I have Realized the Infinite

[Blair]

That's because you have to be caused to see ultimate reality through the temporal form of a human mind existing in this time.

If you don't see it, you don't and that's it. At some point in the apparent past or future, the matter of which you are currently made was part of that comprehension, this you can be 100% certain.

[divine focus]

Understanding logic does not mean you try to control yourself to always act logically. You are human. Trying to act totally logically all the time does not make you perfect. You are HUMAN. You are MESSY. You are not and you never will be "logically perfect". If you try that you will become dissociated from yourself and the world, losing all natural skills and instincts while interacting with it. Do violence to your emotions and you will suffer. And hopefully you won't then say it's in the name of truth (stupidity more like it).

The way you describe it here, it does sound like stupidity. Violently suppressing the emotions for the sake of trying to lead a "clean" logical existence is definitely very foolish, at least as a long-term policy. One might have to do this occasionally - e.g. in pressure situations which require a cool head - but as a principle for guiding one's life it can only lead to disaster.

A person who is genuinely on the rational path doesn't have to attack his emotions at all. Indeed, he barely has to think about them. They will naturally fade away of their own accord in the light of his increasingly greater consciousness, like dew evaporating under the morning sun. He won't even miss them as they fade away, so little attention does he give them.

It's an entirely different process.

It sounds as though you are currently trying to break free of a sterile prison that your over-controlling mind has created yourself, which is a perfectly worthwhile thing to do, but does it really require such an over-the-top justification of your use of the emotions in this struggle?

Having emotions "fade away" is really just making emotions calm and cold, even. They are still there, just unperturbable. Disassociated maybe. Nothing stays the same. Emotions are a way of connecting with the reality around you, whether local, global, or whathaveyou.

[guest_of_logic]

Ah, but we do/have live[d] it and experience[d] to to a sufficient extent to know that the ideal is real and accurate, however challenging.

So, - insert juvenile nose thumbing gesture -.

You do recognise that "juvenile nose thumbing" humour is essentially based on emotions, I hope.

Anyway, let's imagine that you're in this putative state where emotions aren't arising. Someone asks you, "How are you feeling?" How do you respond?

IMO, Laird doesn't understand this and doesn't WANT to understand this (and sometimes that's frustrating)

Skip, please elaborate. I'm not sure how you can say that humans are (necessarily) in a constant state of emotion (with which I agree) and then claim that emotionlessness is not a false ideal. What exactly is it that you think I'm refusing to understand?

Nick, there doesn't seem to be any point in responding further to you since you simply blew off the points that I made without responding to them. At least Kelly, with whom I have no interest in communicating, made a valiant attempt to redeem her hero.

A one-time experience of samadhi: 2000 enlightenment points. An insight into Ultimate Reality: 3000 enlightenment points. Nick Treklis preaching humility, the value of not blowing around unwarranted hot air, and commenting on delusion and other people's failure to grasp logic? Priceless.

Having emotions "fade away" is really just making emotions calm and cold, even. They are still there, just unperturbable. Disassociated maybe. Nothing stays the same. Emotions are a way of connecting with the reality around you, whether local, global, or whathaveyou.

Nicely put.

[guest_of_logic]

"A dishonest man said, 'That is what I chose to believe at that time. You must, at least, show respect for my sincerity!'"

Substitute "deluded" for "dishonest" and I'll go with it. I don't believe QRS are deliberately out to deceive.

[Nick]

Do you know what is absolutely true, Laird?

[guest_of_logic]

Nick, I do not, although I have a few clues. Do you?

[Nick]

Nick, I do not, although I have a few clues.

OK, so you don't know what's absolutely true, but you want to tell others and myself how it will affect them. This is arrogance pure and simple. If you think you have some clues, then it'd be wise to put in the time and effort to find out where they lead. If they lead to more uncertainty, then the clues are probably worthless and should be left behind. So for your own good, and everyone else's, go figure out what's absolutely true. You have been given more than enough instruction and teaching on how to do this. And even if you don't figure it out before you die, as long as you're striving with great earnest to uncover the truth, I promise you that your life will not have been in vain.

Do you[know what's absolutely true]?

Come on, are you seriously asking me this question? I'm pretty sure I've made it abundantly clear in my time here that I do. But please, don't ask me what it is, and don't ask anyone else either, because if you are honest with yourself, you'll see you're just killing time for yourself, and wasting mine and everyone else's. So go, move on, figure out the truth, or don't. Either way, there's no good reason for you to remain here doing whatever it is that you're doing.

[Kelly Jones]

Laird's argumentation is presented in the form of "it is ridiculous, or foolish to claim one knows absolute truths," which is actually a dishonest way of saying "I claim to know absolutely that any claims to know absolute truths are absolutely devoid of truth". If he wishes to be honest, then he has to face this contradiction in himself, and the immense arrogance it shows.

Of course, if he doesn't, he'll go on happily sniping at people, thinking he has made a complete rebuttal. He will enjoy attacking and criticising people, rather than presenting any arguments. It's what many Youtubers mistakenly believe constitutes rational debate: argumentum ad hominem. The tragedy of going down that path is that true target of the attacks is not other people, but, in reality, the one who is attacking. If Laird settles into the ad hominem path, he'd be actually attacking his own mind throughout. Already, he is the only one he is ruining. Doesn't he already know this, when he criticises people for being "valiant" or "heroic"?

[David Quinn]

Having emotions "fade away" is really just making emotions calm and cold, even. They are still there, just unperturbable. Disassociated maybe. Nothing stays the same. Emotions are a way of connecting with the reality around you, whether local, global, or whathaveyou.

A poor man's way.

Emotions are triggered by the delusion of separation - between self and other. They are evolutionary tools centered around the protection of the self. When a person tries to "emotionally" connect to his environment, it means that he is still spellbound by the fiction of his own self. His emotional striving is an attempt to bridge the chasm, a chasm created by his own deluded mind, between his self and the rest of the universe.

By contrast, buddhas already know that everything is a part of them, They already know that there is no chasm and thus laugh at people's artificial attempts to bridge it. They are already consciously connected to the universe and therefore too pure for emotion.

"What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight", said Jesus.

Most people are criminal types who hide away underground in dark corners, seeking to warm themselves in the momentary flare of their own emotions. Meanwhile, buddhas are heard to stride around overhead in the sunlight, breathing in the fresh air and laughing with the mountains.

Anyway, let's imagine that you're in this putative state where emotions aren't arising. Someone asks you, "How are you feeling?" How do you respond?

"Buddha-like", I should think.

-

[guest_of_logic]

Fair go, Nick. You ask a question with an obvious answer and then castigate me for returning the favour. That's hardly reasonable. I figured we were clarifying each other's positions: turns out you just wanted to get in a jab before the ref blew the starting whistle.

As for, "You have been given more than enough instruction and teaching on how to do this" - if you don't see the presumptuousness in that, well...

Dude, not only have I been participating on this forum for years, but for even longer than I've been posting here I've lived next door to (and conversed frequently with) the guy who kicked off this whole house philosophy: so yes, I've seen and heard all of the "logic" that you and your superiors have to offer, and my lack of commitment to it has less to do with failure to grasp it after exposure than with the impoverishment of that so-called "logic".

Is it arrogant to reject another person's so-called "logic"? If so then you're guilty of arrogance a thousand times over, Nick.

Kelly,

The ridiculous straw-manning in your post is a good part of why I no longer engage with you beyond one line responses.

David,

Laird: Anyway, let's imagine that you're in this putative state where emotions aren't arising. Someone asks you, "How are you feeling?" How do you respond?

David: "Buddha-like", I should think.

More specifically? For example, could you compare the "Buddha-like" feeling to something common so that someone who had never been there could get some kind of handle on it?

[David Quinn]

Hi David,

I would be interested to hear how you have determined that everyone is having emotions all the time.

The way I see it, I am having emotions all the time. And I think it's part of the human condition to feel where other people are emotionally in social situations. For example, if two friends go for a walk, it's very easy to feel each other's aura and that they feel good.

Everyone I know or have every met has a certain feel about them. And while I can step back and analyze it until the cows come home, that intuition never leaves.

Two different issues here, as far as I can see. One can be conscious enough to be beyond the direct experience of emotion (i.e. as an instinctive defensive mechanism for the protection of the "self") and, at the same time, be conscious enough to be able to read other people and their emotional states.

As an analogy, one can discern that a junkie is off his face with heroin without having to be high on heroin oneself.

-

[David Quinn]

Dude, not only have I been participating on this forum for years, but for even longer than I've been posting here I've lived next door to (and conversed frequently with) the guy who kicked off this whole house philosophy:

You live next door to the forest sages who existed before the Buddha's time? I find that hard to believe.

Laird: Anyway, let's imagine that you're in this putative state where emotions aren't arising. Someone asks you, "How are you feeling?" How do you respond?

David: "Buddha-like", I should think.

More specifically? For example, could you compare the "Buddha-like" feeling to something common so that someone who had never been there could get some kind of handle on it?

It's not easy make such a comparison, particularly for people who have large mental blocks and steam constantly coming out of their ears. But perhaps the nearest point of comparision would be certain high-level, care-free modes of existence in which clarity of mind is accentuated and the normal concerns and worries are completely absent. You might well get a taste of this in one of your drunken states, although I have my doubts.

-

[Kelly Jones]

Kelly: Laird's argumentation is presented in the form of "it is ridiculous, or foolish to claim one knows absolute truths," which is actually a dishonest way of saying "I claim to know absolutely that any claims to know absolute truths are absolutely devoid of truth". If he wishes to be honest, then he has to face this contradiction in himself, and the immense arrogance it shows.

Of course, if he doesn't, he'll go on happily sniping at people, thinking he has made a complete rebuttal. He will enjoy attacking and criticising people, rather than presenting any arguments. It's what many Youtubers mistakenly believe constitutes rational debate: argumentum ad hominem. The tragedy of going down that path is that true target of the attacks is not other people, but, in reality, the one who is attacking. If Laird settles into the ad hominem path, he'd be actually attacking his own mind throughout. Already, he is the only one he is ruining. Doesn't he already know this, when he criticises people for being "valiant" or "heroic"?

Laird: The ridiculous straw-manning in your post is a good part of why I no longer engage with you beyond one line responses.

You don't realise that you just proved my point about how you keep turning to the ad hominem argument, instead of making a proper rebuttal. I gave you the issue of contention there in the first paragraph, but you ignored it in favour of an ad hominem. Why is that, do you think? If I were really making a straw man argument, the proof would be in the truth, which would be: you would never claim that anyone who claims to know absolute truths is being foolish (truthless whether intentionally or not). But this is not the truth, because you do claim that such persons are foolish. And therefore, your reply is false. Why, again I ask, are you hiding the truth?

[guest_of_logic]

Laird: Dude, not only have I been participating on this forum for years, but for even longer than I've been posting here I've lived next door to (and conversed frequently with) the guy who kicked off this whole house philosophy:

David: You live next door to the forest sages who existed before the Buddha's time? I find that hard to believe.

Oh, David, you're a comedy genius - of course those ancient forest sages were all about the intellectual comprehension of reality - mixed with a little male chauvinism of course: that guilty little pleasure that no forest sage can deny!

Laird: Anyway, let's imagine that you're in this putative state where emotions aren't arising. Someone asks you, "How are you feeling?" How do you respond?

David: "Buddha-like", I should think.

Laird: More specifically? For example, could you compare the "Buddha-like" feeling to something common so that someone who had never been there could get some kind of handle on it?

David: [P]erhaps the nearest point of comparision would be certain high-level, care-free modes of existence in which clarity of mind is accentuated and the normal concerns and worries are completely absent.

"Care-free": sounds to me like a nice way to be feeling. "Clarity of mind"? I'd like to feel that I had a clear mind too.

Oh, it's not a feeling? Then just what did you mean, mushroom man?

Kelly,

Nice try (so long as you don't mind being paid vain compliments), but still no cigar.

[Dan Rowden]

Ah, but we do/have live[d] it and experience[d] to to a sufficient extent to know that the ideal is real and accurate, however challenging.

So, - insert juvenile nose thumbing gesture -.

You do recognise that "juvenile nose thumbing" humour is essentially based on emotions, I hope.

Really?

Anyway, let's imagine that you're in this putative state where emotions aren't arising. Someone asks you, "How are you feeling?" How do you respond?

That would depend on how I'm feeling. Your belief that the terms "emotion" and "feeling" are synonymous is misguided.

[jupiviv]

The sage has emotions if he is caused to have them, but he isn't deluded by them.

[Kelly Jones]

Laird, you are obviously communicating with me, so stop fluffing around with ambiguous one-liners.

Obviously, you do think absolute truths are nonsense and foolish. You've admitted as much in this thread. But on what grounds?

Is not your beef not with the idea of absolute truth, but with the idea of accepting that absolute truths exist and are useful? That is, you don't like the idea of taking it all seriously, or even the idea of other people taking it seriously, even though that has absolutely nothing to do with you. If this is not a clear account of the issue, then what is it? And don't go blaming me for expecting you to engage in rational discussion, when that's what this place is for.

.

[skipair]

Skip, please elaborate. I'm not sure how you can say that humans are (necessarily) in a constant state of emotion (with which I agree) and then claim that emotionlessness is not a false ideal. What exactly is it that you think I'm refusing to understand?

It IS false as an ideal. You can't live in accordance with logic when according to logic there is nothing to do. It is emotions and instincts that drive us to do things in life. And there are two kinds of people: those who constantly cross reference what they do against that logic, and those that don't. The people who do will definitely be less emotional that those that don't. When so much is seen in clarity and so much is uncovered as mere bullshit, there isn't a lot to get worked up about - and there is nothing false about that. I disagree that no emotion is left. I see it more like a mostly still lake on a calm day. Nothing to disturb the waters, yet the waters are still slowly moving. Sometimes I like to splash around for fun.

For you Laird, I think you are refusing to be 100% reasonable about everything you believe. This certainly wasn't true for everything, but when I asked you about some things it was impossible to get a straight answer from you. There are some things more important to you than understanding whether they are true or not. Not having them around might seem very scary, very empty. But if it really is as important and profound as you think it is, then it can't hurt to question it and explore a different path, even just to make sure. You can always come back to it if you want.

[David Quinn]

Laird: Dude, not only have I been participating on this forum for years, but for even longer than I've been posting here I've lived next door to (and conversed frequently with) the guy who kicked off this whole house philosophy:

David: You live next door to the forest sages who existed before the Buddha's time? I find that hard to believe.

Oh, David, you're a comedy genius - of course those ancient forest sages were all about the intellectual comprehension of reality

Knowledge of Brahman, yes. And also the daily experience which this knowledge generates. The Vedas and the Upanishads are centered around these two things.

Even the word "veda" means knowledge .....

David: [P]erhaps the nearest point of comparision would be certain high-level, care-free modes of existence in which clarity of mind is accentuated and the normal concerns and worries are completely absent.

"Care-free": sounds to me like a nice way to be feeling. "Clarity of mind"? I'd like to feel that I had a clear mind too.

Oh, it's not a feeling? Then just what did you mean, mushroom man?

You'll need to empty out all that bitterness and bile first, if you really want to know.

The sage has emotions if he is caused to have them, but he isn't deluded by them.

If he is having emotions, then he is already being deluded. Emotions, of whatever kind, always spring from a misapprehension of reality - a misapprehension shaped by a belief in self and other, and a belief in objective existence.

-

[pointexter]

...the direct experience of emotion (i.e. as an instinctive defensive mechanism for the protection of the "self")

l equate this with fear, which is the struggling associated with the illusion of separation. This may be the only emotion, of which all others are an expression and reaction to or against. Fear being the most energetic (and overwhelming) expression of the defensive mechanism of self.

...be conscious enough to be able to read other people and their emotional states.

The only emotion that l observe is fear. l often wounder if this is not merely seeing the illusion of my-self in the illusion of others. A type of merged delusion and thus strengthening of delusion (belief in illusion).

Even though l understand that...

...one can discern that a junkie is off his face with heroin without having to be high on heroin oneself.

... l'm not sure how to do that in the case of emotion. A more accurate analogy may be that in order for one to see emotion, whilst not experiencing same, it requires having recovered from having been an addict.

[guest_of_logic]

Your belief that the terms "emotion" and "feeling" are synonymous is misguided.

Kindly delineate them for me please.

Kelly, yes I am communicating with you, in one liners - I hope you get more out of them than I get out of your posts.

For you Laird, I think you are refusing to be 100% reasonable about everything you believe. This certainly wasn't true for everything, but when I asked you about some things it was impossible to get a straight answer from you. There are some things more important to you than understanding whether they are true or not. Not having them around might seem very scary, very empty. But if it really is as important and profound as you think it is, then it can't hurt to question it and explore a different path, even just to make sure. You can always come back to it if you want.

Skip, I think I know where you're coming from with this, but, as you can imagine, I don't feel like getting into it in public. If you feel like pursuing it, then please drop me a PM or an email (I mean that seriously). Otherwise, let's just chalk it up to a difference of assignment of explanatory power.

You'll need to empty out all that bitterness and bile first, if you really want to know.

Mate, there's no bitterness and bile here, just that good old Aussie sense of "give as good as you get" - you wanted to tease me for my prediliction for alcohol: why, then, I'll give you a bit of a serving for your prediliction for psilocybin.

So, go on then, now that we've established that both of us appreciate the odd drug-induced high: can you answer my question? What did you mean if it ("care-free" and "clear of mind") is not a feeling?

A more accurate analogy may be that in order for one to see emotion, whilst not experiencing same, it requires having recovered from having been an addict.

Are all emotions of the quality of drug addiction? Or are there higher emotions?

[pointexter]

...belief that the terms "emotion" and "feeling" are synonymous is misguided.

This is a critical distinction. Feeling = conscious awareness of sensation, without personal narrative. Whereas 'emotion' is sensation filtered through the narratives of self (delusions/falsehood). The purpose of emotion being to nourish and fortify 'self.' Possibly emotion IS self. To the point where all phenomena become an expression of and reflection upon self. In that sense, everything 'disappears' and one only sees falsehood.

[Jason]

The sage has emotions if he is caused to have them, but he isn't deluded by them.

What would you consider to be a delusion that could be caused by emotion, jupiviv?

[jupiviv]

If he(the sage) is having emotions, then he is already being deluded. Emotions, of whatever kind, always spring from a misapprehension of reality - a misapprehension shaped by a belief in self and other, and a belief in objective existence.

As I understand the word "emotion", it is simply feelings/intuitions/henids. A sage is not physically free from pain or pleasure, and he also has intuitions and henids. He simply does not attach himself to these things. Many mental processes occur too quickly to pass through consciousness. All these processes would be emotions. So Skipair is right in that we can't suddenly become magically free of all emotions. Emotions will be there, but they shouldn't devour our soul.

"Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man." - Jesus.

People always think that the things they can't clearly think about are emotional, like morality, or souls.

[David Quinn]

You'll need to empty out all that bitterness and bile first, if you really want to know.

Mate, there's no bitterness and bile here, just that good old Aussie sense of "give as good as you get" -

Well then, it looks like the first thing you're going to have to is recognize that you are full of bitterness and bile. Diagnosis is the first step towards a cure and all that. You might try to hide it, but the bile is there seeping out of all of your posts. Sometimes it is full-on, as in the case of your graceless attack on Loki.

No doubt the source of this bile has nothing to do with me or the forum, but we do seem to provide a convenient outlet for you.

As for what this care-free mode of existence is like, one could describe it as the natural flow of consciousness unrestricted by conceptual prisons. I don't particularly care if you want to call this a "feeling" or not (it depends on how we define "feeling"), but it isn't emotional in nature. Emotions only spring into life within the sprawling network of conceptual prisons, like rats scurrying around in the sewers. Offspring, as it were, of an endless violent reaction towards being trapped inside these prisons.

-