towards a belief that there is a self beyond the body/mind. I find the various descriptions of astral travel that I've heard from various sources to be credible and thought-provoking. I'm open to the possibility of a layered, spiritual self and in particular to the possibility of a spiritual soul, whatever that might actually consist of. I'm open to the possibility that such things as chakras and auras exist, and I'm open to the possibility of "energetic healings" of the body even though I no longer give such beliefs enough credence that I'd spend money visiting a practitioner of such healing work (I have in the past tried acupuncture to no effect, however it's possible that I simply didn't continue with it for long enough). In short, I have very few fixed beliefs about what exactly the self is and I'm pretty open to possibilities.

As for "You are beginning to sound like Kevin", you couldn't have picked a much more difficult thing for me to read.

As for confusing politics and spirituality: I view them as distinct but I notice that frequently spiritual (religious) beliefs influence politics - witness the Taliban and the influence of the Christian lobby in the USA. In any case I think that you've picked the wrong word for what I was describing - murder and rape aren't political acts unless they are part of the acts of violence that overthrow a regime or are a protest against a political/legal system. I think that the word that you wanted was probably more like "morality".

[samadhi]

Laird,

For the most part I'm not going to respond to individual quotes in this conversation because it's grown kinda large and unwieldy again. I've also decided to try to be a little more conciliatory in this post.

Okay.

So, to start with: on the subject of right and wrong. I'm not some absolutist who divides behaviour and beliefs strictly into boolean categories of right or wrong. Apparently neither are you. I view it more as a spectrum: some beliefs make more or less sense to me than others; some "facts" are more or less objectively true than others; some behaviour is more or less acceptable to me than others. Isn't this the same for you?

Of course. This is why I was surprised you took the conversation in that direction.

As for why I ever make a big deal about what's right and wrong to me: it's simply because I'm human and part of my humanity is caring about what I believe in. Isn't it the same for you? I mean, if you came upon fundamentalist members of some religion who believed that non-believers should convert or be killed, wouldn't you just want to shake some sense into them? Wouldn't that be one particular spiritual path that isn't fine with you?

I make a distinction between people's behavior and their spiritual path. In terms of behavior, harming others is a no-no but in terms of a spiritual path, anything goes. I say that because no one can tell you who you are. That is for you to discover and there are no rules for finding it out. So if you want to harm someone and call it a spiritual path, okay. By the same token, my spiritual path would be to put you in jail.

By the way, you seem to have misinterpreted me - when I wrote "What if I believe that my path is the only valid path?" I didn't mean that I actually do believe that (I don't): I was presenting you with a hypothetical to demonstrate to you why your ultra-tolerant statement that all paths are fine with you leads to a contradiction.

And I was showing you why there was no contradiction. Be a fundamentalist if that's your path. But if you want to talk about it, I would point out why it's not so useful.

I still think that as a bald, unqualified statement it is naive, but I'll give you credit and assume that by it you meant something like "I believe in the right of every person to practice any non-harmful personal spiritual path of his/her choosing, regardless of whether I personally believe that that path makes sense."

See above.

If that's what you meant then I'd be more inclined to agree with you - the only problem is that the "non-harmful" criteria is quite hard to satisfy. I brought up the example earlier of fundamentalist Christians banning the teaching of evolution in schools - this could quite easily be considered to be a harmful consequence of an otherwise tolerable spiritual path.

Behavior is always a matter of social standards and personal morality. If people want to justify behavior as part of a spiritual path, okay, that's their prerogative. It doesn't mean my own behavior is limited by their spiritual path, it isn't.

Further than that though, one might consider it harmful in itself for a person's mind to be filled with irrational beliefs when that person might better contribute to and live truthfully and/or joyously in the world with a saner set of beliefs.

You are still talking about behavior.

I guess I'm a little less inclined than you are to grant people the right to spread like a virus beliefs that in my opinion are nonsensical, and yes, to a large extent I judge your beliefs to fit into that category - not all of them of course, but this idea of enlightenment as pertaining to an understanding of "no self" is just a crock in my opinion.

I get that it isn't for you. I would just point out that non-dual teachings go back at least as far as the Buddha, and with Vedanta, probably much further. That you consider it "a crock" is a reflection of your understanding and not of the philosophy in general. You would do well to consider that history has treated it in a much more substantial way.

I'm reasonably tolerant though - as I said earlier, if you like your lollipop then keep sucking on it - you're not doing anyone any explicit harm.

You ignore 3000 years of teaching and it is me sucking the lollipop? You need to get your head out of your ass.

I wouldn't be quite so tolerant if you preached the death of non-believers, or even if you advocated the institution of enlightenment teaching as a mandatory class in primary schools - I'd be OK with giving kids an objective idea of what exactly enlightenment teaching is as part of a broader course of religious education but certainly not as a standalone class predicated on the notion that enlightenment is a meaningful concept.

Again, you want to ignore all of history because you don't like it. Why are you so willing to ignore your own inability to understand what is a very widespread and accepted teaching?

As for my "literalism", well jeez, one of my primary beliefs is that I will probably never as a human being be able to comprehend the ultimate nature of the existence of the universe, probably because the understanding just doesn't conform to logic as we know it: how "literal" is that belief? As far as I'm able to apply logic, though, I do so, and as far as I can see your beliefs about "no self" enlightenment are completely amenable to the application of rational thought - they just happen to fail that test.

Non-dual teaching isn't about logic, so you have failed the first test in understanding what it means.

However you want to slice and dice it, the existence of the self and of the subjective experience thereof is undeniable.

If it is undeniable, then you could show me the self. I am still waiting on that.

The "paradoxes" of your brand of enlightenment are better described as contradictions rendering the notion senseless. You talk of enlightenment as being beyond the ego, and yet beyond the ego the self does not exist. So an ego cannot be enlightened - you can't be enlightened - and it exists purely as an inapplicable notion floating out there in the ether.

You need to go back to square one. You don't comprehend the meaning of "no self," work on that one before taking on enlightenment.

Yes, though, there are different perspectives that one can take on the ego. One can speculate that thoughts simply arise beyond the control of the "self". Perhaps that's true. On the other hand I experience "my" will, and it seems as though I have some say in my actions, and I consider it mostly a matter of science rather than spirituality to determine to what extent my will is a reality and to what extent it is illusory. In the meantime it doesn't particularly much matter whether I believe that my will is real or illusory, does it? I mean, I can't change my will's nature through that belief.

It isn't about "your will," your belief in it notwithstanding.

On the issue of my literalism, when I questioned you as to what you mean, you wrote several things. The first was that I have "dismissed all paradox as nonsense". This is an irritating statement to read, because I have most certainly done no such thing. All that you're demonstrating in making this statement is that you're not putting a fraction of the effort into understanding my position as I've been putting into understanding yours. Here, for example, are two statements that I've made in prior posts:

Those who've been following my contributions to this forum from the beginning will already know that I really dig paradox

Yes, I love and use paradox myself. I have a collection of self-created insights and affirmations on my website, many of which are paradoxes. I just don't happen to find this particular "paradox" very meaningful.

Do those sound like a blanket dismissal of paradox to you?

Your quotes are just lip service to the concept. I explained the paradox of specific passages in the Tao. You still rejected it. That is what my above quote was referring to.

Here, Sam, let me share with you a paradox that I invented and that is part of the webpage that I alluded to in the second quote. This is a paradox that has a lot of meaning to me, much more than the quotes that you presented to me out of the Tao Te Ching. See if you get any meaning out of it:

I cling to a rock: that there is no rock to cling to. When I find it I discard my ignorance.

I see what you're saying but it doesn't need a paradoxical context to express. There is nothing to cling to works just as well.

You also wrote on the issue of my literalism that I "want to compare the Tao Te Ching to gibberish poetry". I can see how you could have formed that impression but it wasn't my intent to directly compare the two. I was simply giving an example of other poetry that, despite not being in the same basket as the Tao Te Ching (it makes up its own nonsense words for heaven's sake - how could you really think that I was trying to directly compare the two?), I likewise don't find much meaning in yet appreciate as poetry anyhow.

I asked you what made the Tao great poetry for you if you don't understand it and you came back with Jabberwocky. What else was I supposed to conclude? So I'll try again. If you don't think the Tao is nonsense and you don't understand it, what makes you say that it is great?

Finally on the issue of my literalism you write that I have "no concept of a spirituality that goes beyond a body/mind because all you can fathom is what your senses tell you". Frankly, I find it disrespectful that you charge me with such an attitude based on the limited discussion that we've had. You have no idea what I actually believe because I haven't told you, I've simply criticised your beliefs in "no self" enlightenment.

You have always come back to the self as body/mind in this discussion. That has been your anchor.

So let me then share with you some of my actual beliefs. I tend towards a belief that there is a self beyond the body/mind. I find the various descriptions of astral travel that I've heard from various sources to be credible and thought-provoking. I'm open to the possibility of a layered, spiritual self and in particular to the possibility of a spiritual soul, whatever that might actually consist of. I'm open to the possibility that such things as chakras and auras exist, and I'm open to the possibility of "energetic healings" of the body even though I no longer give such beliefs enough credence that I'd spend money visiting a practitioner of such healing work (I have in the past tried acupuncture to no effect, however it's possible that I simply didn't continue with it for long enough). In short, I have very few fixed beliefs about what exactly the self is and I'm pretty open to possibilities.

Okay. This however doesn't change the basic idea that you cling to, that the perception is the perceiver. However subtle the self becomes, it remains a perception to be identified with.

As for "You are beginning to sound like Kevin", you couldn't have picked a much more difficult thing for me to read.

I followed a good deal of your discussion with Kevin about proving God. No one beats Kevin for nitpicking semantics. And then you came at me with the same kind of argument. Perhaps you were simply unaware of what you were doing. You will never approach Kevin in that kind of argument but I was still disappointed in the tact you choose to take.

As for confusing politics and spirituality: I view them as distinct but I notice that frequently spiritual (religious) beliefs influence politics - witness the Taliban and the influence of the Christian lobby in the USA. In any case I think that you've picked the wrong word for what I was describing - murder and rape aren't political acts unless they are part of the acts of violence that overthrow a regime or are a protest against a political/legal system. I think that the word that you wanted was probably more like "morality".

The point was, I wasn't talking about behavior in a social context. Saying that in spirituality, anything goes, is not the same as saying, any behavior is okay with me. In spirituality, anything DOES go, you can verify that as easily as I can. What would spirituality be worth if someone else could dictate who you are?

[Laird]

Sam, I've again tended to not respond to specific quotes, because much of what I might wrote would have been repetitive.

First off, I don't believe in such a neat distinction between one's spirituality and one's behaviour. What one believes spiritually affects how one behaves.

When you write: "So if you want to harm someone and call it a spiritual path, okay. By the same token, my spiritual path would be to put you in jail" you are essentially saying (in my opinion) that not all spiritual paths are OK with you after all, which is to me the sane perspective.

You write about various things being "misguided" or "not so useful" - how is that essentially any different from saying that they are "wrong", as you have criticised me for doing?

As for history treating "non-dual" teachings kindly, well, for some time history treated flat-world teachings kindly, and history has for some time now treated the teaching of an omnipotent omnibenevolent God who nevertheless tolerates the Earth's suffering pretty kindly too. It's no argument as to validity. In fact if that's the best that you've got to offer, then please pick up your bat and ball and go home.

As for: "You ignore 3000 years of teaching and it is me sucking the lollipop? You need to get your head out of your ass." Wonderful! Finally, some retaliation! Give me a bit more of that attitude Sam!

As for me being unable to understand the teachings: the reason that I am unable to understand them is that they don't make any sense - there's nothing to understand! You talk gibberish mate. But here, I'm willing to give you another chance to lay down the teachings in a way that I can understand. So let me ask you this simple question which I will later follow up on:

Is it possible that you (Sam) will ever become enlightened?

As for "Non-dual teaching isn't about logic" - that's right, it's about senseless illogic, which credulous chaps such as yourself latch onto in the hope of one day transcending their everyday experience of reality.

If it is undeniable, then you could show me the self.

I don't need to "show" it to you because you experience it in every waking moment! You do - like every other English-speaking person - use the word "I", right? You do mean something by that, right?

Laird: The "paradoxes" of your brand of enlightenment are better described as contradictions rendering the notion senseless. You talk of enlightenment as being beyond the ego, and yet beyond the ego the self does not exist. So an ego cannot be enlightened - you can't be enlightened - and it exists purely as an inapplicable notion floating out there in the ether.

samadhi: You need to go back to square one. You don't comprehend the meaning of "no self," work on that one before taking on enlightenment.

Bzzzzt! UNRESPONSIVE!

Your quotes are just lip service to the concept.

Take a nice big running jump off a twelve story building pal. Who are you to tell me how I feel about paradox?

Laird: I cling to a rock: that there is no rock to cling to. When I find it I discard my ignorance.

samadhi: I see what you're saying but it doesn't need a paradoxical context to express. There is nothing to cling to works just as well.

Actually, no, it doesn't convey the full meaning of that quote at all well. There's more to it than that. But anyhow, look at what's happening here: you're degrading a paradox that has meaning to me, and yet you complain when I degrade paradoxes that have meaning to you. How does that work mate?

If you don't think the Tao is nonsense and you don't understand it, what makes you say that it is great?

I don't say that it's great, I say that it's great poetry. I say that because of its form and style and yes, part of that is because of its paradoxical nature: regardless of whether they make sense, they're interesting to read.

You have always come back to the self as body/mind in this discussion. That has been your anchor.

The only time that I recall "coming back" to the self as body/mind is when I defined the self roughly for you several posts ago. Other than that I don't recall talking about the self in specific terms. Perhaps you would care to justify your claim.

Okay. This however doesn't change the basic idea that you cling to, that the perception is the perceiver. However subtle the self becomes, it remains a perception to be identified with.

Jeez, that's just plain bullshit. I've seen you write this sort of stuff elsewhere. It's just what you happen to want to believe about me, and about other "unenlightened" folks in general. You're invested in it.

I believe that there is a perceiver: as to what exactly that perceiver turns out to be, I'm open to possibilities. Perhaps perceptions are part of it, perhaps not. Who really knows? Not me, and I certainly don't go so far as to "cling to" the idea that "the perception is the perceiver".

[samadhi]

Laird,

First off, I don't believe in such a neat distinction between one's spirituality and one's behaviour. What one believes spiritually affects how one behaves.

When you write: "So if you want to harm someone and call it a spiritual path, okay. By the same token, my spiritual path would be to put you in jail" you are essentially saying (in my opinion) that not all spiritual paths are OK with you after all, which is to me the sane perspective.

It may work out the same but I come at it differently. I think what's important to note is that any so-called spiritual path that includes the deliberate victimization of people is really about the ego and not spirituality at all.

You write about various things being "misguided" or "not so useful" - how is that essentially any different from saying that they are "wrong", as you have criticised me for doing?

Labeling a behavior "wrong" simply is an expression of disapproval. My approval or disapproval is hardly relevant to someone else's behavior. But if someone wants to discuss it, I can point out how certain behaviors may not be useful in terms of what that individual is really trying to accomplish when it comes to a spiritual path.

As for history treating "non-dual" teachings kindly, well, for some time history treated flat-world teachings kindly, and history has for some time now treated the teaching of an omnipotent omnibenevolent God who nevertheless tolerates the Earth's suffering pretty kindly too. It's no argument as to validity. In fact if that's the best that you've got to offer, then please pick up your bat and ball and go home.

It is easy to see when a teaching, however ancient is about dogma. Christ as savior has been taught for a couple thousand years. That doesn't change the dogmatic nature of it. Non-duality does not rely on dogma, it doesn't ask for your belief. Investigation of no-self is not about believing it, it is about asking yourself the question, "who am I?" If you want to cling to the body/mind, great. But then non-duality won't be something you'll be interested in, will it?

As for: "You ignore 3000 years of teaching and it is me sucking the lollipop? You need to get your head out of your ass." Wonderful! Finally, some retaliation! Give me a bit more of that attitude Sam!

You get what you give.

As for me being unable to understand the teachings: the reason that I am unable to understand them is that they don't make any sense - there's nothing to understand! You talk gibberish mate.

It's fine if you don't understand it, I am just asking that you not condemn those who do.

But here, I'm willing to give you another chance to lay down the teachings in a way that I can understand. So let me ask you this simple question which I will later follow up on:

Is it possible that you (Sam) will ever become enlightened?

An individual isn't enlightened, it is the idea of you as an individual that you wake up from.

As for "Non-dual teaching isn't about logic" - that's right, it's about senseless illogic, which credulous chaps such as yourself latch onto in the hope of one day transcending their everyday experience of reality.

<Sigh> Why the need to condemn what you obviously don't understand?

samadhi: If it is undeniable, then you could show me the self.

Laird: I don't need to "show" it to you because you experience it in every waking moment! You do - like every other English-speaking person - use the word "I", right? You do mean something by that, right?

I experience a body/mind, I don't experience a self. This is what you don't understand.

Laird: The "paradoxes" of your brand of enlightenment are better described as contradictions rendering the notion senseless. You talk of enlightenment as being beyond the ego, and yet beyond the ego the self does not exist. So an ego cannot be enlightened - you can't be enlightened - and it exists purely as an inapplicable notion floating out there in the ether.

samadhi: You need to go back to square one. You don't comprehend the meaning of "no self," work on that one before taking on enlightenment.

Laird: Bzzzzt! UNRESPONSIVE!

I never said an ego can be enlightened, this is your idea. This is why I am saying you need to back up. You get everything mixed up because you don't understand the basics.

samadhi: Your quotes are just lip service to the concept.

Laird: Take a nice big running jump off a twelve story building pal. Who are you to tell me how I feel about paradox?

The point is, when I show you the paradox, you simply reject it. What about the paradoxes you don't understand? Do they count?

Laird: I cling to a rock: that there is no rock to cling to. When I find it I discard my ignorance.

samadhi: I see what you're saying but it doesn't need a paradoxical context to express. There is nothing to cling to works just as well.

Laird: Actually, no, it doesn't convey the full meaning of that quote at all well. There's more to it than that.

Then tell me what it is.

But anyhow, look at what's happening here: you're degrading a paradox that has meaning to me, and yet you complain when I degrade paradoxes that have meaning to you. How does that work mate?

Degrading is your opinion; all I am actually doing is pointing out that you don't need paradox to express the idea of not clinging and especially not by not associating it with clinging. With the Tao, paradox IS needed to express the idea of only when you do nothing, nothing is left undone. And you still don't understand why that is.

samadhi: You have always come back to the self as body/mind in this discussion. That has been your anchor.

Laird: The only time that I recall "coming back" to the self as body/mind is when I defined the self roughly for you several posts ago. Other than that I don't recall talking about the self in specific terms. Perhaps you would care to justify your claim.

Well, you say the idea of no-self is nonsense. On what basis do you do that other than claiming that you have a self reflected in the body/mind?

samadhi: Okay. This however doesn't change the basic idea that you cling to, that the perception is the perceiver. However subtle the self becomes, it remains a perception to be identified with.

Laird: Jeez, that's just plain bullshit. I've seen you write this sort of stuff elsewhere. It's just what you happen to want to believe about me, and about other "unenlightened" folks in general. You're invested in it.

I am just pointing out what you have told me, nothing more, nothing less.

I believe that there is a perceiver: as to what exactly that perceiver turns out to be, I'm open to possibilities. Perhaps perceptions are part of it, perhaps not. Who really knows? Not me, and I certainly don't go so far as to "cling to" the idea that "the perception is the perceiver".

Great. You have basically just said you don't know what the self is. Then why do you insist the idea of no-self is nonsense? Just by trusting your experience, the concept of self falls apart.