Enlightenment as paradigm shift

[Steven]

Of course we can. Words are our playthings and we can do with them whatever we like.

Again, the point is that when a group of deluded people appropriate a word for their own purposes, it isn't sufficient reason for me to stop using it.

Imagine if Creation Scientists were to take over the world and completely change the way science is done, causing it to degenerate into the shonky brand of pseudo-science so loved by them. The more intelligent members of society would then have a choice. Do they try to rescue the word "science" from these imbeciles and restore it to its original meaning? Or should they come up with a new word to describe the real practice of science. The answer would probably depend on what they saw as the better strategy.

The same principle applies with the word "God" - and indeed to other words like "genius", "truth", "reality", etc. I happen to think it is more effective (for my own cause of promoting wisdom) to rescue these words, than it is to create new ones.

The term God is no longer useful in philosophy, precisely because of what it means.

Your intention is clearly to convey "wisdom" to yourself and to those that already think like you, refuting the premise of conveying anything other than a sense of self gratification.

[David Quinn]

As I say, nearly every philosophic word in the dictionary is currently and historically very strongly linked to religion, ignorance, faith, superstition and irrationality. Do you expect me to create a whole new language?

I expect you to choose these words carefully with a close eye on the prevailing contemporary lexicon and the target audience, and if necessary create new words. The word God has been almost entirely associated with ignorance for millenia. I think it's currently a lost cause to expect it to accurately convey the meaning you often ascribe to it. To make matters worse you even sometimes speak of God using terms of personification and gender, "He" and "His". I find that just outright idiotic and misleading in the extreme.

They are poetic expressions. They point to the reality that Nature is our parent. Nature created us, sustains us, provides us with everything that we experience.

We are all chips off the old block. Nature's true face is our true face. Her soul is our soul. It is in Her that a spiritual person takes refuge, away from all the lies and deceit in this world.

It is this kind of intimacy between ourselves and Nature which lends itself to poetic expression. It points to the possibilities of our having a personal relationship with Nature.

By contrast, it is the cold, soulless language of the modern materialistic atheist which is often misleading. For it reduces the timeless, living qualities of Nature to lifeless matter.

While Reality is not religious in nature, neither is it materialistic. Atheism is just as deluded as theism is.

It is simply not true that nearly every other philosophic word is linked to ignorance to the same degree as "God", you're just being oppositional and defensive. Many common notions of philosophic words may not bear a perfect resemblance to your conception of them but they come a darn sight closer than "God" and without all the terribly negative implications that that word conjures.

I disagree with that. Most of the common philosophic notions are used just as irrationally these days as "God" is.

Take the word "logic", for example. There are all sorts of superstitions and irrational nonsense surrounding this word nowadays, propagated even by the educated. They twist and distort its meaning so much that it becomes unrecognizable. I have to spend just as much time rescuing the word "logic" as I do the word "God".

"Reality", "all", "totality", "existence" these are all far more suitable.

They are more suitable in some circumstances, but not necessarily in others. It's best not to get too attached to any of these labels.

This is 2008, science has blossomed, atheistic worldviews and culture are commonplace, the word "God" is shackled to religion and ignorance and superstition, and all of this should be taken into account if communication is to be clear. It's too late to rescue God, and I'm not sure he was ever worth saving.

Atheistic world-views might be commonplace in Australia, but they are very much in a minority in most parts of the world. Most people either still believe in God, or are unsure about His existence. So the word is still very much alive in most people's minds.

Simply setting up an atheist standpoint and rejecting the concept of God altogether is usually counter-productive. Those who believe in God will simply dismiss you as an ignorant heathen and block out whatever you have to say. It is better to crawl into their minds and make use of their attachment to God, steering their conception of God towards the ALL.

-

[Steven]

Some say people never heal the wound left in the psyche by losing the absolute protector and comforter of the mother as they grow up.

Some say the fear of death is so great that the only people that live are those that deny death, that prove to themselves they will live forever no matter what, indeed that that is the very point of life itself.

Some say that people just cannot face the awsome void of existence away from the distraction of chatter and laughter and grass and clouds, that it either turns you to God or turns you mad.

Some say that people turn to God because they have given up looking, become afraid of their answers.

We all know David has given up looking. Does what you have found make you all warm inside? That is all that matters is it not? Poetry, beauty, nature, warmth, soul, unity and relationships. The body is such a cage, but where would we be without it.

[Cory Duchesne]

Yeah, the QRSH usage of the word God has always seemed very unnecessary to me.

I mean, is there a single human being on the planet beside QRSH who doesn't consider Kierkegaard a believer in an intelligent, loving God?

It is this kind of intimacy between ourselves and Nature which lends itself to poetic expression. It points to the possibilities of our having a personal relationship with Nature.

By contrast, it is the cold, soulless language of the modern materialistic atheist which is often misleading. For it reduces the timeless, living qualities of Nature to lifeless matter.

David, on the one hand you preach the importance of 'egolessness', but then on the other hand here you are wanting something "warm, personal and intimate!"

You've painted yourself into a contradiction, haven't you?

[David Quinn]

Some say people never heal the wound left in the psyche by losing the absolute protector and comforter of the mother as they grow up.

Some say the fear of death is so great that the only people that live are those that deny death, that prove to themselves they will live forever no matter what, indeed that that is the very point of life itself.

Some say that people just cannot face the awsome void of existence away from the distraction of chatter and laughter and grass and clouds, that it either turns you to God or turns you mad.

Some say that people turn to God because they have given up looking, become afraid of their answers.

We all know David has given up looking. Does what you have found make you all warm inside? That is all that matters is it not? Poetry, beauty, nature, warmth, soul, unity and relationships. The body is such a cage, but where would we be without it.

You're raving.

-

[David Quinn]

Yeah, the QRSH usage of the word God has always seemed very unnecessary to me.

I mean, is there a single human being on the planet beside QRSH who doesn't consider Kierkegaard a believer in an intelligent, loving God?

Hopefully, there are at least a few others in the world.

What do you make of these sorts of observations by Kierkegaard:

- God can involve himself with the human race on one of two conditions, either in such a way that individuals are found who are willing to venture out so far in hating themselves that God can use them as apostles, or in such a way that the true situation is honestly and unconditionally admitted. The latter is my primitivity.

As far as the former is concerned, this is certainly the instruction of the New Testament. But with respect to venturing out so far, the following must be noted. This is something so dreadful for a human being that it is permissible to say: I dare not.


- One who in truth has become involved with God is instantaneously recognizable by his limp. To become involved with God in any way other than being wounded is impossible.

He who does not involve himself with God in the mode of absolute devotion does not become involved with God. God himself is how one involves himself with Him. In respect to God, the how is the what.

In relationship to God one cannot involve himself to a certain degree, for God is precisely the contradiction to all which is to a certain degree.


- The natural man can tolerate spirit for an hour when it is introduced very guardedly at the distance of the imagination - yes, then it even pleases him. But if it's moved any closer to him, so that it is presented with dead earnest as a demand on him, then the self-preservation instinct of his ego is aroused to such an extent that it becomes a regular fury.


- Man has the natural tendency to think that if he only makes an effort he will be victorious. Christianity says that downfall is being victorious. Know this - if you manage to reach merely a modest degree of perfection, your downfall is certain; and the more you succeed, the more certain your downfall. To turn over thoughts like these for only one hour is more exhausting than enormous efforts in the hope of being victorious.

It is just as if Christianity would kill all courage, all delight, every hope in a man. Yes, all spontaneous courage and delight and hope - this is called dying to the world.


- As the individual develops, God becomes for him more and more infinite, and he feels himself farther and farther from God.


- It is eternally true that if one knocks, the door will be opened. But suppose that the difficulty for us human beings is simply that we are afraid to go - and knock.


- To have faith is really to advance along the way where all human road signs point: back, back, back.


- How many men have any idea at all of how strenuous life becomes in an actual relationship to God. This alone - to be completely deprived of the habitual security which most people have when they have reached a certain age, believing that their period of development has now essentially rounded off and has now become repetitious, almost routinely repetitious - just this alone, to have this security completely withdrawn.


- In his majesty God sets the pitch so high that if a person is unwilling to let go of his finite common sense, will not abandon flat, self-indulgent mediocrity - then what God calls help, salvation, grace etc, is the most biting irony.


- Christianity makes one, humanly speaking, unhappy - I doubt that men so structured will appear any more.

Nowadays everything must be done quite automatically. They have sunk down into sheer meaninglessness, and corresponding to this, Christianity has been remodeled into some kind of soothing syrup which, like other sweets: is offered for sale by pastry women (clergy in silk and velvet) and which further corrupts people.


- To be chosen by God is, speaking merely humanly, unconditionally the most terrible of all the terrible misfortunes which can happen to man. And in every weak moment the chosen one himself thinks so too. Madness is set between him and men; they cannot understand him. Thus he lives in the most agonizing isolation. He endures bestial treatment from men, for when the idea is to be introduced, men become so outraged that the animal side comes to fore.

Literally there is not a single one who can understand him. Nor is he able to help anyone, he knows full well he could never get anyone to relate himself to the idea as he has. No one can rejoice with him. No one can sorrow with him; no one understands how and why he suffers. God is rather the very one who, with the most calculated cruelty, martyrs him when men are unable to do it.

So he lives. As long as he lives, intensively concentrated, he is much too strong for his contemporaries, like a fatal poison. During his life, all those who are called preachers, professors, all those pathbound animal creatures, are the most zealous to put him to death, as with the Saviour of the world. When he is dead, assistant professors, preachers and professors thin him out in their own water, and then in the water of the thousands whom they teach - and the water gives the most refreshing, delicious taste - magnificent!

Keep in mind that Kierkegaard considered himself a poet and only wrote about God in a poetic sense. Despite this, he still managed to convey the terrible implications for anyone wanting to become wise.

It is this kind of intimacy between ourselves and Nature which lends itself to poetic expression. It points to the possibilities of our having a personal relationship with Nature.

By contrast, it is the cold, soulless language of the modern materialistic atheist which is often misleading. For it reduces the timeless, living qualities of Nature to lifeless matter.

David, on the one hand you preach the importance of 'egolessness', but then on the other hand here you are wanting something "warm, personal and intimate!"

God is warm, personal and intimate to those without ego. It is a case of diving into what one really is - one's true nature. How more personal can you get? The egoless person is fully in tune with his true nature, such that there isn't a sherrick of conflict or separation between him and his true nature (God).

Reducing God to lifeless matter, on the other hand, is an egotistical activity, a way of distancing oneself from one's experiences and trying to gain control over them. It shies away from opening up directly to the sheer chaos and uncertainty which is God.

-

[Dave Toast]

God is the answer to a question or questions. It's the ubiquity of those questions that matters, asked by all as they are.

That the vast majority of particular conceptions of this answer do not point to truth is no good reason to not use the accepted signifier, God, to refer to the only conception that does point to the truthful answer to these ubiquitous questions.

Thus God is an appropriate word, the most appropriate word, and arguably the most important word in philosophy.

[Steven]

Kierkegaard was speaking of the terrible implications of God on the minds of men, fully aware of the full truth imparted but not knowingly written by the author of this statement.

That the vast majority of particular conceptions of this answer do not point to truth is no good reason to not use the accepted signifier, God, to refer to the only conception that does point to the truthful answer to these ubiquitous questions.

Where the philosophy of Kierkegaard surpasses that of anyone here is in his understanding that the mind cannot escape God, and that God cannot escape the mind.

[David Quinn]

Can you expand this further, Steven?

-

[Steven]

God is an answer we are all exposed to, in the West atleast, before the questions that may lead to God can fully form themselves in our minds. We struggle to understand a concept devoid of any meaning that can be reasoned back to our reality in our immature state, and so we battle, perhaps for the rest of our lives, against the futility of expanding upon absolute truth in order to fill the empty vessel of absolute truth called God with the things we think are true.

So many people believe in God because they are taught God, and cannot escape Him.

That above passage by Kierkegaard seems to me to be description of the violence that is caused by powerful concepts via memetics through the human beings nature as psychological and social entities. God does not arise out of reason, but exists and evolves and influences us alongside our growth and development, physically and mentally.

[David Quinn]

Sorry I asked. I thought you were about to touch on something interesting, but you've merely retreated back into the mundane realm of sociology.

-

[Steven]

And where have you retreated? Internet forum flame baiting techniques?

This thread will stand testament to just what a load of shit it is you actually preach.

[mikiel]

I don't know what poisened you against sitting still meditation, but it is not "disappearing down a dark hole. It is Being at the Universal Source prior to the doing of manifstation...

As I say, I'm puzzled as to why you need to sit down and search for the Source, when by rights, being I-less and thus having unobscured vision, you should be fully aware of the Source in each moment of your day.

The fact that you have to sit down and apply yourself in formal meditation suggests that your "I" isn't really gone and that you have to battle past it each day in order to see the Source.

Keep in mind that my argument with you is not your meditational attainments, but your claim that you are free of the I-illusion.

-

(Back again from the "wilderness...')
Like I said, David:
-------------
This exposes beyond all doubt that you have never experineced true transcendence (by whatever name, including nirvana and samadhi.) No matter what arizes *in consciousness* transcendence is *Being Consciousness*, not *identified with* whatever arizes *in* consciousness. You totally and repeatedly miss this point!

Since there is no indication that you are even capable of "grokking" this point, which is central to what I teach and how I live the enlightened life, I think this conversation, for my part, is over.
------------
I keep repeating and you keep ignoring it. There is no "need" involved in meditation anymore. It is *not* a "search for
Source."There is no need involved in the many things one still enjoys after enlightenment. Even the small moments like appreciating a sunset... no need involved. Life has its quiet moments to be enjoyed. I don't need to "battle past" ego (it "popped") or strugggle to forget the day's activities to enjoy the peace and quite of a sunset at the end of the day. You sound lke a total moron in this regard.
I have an acquired taste for the enjoyment of an hour of absolute stillness each day. There is wisdom in the old scripture, "Be still and know that I Am God." God is found in transcendence and in all "this one's" activities. But I've said this many times and you are still harping on the misconception.
Consciousness is omnipresent and always present... in stillness (as Source/Creator) and the activity of creation. I Am Creator of *this life.* Consciousness transcends all the activity and engages in activity at once, in "conscious unity."
(There, I've said it again. Would a few more times help? I'm still thinking not!)
Btw, enlightenment is *not* a personal attainment. It is what's left when the illusion of personal attainment is over, just FYI.
If there were an "I" in the sense of personal identity, it wouldn't be free of the "I" illusion... see?? You obviously are not free in that sense, so you are driven to project ego onto everyone but your favorite perfect models, which you worship as surely as Christionsdo Jesus. He said, "I and the Creator are One,", but ego hears, "I, Jesus am the only Son of God" and we have this ridiculous worship of the person, rather that the universal "I Am" in all, the "Speaker" i n the above quote. You still don't get it, David, and it is not my project to continue saying the same Truths to you in as many ways as I can in hope that you will get it.
Has any of this registered in the Universal Consciousness within you?
I think not, and again, I give up trying. The vast majority of those I teach are much closer to getting it than you. My time is best spent with such as them.
Thanks for the dog fight, but it is pointless to continue... (he said again...)
mikiel

[brad walker]

Right... he certainly could not have actually been a fat man, cuz it wouldn't fit your precious ascetic model. Christions will not accept that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' lover/partner either... just wouldn't be right according to church dogma on the 'evils of the flesh'... much like your own, it appears.

You need to provide evidence of an overweight Gautama Buddha. My two wikipedia links earlier in the thread show that "fat Buddha" is based off two monks and often confused with the original Buddha.

[mikiel]

Right... he certainly could not have actually been a fat man, cuz it wouldn't fit your precious ascetic model. Christions will not accept that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' lover/partner either... just wouldn't be right according to church dogma on the 'evils of the flesh'... much like your own, it appears.

You need to provide evidence of an overweight Gautama Buddha. My two wikipedia links earlier in the thread show that "fat Buddha" is based off two monks and often confused with the original Buddha.

Actually, brad, I don't have such a need. How important is it to you to verify that Buddha was not an enlightened fat man? Do you also believe there are none?
How do you see renunciation of all life's pleasures as relevant to an/or necessary for enlightenment?
mikiel
note: gone again for a few days... don't wait up.

[David Quinn]

I take it you're fat.

-

[maestro]

A Buddha would not overeat or eat much junk food as it is not conducive to happiness/well being. In such a scenario I cannot see how he can get fat, unless genetically.

[mikiel]

I take it you're fat.

-

It's just like you to jump to false conclusions. No. I work hard physically, as I've already explained to you, and this keeps me in great shape for an old fart pushing 63. I often set stone, many of which are over 200lb, all day long. (280 is my limit.)

Why don't you pull that thorny cane of judgement out of your ass and get over this "Let's beat up on mikiel" thing you have going?
mikiel

[divine focus]

A Buddha would not overeat or eat much junk food as it is not conducive to happiness/well being. In such a scenario I cannot see how he can get fat, unless genetically.

Genetics are also not above the ability of one to choose. Fatness or "over-weight" might be preferred.

[brad walker]

Actually, brad, I don't have such a need. How important is it to you to verify that Buddha was not an enlightened fat man?

Just the burden of proof on your assertion.

[mikiel]

Actually, brad, I don't have such a need. How important is it to you to verify that Buddha was not an enlightened fat man?

Just the burden of proof on your assertion.

Well, my "assertion" was just a cynical quip:
"Right... he certainly could not have actually been a fat man, cuz it wouldn't fit your precious ascetic model."

I really don't know or care whether the historical person called "the Buddha" was fat or not. Form is totally irrelevant in the absolute realm of knowing the One Identity in all. And this is enlightenment, taking all variety of individual forms and lifestyles, tho this is contrary to the myopic, ascetic doctrine propagated by the founders of this website.

My questions to you remain unanswered:
... "How important is it to you to verify that Buddha was not an enlightened fat man? Do you also believe there are none?
How do you see renunciation of all life's pleasures as relevant to an/or necessary for enlightenment?"

mikiel

[mikiel]

Actually, brad, I don't have such a need. How important is it to you to verify that Buddha was not an enlightened fat man?

Just the burden of proof on your assertion.

Well, my "assertion" was just a cynical quip:
"Right... he certainly could not have actually been a fat man, cuz it wouldn't fit your precious ascetic model."

I really don't know or care whether the historical person called "the Buddha" was fat or not. Form is totally irrelevant in the absolute realm of knowing the One Identity in all. And this is enlightenment, taking all variety of individual forms and lifestyles, tho this is contrary to the myopic, ascetic doctrine propagated by the founders of this website.

My questions to you remain unanswered:
... "How important is it to you to verify that Buddha was not an enlightened fat man? Do you also believe there are none?
How do you see renunciation of all life's pleasures as relevant to an/or necessary for enlightenment?"

mikiel

Bump. You still here, brad, or give up the argument. It's fine either way.
mikiel

[brad walker]

Bump. You still here, brad, or give up the argument. It's fine either way.

What argument? I'd have to assert something to make an argument. Cynical quips can be said at least four times before turning into assertions. I've only questioned your cynical quip a few times, so we're not yet arguing.

Form is totally irrelevant in the absolute realm of knowing the One Identity in all. And this is enlightenment, taking all variety of individual forms and lifestyles, tho this is contrary to the myopic, ascetic doctrine propagated by the founders of this website.

Not all forms are equal. A human being has a higher probability of becoming enlightened than my laptop. Likewise a person with healthy eating compared to an obese person.

mikiel: My questions to you remain unanswered:
Q. How important is it to you to verify that Buddha was not an enlightened fat man?
A. Already answered.

Q. Do you also believe there are none?
A. I don't know any. I don't think it's impossible but unlikely.

Q. How do you see renunciation of all life's pleasures as relevant to an/or necessary for enlightenment?
A. Not necessary for everyone but necessary for some to become enlightened.

[mikiel]

Bump. You still here, brad, or give up the argument. It's fine either way.

What argument? I'd have to assert something to make an argument. Cynical quips can be said at least four times before turning into assertions. I've only questioned your cynical quip a few times, so we're not yet arguing."

You are avoiding the argument. Fancy dancing is not an argument. Do you believe fatness precludes enlightenment ot not? A straight answer would be just fine, if you can muster it up.

Form is totally irrelevant in the absolute realm of knowing the One Identity in all. And this is enlightenment, taking all variety of individual forms and lifestyles, tho this is contrary to the myopic, ascetic doctrine propagated by the founders of this website.

Not all forms are equal. A human being has a higher probability of becoming enlightened than my laptop. Likewise a person with healthy eating compared to an obese person.

Your laptop is not a part of this conversation. Neither is my cement mixer. Do you think a person of no physical description can experience the Great Aewakening, or do you think a person must fit a certain physical description and adhere to a very strict ascetic lifestyle to be even considered as an elightened one?
A simple, staightforward answer would be very welcome.

mikiel

[brad walker]

You are avoiding the argument. Fancy dancing is not an argument. Do you believe fatness precludes enlightenment ot not? A straight answer would be just fine, if you can muster it up.

That's rich coming from someone that denies he made an assertion after stating something four times. I already answered your question.

Form is totally irrelevant in the absolute realm of knowing the One Identity in all. And this is enlightenment, taking all variety of individual forms and lifestyles, tho this is contrary to the myopic, ascetic doctrine propagated by the founders of this website.

Not all forms are equal. A human being has a higher probability of becoming enlightened than my laptop. Likewise a person with healthy eating compared to an obese person.

Your laptop is not a part of this conversation. Neither is my cement mixer.

So form is totally irrelevant after excluding some forms. Actually my laptop makes this conversation possible.

Q. Do you think a person of no physical description can experience the Great Aewakening
A. Yes.

Q. do you think a person must fit a certain physical description and adhere to a very strict ascetic lifestyle to be even considered as an elightened one?
A. No.