Scott,
From that organ harvesting thread.
Scott: To the enlightened, the mud puddle and unenlightened people don't exist.
Dan: I don't know where you get this sort of idea but can you take it back and ask for a refund?
Frankly, I couldn’t stop laughing for an hour actually. Dan does really come up with some very brilliant jests, full of wise advices. :D
However, I started with this because this alone tells me that I can safely ignore you then, but I am still willing to go along since I see that some of your recent posts kind of clarify your thinking, not that I agree to them though.
Sap: Well then, could you please leave the word “enlightenment†or its variations out of our conversations?
Sct: Look at the title of this topic. If you wanted to have a conversation with me about something else entirely, then that's fine. There would be no need to bring the word "enlightenment" into that conversation.
But are you asking me to not use the word enlightenment with you when the discussion involves enlightenment? If that's the case, then I have to say I'm sorry but I won't do that dance for you, my friend.
Then why are you doing just that with the rest of the world, my friend? According to your core understandings, even your protest against enlightenment (as defined by others or yourself), IS essentially delusional, isn’t it?
I have no problem with dropping it if it's that problematic for you to deal with. It's just that enlightenment is exactly what the discussion has been about. Is there a different and better word for enlightenment, to describe a person with no delusion?
I have no real problem either, but your definition of ‘a person with no delusion’ emerges out of and from delusion itself, because according to your understandings absolutely all is delusion, including an UNDERSTANDING that it is indeed a delusion.
I don’t know about naming it differently, I'm not good at that, but you could make up a new word to describe that since it does not conform to the conventionally accepted meaning of enlightenment, and the dictionary is open to being updated on a regular basis. You could always call it a realized awareness or the likes.
If, by inference, a person finds that the world they know is an appearance of reality and not reality itself, then despite living and believing in the world - they can think that it's illusory or a mirage.
Why isn’t the thought that ‘its illusory or a mirage’ not reality?
That doesn't mean it's how they experience it. It's just a thought they have in the midst of many deluded thoughts...but it may be an undeluded one.
Humbug! That is, according to your own claims that utterly every thing or though is utterly deluded-ness.
Sap: The NOW I am talking about encompasses our conceptualization of yesterday today and tomorrow, past present and future. It is from the point of view of reality/existence, which one can comprehend through the same conceptualization, and understand that there is no space or time referential point TO totality/reality/existence. It is ALL actually NOW and that’s it, as far as Totality/Reality/Existence is concerned. That’s all…
Sct: You might need to think about that some more. Or at least clarify your thoughts on it. If anything, learn how to communicate that point.
I agree.
Sap: It might be clearer after reading this post. If not, I will then try and connect. It is quite late for me.
Sct: Don't stay up for a message board. Sleep is much more important, not only for your well being but also your ability to think clearly.
Thanks for the advice, but you need not worry about someone that does not exist. BTW, isn’t “thinking†an act of delusion itself?
Scott to Trevor:
Saying "I did this" or "I did that" is false. So if you have that feeling, or that thought, in any way...that's an indicator that you believe in an inherent self.
So you believe in an inherent self. Why didn’t you say so earlier?
Imagine what it would be like to not have your point of view as "me". If you could exist as a human body but have absolutely no self conception. That's what it would be like to overcome the delusion of the inherent self.
Have you achieved that? Do live by that?
It's close to impossible for you to decide consciously "I want to change who I am at my core" and actually do it. Your core, who you truly are, is what's determining what you're deciding consciously.
I don't know, kind of hard to explain. Does it make more sense now?
May be it is hard to explain because as you already mentioned that actually there is no other “point of view†than the one you already have, but since it fancies one to imagine that the “true core†is something else other than what you already are, hence the thought to change the core in the first place. Is it not possible that the core is trying to change its core?
Scott to Leyla,
When you look at an orange and percieve it to be that color, is it really that color? Do colors really exist, or is something causing them to appear?
This gives me a pretty good idea on what your entire philosophy is based on.
There is nothing that is literally causing anything to appear. It is all absolutely relative. Things are caused interdependently, not independently, disconnected from that which is an appearance, one to another, according to its own relative wave-length. “You†is as true as the color “Orangeâ€, referentially, and referential is existence, otherwise….
That's right. Have you ever seen the world through another beings POV? Me either. How could I possibly compare my POV to another POV when I know of nothing but my own?
All I know, by inference, is that mine is flawed.
Hence, the knowledge that it is flawed, could be flawed. No?
Pretty much. I personally consider most things people say to be bullshit, but people can have words of wisdom.
Hahahahahaa.. :D Such as yourself, right? Well, that does it for me at least; I concede, you do not exist.
Xerosaburu: would a truly enlightened person ________?
Concerned, yes, bothered otherwise, no.
My apologies to Trevor and Leyla for responding to some of Scotts posts address to you folks, but I couldn’t help. :)