Never will you be wise or enlightened

[average]

free-will and determinism are imaginary

[ataxas]

On reading David Quinn's website quite thoroughly, and especially, carefully perusing his "formal" debate with Robert Larkin, I have a question that was never properly answered, and I felt that the title of this thread leant itself naturally to the topic of the question.

Let us say that the majority of the human race is in state A, and a few individuals are in state B. (I am absolutely sure that nearly any-body on this forum knows precisely the implications of my "toy" scenario.) Let us call those in state A "Aians", and those in state B, "Bians".

Those in state A have a "mind" (however you like to define it, Cartesian or not) coloured by the assumptions associated with state A, whatever those may be. Those in state B are likewise coloured by the assumptions associated with B.

Now, these "assumptions" may be restrictive, or not; I would like to say that a lack of an assumption p that is associated with one state is also an assumption, i.e. notp.

State A has a list of assumptions associated with that state. Not all Aians have all assumptions associated with state A; being in state A is only defined as having at least one assumption associated with state A.

Being in state B is defined as the rejection of all positive assumptions associated with state A; that is to say, not only must a Bian know all the positive assumptions made by every Aian, he must reject all of them; his mind must be coloured by a plethora of notp negative assumptions. That is to say, "It is not the case that matter exists," which is a bare denial of a prime Aian assumption, namely "Matter exists."

Thus, that there are Bians at all seems highly unlikely, as a Bian must be, in effect, a soothsayer, predicting all future Aian assumptions, so that he may deny them, and a perfect historian, remembering all Aian assumptions that are past. He must also be a mindreader, able to be aware of all privately held Aian assumptions that Aians do not share with him. This is my first qualm with enlightenment, as QRS defines it.

My second worry is a question of comparison. Let us assume that the transition from an Aian into a Bian is instantaneous. We must assume such a thing if we do not allow for transitory states such as C or D. It is possible to claim that transitory states between A and B are actually just levels of A and B; this is all well and good, except that one has to decide when a person ceases to be an Aian and begins to be a Bian. The transition must happen, or it will never be made.

How does the transition happen? From Aian to Bian cannot be a step-by-step process; one cannot take Aian propositions and deny them, one by one. It is necessary that the to-be-Bian sees and denies, all at once, every Aian proposition that has been made and ever will be made. There is no time for reflection, here. This process cannot be conscious; conscious thought takes at least some time, and we have no time.

If the newly made Bian is not conscious of this change, how is he to be made conscious? Assumptions are the boundaries of thought; it is precisely for this reason that Aians seek to become "unbounded" Bians. The new Bian was not conscious of the boundaries of his thought when an Aian. It is impossible for him to imagine a world from his old Aian point of view (remember the old adage "you can't think yourself stupider").

If it is impossible for a Bian to see from an Aian point of view, how can the Bian declare himself changed at all? The boundaries of his thought were outside his thought; they are outside them still. The Bian is bound; he is bound by denial of all Aian assumptions. It seems characteristic of becoming a Bian to not know that one has become a Bian. True enlightenment would require being able to take any point of view, the wrong and the right; however, p and notp cannot both be true simultaneously (if one believes in objective truth). Enlightenment requires relative truth, but QRS enlightenment requires that the enlightened be objectively so. This is the second problem I have with QRS enlightenment.

[maestro]

How does the transition happen?

Up to you :)

[ataxas]

QRS maintains that there is one way to be enlightened, so it is not, in fact, up to me.

[ataxas]

True enlightenment would require being able to take any point of view, the wrong and the right; however, p and notp cannot both be true simultaneously (if one believes in objective truth). Enlightenment requires relative truth, but QRS enlightenment requires that the enlightened be objectively so. This is the second problem I have with QRS enlightenment.

The ultimate state of enlightenment is only found when one does away with all dualisms.

I found a quote of David's that serves to illustrate my qualm. This is precisely what worries me about QRS enlightenment.

1. David is enlightened.
2. David says that "The ultimate state of enlightenment is only found when one does away with all dualisms."
3. David, because he is enlightened, is correct.
4. Unenlightenment is not enlightenment.
5. The co-existence of unenlightenment and enlightenment creates a dualism.
6. When one is enlightened, one sees that there is no "enlightenment" vs. "unenlightenment".
7. Therefore, it is correct to think that there is no "unenlightenment" vs. "enlightenment".
8. Therefore, nothing is "enlightened" or "unenlightened".
9. Therefore David is not enlightened.

This argument is based on the following rules of inference:
1. David is enlightened.
2. To be enlightened is to be unfailingly correct.

[maestro]

To be enlightened is to be unfailingly correct.

Wrong consider the Buddha, he supposedly accepted the existence rebirth, gods and demons, was he unfailingly correct?

When one is enlightened, one sees that there is no "enlightenment" vs. "unenlightenment".

.
Yep in the sense that it is all a part of the causal process, and there is nothing to get hung up about the enlightened status, it is as much a play of elements.

BTW are you agianst taxes or texas, or perhaps both.

[ataxas]

To be enlightened is to be unfailingly correct.

Wrong consider the Buddha, he supposedly accepted the existence rebirth, gods and demons, was he unfailingly correct?

David Quinn claims to be unfailingly correct because he is enlightened.

[maestro]

Why must you believe what somebody claims, enlightened status has been claimed by many over the ages often for self aggrandization . The point is to to try to become enlightened yourself. Keep in mind that enlightenment may be an elaborate hoax as Mr Average claims, and attaining it could potentially take years and devastate your psyche (if enlightenment is not attained). Only someone thoroughly dissatisfied with the world can take this quest as the last possible chance.

[ataxas]

Why must you believe what somebody claims

I have presented an argument which, if unsatisfiable and applicable, as I believe it to be, disproves his claim of enlightenment.

I can only assume that you think I am presenting the argument because I believe David's claims. This is incorrect.

[maestro]

Very Nice, I suggest that you open a new thread and point to him that you have discovered a logical contradiction in his reasoning. He will surely tell you why it is not a contradiction, or maybe abandon significant parts of his edifice (if the contradiction is true).

[ataxas]

I shall do so, on your recommendation.

[ataxas]

I have created a new thread; I am of the opinion that it is more appropriate for me to re-direct responses to my queries there, and leave this thread to be used as it was originally intended.

[Shahrazad]

I forgot what was the original intention of this thread, or even what it was about.

[HYPNOSIS]

The context in this thread above are too materialistic. Ever heard of planet starbucks? Exploration Age stuff.

The fact is notated A=A.

You cannot argue with the greater sense/reality.

-Names have been changed to protect the innocent

)=

[maestro]

I forgot what was the original intention of this thread, or even what it was about.

The thread was about average posturing as a Zen master.

[average]

The only posturing I like to do is in the nude.

[DFBatosee]

merely because i find this all so drow, i am going to say this. the fact that you are all arguing the fact that no single person has "enlightenment" is making it seem as though YOU yourself has the "enlightenment" and are able to say who is and is not "enlightened" ? is that not so? i am nothing of the sort i am just saying that to me you are acting as if you know it all and you can say who is or is not what they say they are?

[average]

merely because i find this all so drow, i am going to say this. the fact that you are all arguing the fact that no single person has "enlightenment" is making it seem as though YOU yourself has the "enlightenment" and are able to say who is and is not "enlightened" ? is that not so? i am nothing of the sort i am just saying that to me you are acting as if you know it all and you can say who is or is not what they say they are?

you dont have to be fat to tell if someone is fat

[ataxas]

merely because i find this all so drow, i am going to say this. the fact that you are all arguing the fact that no single person has "enlightenment" is making it seem as though YOU yourself has the "enlightenment" and are able to say who is and is not "enlightened" ? is that not so? i am nothing of the sort i am just saying that to me you are acting as if you know it all and you can say who is or is not what they say they are?

In my case, seeing a logical flaw in a person's argument does not require enlightenment, only the propensity for logic. It could be argued that my logic is unsound, and then believing to see a logical flaw would be my folly, and I might only imagine that I have a propensity for logical thought; at any rate, my enlightenment is an irrelevant issue.

[xerox]

...

[average]

enlightenment doesn't change anything, specially how you feel.

that monk answered correctly

[David Quinn]

enlightenment doesn't change anything, specially how you feel.

that monk answered correctly

The monk was deluding himself, clearly unable to face the reality that misery is always a product of ignorance. His attainment was a false one.

-

[Diebert van Rhijn]

"And how do you feel?"

"As miserable as ever," said the monk.

Notice the monk doesn't say he was feeling miserable in terms of some current moodiness or state. The audience intended were people who might understand the deeper idea of suffering in terms of general upset.

This was obviously the same as Buddha himself taught: that life is suffering. To be born means to suffer, to die means to suffer. So the question asked (the feeling) implied the answer (suffering).

The monk's understanding appears correct in the context of the tradition surrounding it.

[Steven Coyle]

His understanding was advanced, but had not yet reached a state of perfection.

A lesson to know enlightenment within delusion.

[mikiel]

In the context of the story of the newly awakened monk:
"And how do you feel?"

"As miserable as ever," said the monk."

"I, who?" is always the ultimate question. The questioner lives in the delusion of "I", still thinking he *is* somebody, the ol' "separate self." So he automatically projects this onto the monk, as all "seekers" do with everyone else.
'No change in feelings' is a good answer, whether he had been blissful or miserable before enlightenment.
There is still all manner of bliss, joy, happiness, suffering, misery... and whatever 'inconveniences.' The differences is there is no longer a *sufferer*... a "self" to whom all of the above is happening. It's all "just happening." The Universal Witness in all just compassionately watches the movie.
mikiel