Sapius wrote:.... simply means that one is able to distinguish good arguments form bad ones as soon as he has memory, not that he is simply able to distinguish because of it.Kevin wrote:As soon as a person has memory they become able to distinguish good arguments from bad ones.
A person cannot distinguish anything at all without memory. For example, if you are observing, say, a tree, you have to able to remember what is not the tree in order to be able to contrast the tree with something and so give the tree existence.
When you analyse it, you find that all cases of irrationality come down to a lack of memory - which is sometimes a willful lack of memory. For example, the Monty Python sketch where they are having an argument:I was simply pointing out that memory does not equal rationality, which your previous statement suggests.
. . .
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.
Pause
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
A: Thank you.
short pause
M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.
People can't currently be fully enlightened when they are born, which is why chlidren have to grow-up before they become enlightened. One would expect there to be disagreements between the enlightened adults and the younger children since the children would sometimes lack the mental ability to follow the arguments.So, do you see a possible world full of adults? We shall talk about all of them being enlightened later.If the whole world were full of adults who were fully enlightened Buddhas, I don't think the world would be a boring place.
Since the mind of a Buddha is less concerned with selfish matters, like ambition, pride, paying off expensive houses, seeking the approval of others, pleasing the opposite sex, etc, their minds are much freer to seek the truth. I think they would be really good at developing new forms of space travel, or new forms of communication, for example, so they can spread their wisdom to those less fortunate around the Universe.It would be teeming with knowledge and invention.
Inventing what? What could a fully enlightened Buddha possibly invent that a non-Buddha team of dedicated inventors could not?
I'm not very well read, so could you please mention who all you consider are fully enlightened Buddha’s, and what all have they invented? Does any one hold a Patent?
I don't know if there have ever been any perfectly enlightened people. But some of the most enlghtened would include people like the Buddha, Hakuin, Nagarjuna, perhaps Jesus. Their most notable invention is wisdom itself, and since there is so little wisdom in the world they have had to concentrate on that, rather than turn their hand to scientific pursuits.
In any case it's impossible for enlightened people to become bored.
And why is that? Are they not human any more? Do they physically or mentally stop experiencing? Does a bad weather or hungry mosquito not bother them?
Boredom is a feeling of emotional dissatisfaction with reality as it is, and is a feeling based on a deluded view of the world. Since the perfectly enlightened person doesn't have any such deluded views, they do not feel dissatisfied with reality as it is. They do not feel an emotional feeling of lacking or void. They don't feel that a part of them is missing, and never feel depressed.
They stop experiencing moods that are based on emotions and false ideas about reality. They don't expect from reality what it cannot provide. The enlightened person experiences a single continuous state of mind only in the sense he is like a perfectly clear mirror. But reflected in that mirror is an infinitude of clear things. By contrast, the ordinary person is like a dirty or broken mirror, which reflects dullness, distortion, and confusion.Do they stop experiencing moods? I would say that being in a single continuous state of mind is like being unconscious. Does being enlightened mean unconsciousness?!
Like voluntary euthenasia?Philosophaster wrote:What about ethical arguments?
Some ethical arguments may be borderline, in which case different enlightened people might lean in different directions depending on their past experience and intuitive precognition of consequences.