Oprah, Eckhart and Enlightenment

[Ryan Rudolph]

Alex,

"Sex is something I really don't understand too hot. You never know where the hell you are. I keep making up these sex rules for myself, and then I break them right away. Last year I made a rule that I was going to quit horsing around with girls that, deep down, gave me a pain in the ass. I broke it, though, the same week I made it — the same night, as a matter of fact. I spent the whole night necking with a terrible phony named Anne Louise Sherman. Sex is something I just don't understand. I swear to God I don't."

That is a very feminine wishy-washy position. By claiming that he doesn’t understand sex, it allows him to continue abusing himself and women through the act itself. He is basically saying, “Because I’m ignorant of the implications of sex, I can keep experiencing the emotional highs of it”

It’s a slimy type of justification.

[Alex Jacob]

Sorry, Ryan. It was just a quote from Catcher in the Rye. The 'narrator' is just a kid. Here's another one:

"In my mind, I'm probably the biggest sex maniac you ever saw. Sometimes I can think of very crumby stuff I wouldn't mind doing if the opportunity came up. I can even see how it might be quite a lot of fun, in a crumby way, and if you were both sort of drunk and all, to get a girl and squirt water or something all over each other's face. The thing is, though, I don't like the idea. It stinks, if you analyze it. I think if you don't really like a girl, you shouldn't horse around with her at all, and if you do like her, then you're supposed to like her face, and if you like her face, you ought to be careful about doing crumby stuff to it--like squirting water all over it, for instance. It's really too bad that so much crumby stuff is a lot of fun sometimes."
____________________________________________

"She started jitterbugging with me — but just very nice and easy, not corny. She was really good. All you had to do was touch her. And when she turned around, her pretty little butt twitched so nice and all. She knocked me out. I mean it. I was half in love with her by the time we sat down. That's the thing about girls. Every time they do something pretty, even if they're not much to look at, or even if they're sort of stupid, you fall half in love with them, and then you never know where the hell you are. Girls. Jesus Christ. They can drive you crazy. They really can."

[samadhi]

Dan,

This is undoubtedly the first time our lack of disagreement has created a problem! Hmm, how to get around it.....

Indeed. I'm certainly willing to go forward with this discussion but I'm just wondering if you can bring anything new to the table. If you think you can, give it a shot. Otherwise, I'll try and post some topics in the Crucible I would debate with anyone who is up for it.



maestro,

sam: Anything can cause a lot of trouble. That sex causes trouble no doubt has to do with ego.

maestro: Suppose ego were absent in humans, would that mean that you can have sex with anyone willy nilly?

You are assuming ego is the constraint. Actually, it is just the opposite, ego is the instigator more often than not.

Because on what basis would you deny sex to one and allow it to other, except on personal preferences which implies the operation of a dualistic ego, is it?

Are you serious? The lack of ego is certainly not a lack of good judgment. In fact, the more ego asserts itself, the more good judgment is inhibited. And personal preferences have nothing to do with ego either. Preferences are about the persona which everyone, enlightened or not, has. It is the identification with those preferences out of which ego arises.



Trevor,

You could always approach it from another angle. Like the value of single-sex classrooms, or whether or not woman's liberation was a good thing, or the possibility of female enlightenment.

I have no problem with any of the above. But none of the above imply a dogmatic belief in the harmfulness of sex.

[samadhi]

Ryan,

sam: You are contradicting yourself Ryan. If you didn't care, you wouldn't tell people how to live.

Ryan: I’m caused to do it, its in my nature, there is very little emotional motivation behind my actions. That is what I mean by not caring. For instance: if you live your entire life in delusion and suffering, you were caused to be that way, I just speak on what I know is universally true.

You use causation as an excuse for your lack of responsibility but you want to overlook causation when it comes to passing judgment on the behavior of others. That is hypocrisy. And you need not mention that you are caused to be a hypocrite, your living in denial has already been noted.

sam: We were not discussing sexual attachment but sex PER SE. Do you know what that means, Ryan? Please don't change the subject. It makes you look evasive and dishonest.

Ryan: Discussing sex and sexual attachment are one in the same to me. People only want to have sex because it is enjoyable and they are programmed genetically to spread their seed, but if the motivation is gone, then there is no point to sex, it is a meaningless experience with potentially harmful affects.

Do you know what dogma is Ryan?

sam: I never said he wasn't affected. I said he did not get cancer. You said sugar always causes tooth decay, not that sugar always affects the body. Do you even understand your own analogy? Yeah it affects the body, it affects different bodies differently. Just as sex affects different people differently.

Ryan: You are stretching this argument. Don't object to the fact that I make sweeping generalizations, as this is the only way to convey vast truths that cover the majority of people.. Yes, there is a bit of relativity, as some bodies are a tougher than others, but negative things are generally negative to some degree in all people.

You made the argument. I simply pointed to its falsehood.

sam: You want to treat it differently because people would think you were a jackass if you were to say we shouldn't eat so as not to be attached to food.

Ryan: I’ve said on many occasions that food attachment is also a problem when people become addicted to unhealthy foods, or they eat for emotional reasons, rather than to just relieve the hunger urge. And I maintain that masturbation is far more moral to relieve the sexual urge because it doesn't take any victims. Women who dream of long-term romance are not let down.

So, it's okay to eat and risk food disorders but not okay to have sex and risk sexual dysfunction. Here is another clue for you, life is a risk. Holing up in your cave may seem like the safest way to go, but then you risk an attachment to being safe, don't you?

Moreover, Do you not agree that there are universally harmful foods and substances? Canada just universally banned trans fats in all restaurants because it generally causes heart disease, Should we have kept it in restaurants because there were a small minority of robust individuals that wouldn’t have died from prolonged exposure to it? This seems fairly unreasonable to me.

Some food is healthy, some food isn't. Your argument is that all sex is unhealthy which is nonsense.

sam: Some don't cry, Ryan, some are even happy. The dishonesty appears to be yours in that you want to insist there is only one way to experience life, your way.

Ryan: Yes, but the happy ones are just as deluded. Their happiness is an escape from their pain. They create all sorts of bizarre fantasies such as seeing their lost loved one in an afterlife, and imagining them in a better place. Their happiness is a result of neurotic fantasies to soothe the negative emotional affects of decades of emotional attachment. Sad and Happy people at funerals fall under the same camp for me.

Now your argument seems to be that everything is a delusion. Given that your strategy is avoidance, are you now advocating suicide for everyone to avoid it?

The last funeral I attended was a very alien experience, All the people there seemed very confused. The attached ones were miserable, and the ones were weren’t attached to the individual were faking their sadness to hide the guilt they felt for not mourning in the same manner as the family members. It was very strange psychology. I was the only sane one there.

Well, I prefer the honest emotion of sadness and grief to your condescension, judgment and insufferable superiority complex. You don't seem to notice that every argument you make is revealing of your own out-of-control ego. It's got you by the balls and you don't even know it.

[Tomas]

.

Jeepers, reading this thread for the first time.

Seems all these boys have time for is self-inflicted hand-jobs.

Talk about a case of arrested-development.

Is your hand a surrogate vagina or anal cavity?

Gee, at least donate your seminal fluids to a sperm bank.

When is the wedding date? Hahahah

Genius, indeed!



.

[hsandman]

Tomas-

Is your hand a surrogate vagina or anal cavity?

When is the wedding date? Hahahah

Genius, indeed!

hsandman-

Godess gave man opposable thumbs and imagination for company!
o.O

[Ryan Rudolph]

Sam,

You use causation as an excuse for your lack of responsibility but you want to overlook causation when it comes to passing judgment on the behavior of others. That is hypocrisy. And you need not mention that you are caused to be a hypocrite, your living in denial has already been noted.

It is only when one fully understands how causality controls all their behavior that one becomes fully responsible, the deeper ones understanding of causality, the more mature and responsible one becomes.

So, it's okay to eat and risk food disorders but not okay to have sex and risk sexual dysfunction. Here is another clue for you, life is a risk. Holing up in your cave may seem like the safest way to go, but then you risk an attachment to being safe, don't you?

Life is only a risk if you behave immorally. A truly honest man minimizes risk, and eating healthily food is far less destructive than engaging in frequent sexual experiences with another, you are comparing apples with oranges. The differences of psychological affects should be noted, but you are ignoring them to defend your irrational attachment to Tantra sex. Are you male or female btw? cause if your a female, you will probably never agree to any of this.

Some food is healthy, some food isn't. Your argument is that all sex is unhealthy which is nonsense.

An enlightened person is beyond love and sentiment so to have sex is totally absurd, dangerous and nonsensical

Now your argument seems to be that everything is a delusion. Given that your strategy is avoidance, are you now advocating suicide for everyone to avoid it?

I advocate rationality, and an understanding how opposing dualistic forces tend to cause the other, happiness is the cause of sorrow. Emotional attachment is the cause of misery. It takes a very strong masculine mind to see this absolute truth, and live ones life according to its law.

Well, I prefer the honest emotion of sadness and grief to your condescension, judgment and insufferable superiority complex. You don't seem to notice that every argument you make is revealing of your own out-of-control ego.

It is impossible for sadness and grief to be honest, as they usually always have immoral and dishonest causes - those causes being attachment. This understanding of causality is what makes men truly responsible for their own actions.

[samadhi]

Ryan,

sam: You use causation as an excuse for your lack of responsibility but you want to overlook causation when it comes to passing judgment on the behavior of others. That is hypocrisy. ...

Ryan: It is only when one fully understands how causality controls all their behavior that one becomes fully responsible, the deeper ones understanding of causality, the more mature and responsible one becomes.

Does your maturity include hyprocrisy? Is being a hypocrite being responsible?

sam: So, it's okay to eat and risk food disorders but not okay to have sex and risk sexual dysfunction. Here is another clue for you, life is a risk. Holing up in your cave may seem like the safest way to go, but then you risk an attachment to being safe, don't you?

Ryan: Life is only a risk if you behave immorally. ...

Until you get the dogma out of your thinking, there isn’t much more I can say.

sam: Some food is healthy, some food isn't. Your argument is that all sex is unhealthy which is nonsense.

Ryan: An enlightened person is beyond love and sentiment so to have sex is totally absurd, dangerous and nonsensical

More dogma. Do you or do you not know the meaning of dogma?

sam: Now your argument seems to be that everything is a delusion. Given that your strategy is avoidance, are you now advocating suicide for everyone to avoid it?

Ryan: I advocate rationality, and an understanding how opposing dualistic forces tend to cause the other, happiness is the cause of sorrow. Emotional attachment is the cause of misery. It takes a very strong masculine mind to see this absolute truth, and live ones life according to its law.

Back to causation. Okay, if it is all causation, then sex and celibacy are both caused. Advocating one over the other is to fundamentally misunderstand your own argument.

sam: Well, I prefer the honest emotion of sadness and grief to your condescension, judgment and insufferable superiority complex. You don't seem to notice that every argument you make is revealing of your own out-of-control ego.

Ryan: It is impossible for sadness and grief to be honest, as they usually always have immoral and dishonest causes - those causes being attachment. This understanding of causality is what makes men truly responsible for their own actions.

Let's see, everything is caused but some causes are dishonest and immoral. Is this your argument? I can't wait to hear all about it! lol ...

[Ryan Rudolph]

Sam,

So far you seem quite incorrigible based on your egotistical belief that free will is real, so there isn't much point in pursuing this further, although here are a few final blasts of truth as one last attempt to illustrate how free will is an illusion, and how causation governs all behavior.

1. Do you decide when you are hungry, tired, lusting for sex?
2. Do you decide to be born in a rich or poor country?
3. Is there a "you' that decides to worry, feel depressed, feel anxious?
3. Is there a "you" that decides to fantasize about how to escape pain that also comes involuntarily or based on prior ignorant actions that were also caused?
4. Do you choose your thoughts in general? or are they caused by outside forces?
5. Do you choose your influences or are they caused by your predetermined personality which is also genetically and environmentally caused?

If you examine life very closely, it is evident that free will is an illusion, and a responsible honest individual lives his life perfectly aligned with causation, rather than egotistically fighting agaisnt it as a means to pursue personal enjoyment and gratification.

That is why at the foundation of all enlightened thought, there is a total renouncement of all forms of emotional attachment because it comes from the false belief that free will is real, things exist in themselves, and happiness can be attained without the reverse suffering that must always accompany it.

Basically, when the masses stop believing that the pursuit of happiness will make them happy, then they might actually be satisfied with life in general.

[samadhi]

Ryan,

So far you seem quite incorrigible based on your egotistical belief that free will is real ...

On the contrary, you brought up causation and I argued from your standpoint. And you ignored every single point. And now you call me egotistical for a belief in free will? You are the one promoting celibacy over sex! That is a free will argument!

... so there isn't much point in pursuing this further, although here are a few final blasts of truth as one last attempt to illustrate how free will is an illusion, and how causation governs all behavior.

I asked you about causation. If sex and celibacy are both caused, how can you argue one over the other? Do you know what logic is, Ryan?

1. Do you decide when you are hungry, tired, lusting for sex?
2. Do you decide to be born in a rich or poor country?
3. Is there a "you' that decides to worry, feel depressed, feel anxious?
4. Is there a "you" that decides to fantasize about how to escape pain that also comes involuntarily or based on prior ignorant actions that were also caused?
5. Do you choose your thoughts in general? or are they caused by outside forces?
6. Do you choose your influences or are they caused by your predetermined personality which is also genetically and environmentally caused?

And your point is? We were talking about sex and celibacy. They are both caused. So how can you argue for one over the other?

If you examine life very closely, it is evident that free will is an illusion, and a responsible honest individual lives his life perfectly aligned with causation, rather than egotistically fighting agaisnt it as a means to pursue personal enjoyment and gratification.

More contradiction from the logically-challenged Ryan. If it is all causation, you are not fighting anything, are you? Nor are you aligning with anything. You are simply reacting. Yet you want to value one reaction over another. Causation makes your argument nonsense yet you don't want to see that. I guess you are caused not to see it, huh?

That is why at the foundation of all enlightened thought, there is a total renouncement of all forms of emotional attachment because it comes from the false belief that free will is real, things exist in themselves, and happiness can be attained without the reverse suffering that must always accompany it.

Yet you don't want to renounce your renouncing. That you want to take credit for while dishing contempt on those who don't. Where is the much-touted QRS logic, Ryan? It seems to fail you when it counts the most.

Basically, when the masses stop believing that the pursuit of happiness will make them happy, then they might actually be satisfied with life in general.

They are caused to pursue it yet you want to make an issue of the pursuit. Why is that? When are you going to get your story straight? I guess when you are caused to do so ... lol.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Sam,

you are the one promoting celibacy over sex! That is a free will argument!

Its not really free will. When you understand all the possible negative affects of an action then there is only one right action to take. That right action is not caused by my will, it is merely the only sane option available to me.

Its like watching many fish trying to jump a waterfall, the small ones never make it. They don’t choose to be small, they were caused to be small, and therefore they were caused to fail. The large fish have the strength to make the jump, not because of free will, but because the causal conditions are right. Human beings are subject to the same laws.

I asked you about causation. If sex and celibacy are both caused, how can you argue one over the other? Do you know what logic is, Ryan?

Celibacy is caused in a mind that suffers as a result of sexual attachment, it all part of the endless causes of human behavior. A drunkard and a celibate man are both merely the result of an infinite number of causal factors. None of them really choose to be what they were. If when a drunkard quits drinking, it is usually because family members or doctors scare him into quitting, it is still a caused response. No free will needed at all.

And your point is? We were talking about sex and celibacy. They are both caused. So how can you argue for one over the other?

If you are blindly consumed by the affects of sexual attachment then the suffering that results causes a much more sane and spiritual outlook, which is still not the result of free will, but an understanding of causality. An understanding of causality can be thought of as part of god’s will. When you live according to causal laws, you are in essence aligned with god’s will, and not a personal egotistical will.

More contradiction from the logically-challenged Ryan. If it is all causation, you are not fighting anything, are you? Nor are you aligning with anything. You are simply reacting. Yet you want to value one reaction over another. Causation makes your argument nonsense yet you don't want to see that. I guess you are caused not to see it, huh?

Reaction is the result of attached emotional factors, whereas a response is the result of abiding in emptiness, which can only happen when the mind fully understands how free will is an illusion.

You are the one with distorted logic. Because all behavior is the result of causation, it means that there is no personal will choosing to make decisions, the entire cosmos is one undivided movement of causality. We live our entire lives not realizing that everything we do and think is ultimately controlled. There isn’t an original thought, experience or idea in your brain. It has all been done, all been thought, and all surfaced in humanities consciousness before.

They are caused to pursue it yet you want to make an issue of the pursuit. Why is that? When are you going to get your story straight? I guess when you are caused to do so ... lol.

I am caused to point out ignorance, I don’t choose what to be interested in. It comes to down to how my personality is capable of understanding some things, while it cannot understand other things. There is no “I” deciding on what to be interested in. My entire personality has been constructed by casual forces that are out of my control.

[samadhi]

Ryan,

sam: you are the one promoting celibacy over sex! That is a free will argument!

Ryan: Its not really free will. When you understand all the possible negative affects of an action then there is only one right action to take. That right action is not caused by my will, it is merely the only sane option available to me.

Look, it is a free will argument to say there is only one right action to take. You are not taking any action, the action is taking you! You cannot say causation is operating and then tell people they can choose to be celibate. Nobody is choosing anything according to you. Your preference for celibacy isn't your choice so how could it even be said to be a preference? It is an appearance that you identify with as "my preference."

Its like watching many fish trying to jump a waterfall, the small ones never make it. They don’t choose to be small, they were caused to be small, and therefore they were caused to fail. The large fish have the strength to make the jump, not because of free will, but because the causal conditions are right. Human beings are subject to the same laws.

This is my point, not yours! If it is all causation, there is no success or failure based on choice because there isn't any choice. What happens, happens. Your preferences don't matter, your ideas don't matter, your actions and results don't matter! So why the preaching? Yeah, I know, you're caused to. Caused to be a hypocrite. How does it feel to be caused to be a fool? I know, you're caused to like it!

sam: I asked you about causation. If sex and celibacy are both caused, how can you argue one over the other? Do you know what logic is, Ryan?

Ryan: Celibacy is caused in a mind that suffers as a result of sexual attachment, it all part of the endless causes of human behavior. A drunkard and a celibate man are both merely the result of an infinite number of causal factors. None of them really choose to be what they were. If when a drunkard quits drinking, it is usually because family members or doctors scare him into quitting, it is still a caused response. No free will needed at all.

Again, you seem to have switched sides. So you agree with me now that no one is to blame for having sex? That from your standpoint, being celibate is no better than being sexual because you didn't choose it, it chose you. Do you get it yet?

sam: And your point is? We were talking about sex and celibacy. They are both caused. So how can you argue for one over the other?

Ryan: If you are blindly consumed by the affects of sexual attachment then the suffering that results causes a much more sane and spiritual outlook, which is still not the result of free will, but an understanding of causality. An understanding of causality can be thought of as part of god’s will. When you live according to causal laws, you are in essence aligned with god’s will, and not a personal egotistical will.

You don't even understand your own argument, do you? No matter what happens, you are ALREADY aligned with god's will. After all, can anyone NOT live according to causal law? Then there is no way to be unaligned, is there? Sex and celibacy are both god's will according to you. Deal with it.

sam: More contradiction from the logically-challenged Ryan. If it is all causation, you are not fighting anything, are you? Nor are you aligning with anything. You are simply reacting. Yet you want to value one reaction over another. Causation makes your argument nonsense yet you don't want to see that. I guess you are caused not to see it, huh?

Ryan: Reaction is the result of attached emotional factors, whereas a response is the result of abiding in emptiness, which can only happen when the mind fully understands how free will is an illusion.

You didn't answer the question, Ryan. You are not fighting or aligning with anything if you say it is all caused. Sex and celibacy cannot be distinguished as meaningful choices in your world view, yet that is what you are trying to do. Give it up.

You are the one with distorted logic. Because all behavior is the result of causation, it means that there is no personal will choosing to make decisions, the entire cosmos is one undivided movement of causality. We live our entire lives not realizing that everything we do and think is ultimately controlled. There isn’t an original thought, experience or idea in your brain. It has all been done, all been thought, and all surfaced in humanities consciousness before.

So you agree with me that sex and celibacy are identical under causation? You agree that if you are caused to have sex, you cannot be blamed and if you are caused to be celibate, you cannot be praised. One cannot be better than the other in your world view. C'mon Ryan, logic is logic ... lol

sam: They are caused to pursue it yet you want to make an issue of the pursuit. Why is that? When are you going to get your story straight? I guess when you are caused to do so ... lol.

Ryan: I am caused to point out ignorance, I don’t choose what to be interested in. It comes to down to how my personality is capable of understanding some things, while it cannot understand other things. There is no “I” deciding on what to be interested in. My entire personality has been constructed by casual forces that are out of my control.

Why don't you just answer the question and stop evading the obvious. If you say it is all causation, you cannot blame anyone for pursuing happiness or having sex. Unless of course you are caused to be a hypocrite which seems to be the case with you.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Sam,

You are not fighting or aligning with anything if you say it is all caused. Sex and celibacy cannot be distinguished as meaningful choices in your world view, yet that is what you are trying to do. Give it up.

Understanding is caused by the quality of intelligence, which you have no control over. For instance: you have no control over how thick you are to understand how there is no free will.

So you agree with me that sex and celibacy are identical under causation? You agree that if you are caused to have sex, you cannot be blamed and if you are caused to be celibate, you cannot be praised. One cannot be better than the other in your world view. C'mon Ryan, logic is logic ... lol

There are not identical because being attached to sex with a partner leads to suffering, whereas the other leads to liberation. Some people are so afraid to be alone that they would rather suffer from the attachment then suffer from loneliness. Their behavior and decisions are always caused by emotions they are not even conscious of. Emotions control behavior, not free will. People do not choose to think what they think, therefore free will is an illusion. That is pretty simple logic…If you cannot understand that, then there is no hope for you.

Why don't you just answer the question and stop evading the obvious. If you say it is all causation, you cannot blame anyone for pursuing happiness or having sex. Unless of course you are caused to be a hypocrite which seems to be the case with you.

I don’t blame anyone because people don’t choose their ignorance, but some are strong enough to understand how they are deluded, but their intelligence is not of their own free will, it is caused by genetic and environment.

I’m not in contradiction because even though free will is an illusion, an ignorant person can still be caused into wisdom, and suffer against their will as a means to become wise.

Moreover, the pursuit of happiness is the result of humans being born with animal brains and base emotions, but there are a minority of individuals who are caused to have the goods to transcend many of these inferior qualities. Again, no free will is needed.

[samadhi]

Ryan,

First, I noticed you are dropping parts of my reply, specifically where I am asking you to respond. Do you admit that it is a free will argument to say there is only one right action to take? Are you being a hypocrite by blaming others for their caused actions? How can anyone not live according to causal law? If everyone is living according to causal law, how can anyone not be doing god's will. So having sex must be god's will, according to you and your causal law. Are you going to admit this or are you caused to be a coward and ignore me?

sam: You are not fighting or aligning with anything if you say it is all caused. Sex and celibacy cannot be distinguished as meaningful choices in your world view, yet that is what you are trying to do. Give it up.

Ryan: Understanding is caused by the quality of intelligence, which you have no control over. For instance: you have no control over how thick you are to understand how there is no free will.

You are making a free will argument, Ryan, when you said there is only one right action to take. Do you need me to rub your face in your own quote? Stop evading the question.

sam: So you agree with me that sex and celibacy are identical under causation? You agree that if you are caused to have sex, you cannot be blamed and if you are caused to be celibate, you cannot be praised. One cannot be better than the other in your world view. C'mon Ryan, logic is logic ... lol

Ryan: There are not identical because being attached to sex with a partner leads to suffering, whereas the other leads to liberation.

Both are caused by your argument. So how can one by blameworthy and the other praiseworthy? It is all happening in alignment with causal law, isn't it? Isn't that god's will, according to you?

Some people are so afraid to be alone that they would rather suffer from the attachment then suffer from loneliness.

That is a free will argument Ryan. How can you rather suffer if you are caused to suffer? Do you understand logic, Ryan?

Their behavior and decisions are always caused by emotions they are not even conscious of. Emotions control behavior, not free will. People do not choose to think what they think, therefore free will is an illusion. That is pretty simple logic…If you cannot understand that, then there is no hope for you.

You keep making the same point about free will is an illusion. I have stipulated to that already so we can examine your own assumptions. You haven't even understood that yet, have you? It is all causation according to you yet you have just said people would rather suffer. So it is you talking about free will, isn't it?

sam: Why don't you just answer the question and stop evading the obvious. If you say it is all causation, you cannot blame anyone for pursuing happiness or having sex. Unless of course you are caused to be a hypocrite which seems to be the case with you.

Ryan: I don’t blame anyone because people don’t choose their ignorance, but some are strong enough to understand how they are deluded, but their intelligence is not of their own free will, it is caused by genetic and environment.

So you admit that no one is to blame. It took you long enough.

I’m not in contradiction because even though free will is an illusion, an ignorant person can still be caused into wisdom, and suffer against their will as a means to become wise.

So someone is caused to be wise. Others are caused to be stupid. Look at you, you can't even understand YOUR OWN ARGUMENT.

Moreover, the pursuit of happiness is the result of humans being born with animal brains and base emotions, but there are a minority of individuals who are caused to have the goods to transcend many of these inferior qualities. Again, no free will is needed.

If it is all caused, you don't need to ask people to stop doing what they're doing. They will do what they are caused to do. Do you understand that yet, Ryan? Probably not. For some reason God is causing you to be stupid. Oh well, that's his will.

[brad walker]

"It's my fate to steal," pleaded the man who had been caught red-handed by Diogenes.

"Then it is also your fate to be beaten," said Diogenes, hitting him across the head with his staff.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Sam,

If it is all caused, you don't need to ask people to stop doing what they're doing. They will do what they are caused to do. Do you understand that yet, Ryan? Probably not. For some reason God is causing you to be stupid. Oh well, that's his will.

No, If I am caused to be wise, then I can be in a position to cause others to also be wise if they have the personality to go the distance. However, most people don't, so I only need to point the way to a small minority of people – less than 10% of the population. There is only a very small number that are receptive to this material. Moreover, Free will implies an ego that is free to do what it wants, but this is not the case, life is constant limitation. Intelligence is determined by the degree to which one understands his own limitations, which also means that intelligence is determined by the degree to which one understands that free will is an illusion, that he is NOT free to act freely without serious causal/psychologically consequences.

Brad walker,

"It's my fate to steal," pleaded the man who had been caught red-handed by Diogenes.

"Then it is also your fate to be beaten," said Diogenes, hitting him across the head with his staff.

In my opinion, this isn’t very wise of Diogenes, and I question whether he really said this or if this material was created falsely as the sarcastic legend of Diogenes. If Diogenes was perfectly enlightened, and a desperate hungry man stole his food, and ran off, then he would simply let him run, realizing that he is acting irrationally because of his irrational casual predicament. A wise man wouldn’t act in such a circumstance.

An enlightened man can foresee another’s behavior in advance because indicators such as body language, tone of voice and physical movements can be observed. Humans fall into the same psychological traps, and each trap has a unique causal signature that can be used to predict behavior. In such a situation, an enlightened individual would closely observe his behavior in the same way a scientist studies a rat in a cage, it is not a time for egotistical self-protection, but a time for psychological observation.

[samadhi]

Ryan,

sam: If it is all caused, you don't need to ask people to stop doing what they're doing. They will do what they are caused to do.

Ryan: No, If I am caused to be wise, then I can be in a position to cause others to also be wise if they have the personality to go the distance.

Another free will argument, ho hum.

Well, it's clear to me that:

1) You don't understand your own argument
2) You don't argue your own argument
3) You actually believe, albeit unconsciously, the opposite of your argument as indicated by the clues in your posts
4) You don't know how to reason
5) You won't answer direct questions
6) You have no intention of considering feedback
7) This is a waste of time

So follow your causal laws Ryan. That doesn't take a brain, does it?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Sam,

I'm amazed by how much weaseling you have gone through to protect your irrational attachment to Tantra sex.

[samadhi]

Ryan,

Do you want to have a formal debate? Maybe you would like to know what others think of your arguments. No? I thought not ... lol.

[divine focus]

Some people are so afraid to be alone that they would rather suffer from the attachment then suffer from loneliness. Their behavior and decisions are always caused by emotions they are not even conscious of. Emotions control behavior, not free will. People do not choose to think what they think, therefore free will is an illusion.

Moreover, Free will implies an ego that is free to do what it wants, but this is not the case, life is constant limitation.

Free will based mentally is an illusion, but you are not what you are thinking. The limitation is ego, which believes in a time framework and physical laws. Freedom emanates from beyond the ego, as vision permits the actualizing of probabilities that may seem impossible otherwise. It is possible to choose what you think; directing your attention provides a means of shaking loose from mental cruise control. Your attention determines what your mind is thinking about, although it may be hard to differentiate the two.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Df,

It is possible to choose what you think; directing your attention provides a means of shaking loose from mental cruise control. Your attention determines what your mind is thinking about, although it may be hard to differentiate the two.

The individual’s ‘decision’ to attend one thing over another is always the result of predetermined conditions such as the psychological nature of their character, and their direct environment, which acts as an influence. These two causal forces acting on one another create the illusion that there is a decider who is deciding independently, but it is a total fallacy to think this way. In actuality, there is only an undivided continuum of causality, and one must learn to align ones behavior with it, instead of against it.

For seasoned philosophers who have spent a significant time in deep thought, it is actually common knowledge among these men that free will is an illusion, as they have years in contemplation, which was directed back agaisnt their experience.

Sam,

Do you want to have a formal debate? Maybe you would like to know what others think of your arguments. No? I thought not ... lol.

We just had a debate, and people are free to criticize both positions for themselves.

[samadhi]

Do you want to have a formal debate? Maybe you would like to know what others think of your arguments. No? I thought not ... lol.

We just had a debate, and people are free to criticize both positions for themselves.

Actually we had a discussion in which you evaded every question I asked and then accused me of weaseling. That's dishonesty. You know, I don't think David would let you debate in the Crucible, you would bring too much shame and ignominy on the forum and the ideas he holds dear.

[Dan Rowden]

Only in the eyes of people who think of Ryan as other than his own man with his own perspective - i.e. stupid people.

[David Quinn]

You know, I don't think David would let you debate in the Crucible, you would bring too much shame and ignominy on the forum and the ideas he holds dear.

The Crucible is open to anyone who wants to participate. My only stipulation would be that a person only engage in one debate at a time.

-

[David Quinn]

Ryan,

sam: If it is all caused, you don't need to ask people to stop doing what they're doing. They will do what they are caused to do.

Ryan: No, If I am caused to be wise, then I can be in a position to cause others to also be wise if they have the personality to go the distance.

Another free will argument, ho hum.

Here is something I wrote in Wisdom, which follows along similar lines to what Ryan was saying:

The question is sometimes put to me if I believe that everything is caused, then why do I teach others about the path to enlightenment? Why all this insistence upon the elimination of ignorance, and the promotion of reason and truth? If people are fated to remain ignorant, then what can anyone do about it? Isn’t it foolish to continually preach and implore other people to be other than they are determined to be?

This kind of thinking is limited because it pretends that people lack influence over the development of others. It ignores the fact that mental development is determined by all sorts of factors - evolution, genetics, culture, parents, friends, teachers, books, and so on. Philosophers and spiritual teachers can also be a factor in the mix. If a person is inspired by a philosopher to pursue the path to enlightenment, then it means that he has been determined by his causes to do so. And if one day he manages to become enlightened, then the philosopher would count as one of the causes of his breakthrough.

There is a school of thought which opines that if it was not for the existence of past geniuses - such as Jesus, Socrates, Diogenes, Buddha, Lao Tzu, etc - then the human race would have long ago degenerated into anarchy and barbarism. I think there is a lot of truth to this view. Although they lived thousands of years ago, these geniuses are still having a substantial influence upon the world today. They have become part of the factors that have determined your own mental development, and mine. Ethically, they are still propping the world up.

In the end, genetic material is not the sole determining factor of a person’s nature. Just as important are the experiences and mentors one has as a child, and as an adult. While genetics does predispose one towards certain paths in life and not others, it is one’s experiences as an individual which determine the path that one eventually adopts and how far along it one goes.

In my own case, even though I am genetically predisposed towards thinking logically and valuing truth, I may not have travelled as far as I have if it was not for the past heroic efforts of thinkers like Socrates, Huang Po, Jesus, Chuang Tzu and Kierkegaard. They helped spur me along a path that, genetically speaking, used to only exist as a potential option. It is because of this that I am motivated to teach others about the path to enlightenment. I can become that missing ingredient which can spark what is merely a latent disposition for wisdom inside others into action.

-