What keeps you from illustrating your understanding with stories or events from your own life? How does it help you to do this for someone else? Isn't it stronger to speak uniquely of yourself? It seems so much a better way to illustrate your point.You completely miss the point Tomas. What happened didn't happen. The Story about what happened happened.
I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.
- Alex Jacob
- Posts: 1671
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
- Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole
Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.
Ni ange, ni bête
- Elizabeth Isabelle
- Posts: 3771
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am
Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.
Alex Jacob wrote:Elizabeth, might I be placed in the category of the enlightened? I am tired of being excluded! No one thought to send me a card on Enlightenment Day this year. But that's not what hurt the most...
I can not draw that imaginary line around you. You are not left out though. We are all Ultimately One.
-
Dennis Mahar
- Posts: 4082
- Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm
Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.
There is no point.
Geddit?
Geddit?
- Alex Jacob
- Posts: 1671
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
- Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole
-
Dennis Mahar
- Posts: 4082
- Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm
Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.
causes/conditions.
- Alex Jacob
- Posts: 1671
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
- Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole
Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.
I wish I might uncause you.
Ni ange, ni bête
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.
I, Sir, am neither esteemed, nor your fellow. The idea that you seek what I seek is really quite comical to me.Alex Jacob wrote:Esteemed Fellow Seeker.Dan wrote:Alex, if you can't comprehend the simple notion of the subjectivity of consciousness then there's no point ever talking to you. Let me ask you this so perhaps we can move on and I can address the rest of your response: do you understand the proposition that a husband can never know if his wife loves him (or vice versa gender-wise). Do you get that? Do you agree with that? Let me state in advance that if you don't agree you emphatically don't get it.
Good, then we can dispense with that aspect of your "issue" with my statements. Do you get that this agreement, this acknowledgement of a crucial and profound point is just that - crucial and profound? I can assure you this point is no minor thing. Oh, and on that point, if it doesn't scare the fuck out of you and fill your ego with angst, then you either don't really get it at all or you are simply holding the fact out at the rarefied and safe distance of the intellect. This is basically what academics and scholars manage to do with everything they learn. I see you a being entirely of this disposition, which is why I don't consider you to be a person who has much capacity to really "get" the entire paradigm I try to make available.I do get that. I do. It is really as simple as saying that one individual cannot be inside another individual experiencing what he or she experiences.
How did you verify that? Do you realise that in putting that question to you, I've done one of two things: put your point to the sword completely (which is what I will contend I've done), or, forced you to take the view that not a thing we think can be other than uncertain. If the latter, then you are in no position to know whether you're right or not and have to face the possibility that I, in fact, am. God I love logic.Possibly the part that seems the most 'bizarre' to me is that any given person may come to believe or assume they are enlightened, and since it depends only on subjective criteria there is no way to verify it.
Well, der, so you should be.And as you likely have guessed by now, I am deeply suspicious of any person who would make that claim about themselves.
That does not follow at all. Just because you can't know with certainty if a person you're communicating with is enlightened or not, it doesn't mean that the content of the discourse is not helpful, illuminating, challenging, or a number of other things. If a man tells me of his deep love for his wife should I ignore his every word, tell him I am highly suspicious and ask if he would shut the fuck up on the basis of that? No, I'd simply listen and make whatever use of it I might, within the parameters of the fact that I can not be sure if he's speaking the truth or not. It's a shitty analogy, I guess, but I can't be arsed trying to do better.It is essentially a useless term of discourse.
How the hell does changing the label alter anything? It doesn't. And you think "nirvana" isn't just as laden? Besides, enlightenment and nirvana refer to the same reality, so changing the label would be a tad redundant.Have you thought of selecting another term? 'Enlightenment' is just too laden. If the Buddhist term is 'nibbana' perhaps you should stick to that?
Could you briefly state how it is you differentiate the authentic from the inauthentic in this context?One assumes that in the context of those authentic traditions where the term 'nibbana' is part of their language and concept base (in an 'authentic' sense),
And that is inauthentic and meaningless. I refer you, out of interest, to the following exchange from Genius News:that there are always other people who assess the state of a given monk or practitioner.
I refer you, also, to your initial agreement with my initial point; you know, the one I made initially. It makes that particular tradition, within some historical threads of Buddhism, nonsensical and pretty much a piece of religious waffle.Joshua Stone: There are those within Zen circles who would state that unless they personally qualify a person as having passed the stage of being “enlightened” they are not ‘officially’ enlightened. Must we all be in agreement that Quinn is officially functioning within the state of “enlightened genius” for it to be true? Must I have your official approval in order to actually be “enlightened?”
David Quinn: What would it matter if I gave you my official approval or not? You would have to be enlightened yourself in order to discern whether my approval was worth anything to begin with - in which case, you wouldn't need my approval.
This is the fundamental flaw of the entire system of Zen certification.
It is possible for a person of genuine attainment to help those who have wrongly adjudged themselves out of their error. It's also possible for those who have wrongly adjudged themselves to help the helpless into a deeper state of helplessness. Sadly, this is inevitably how things are. The way to avoid such dynamics is to dedicate oneself to the task of gaining understanding and never, at any point, treating anything anyone says as more than potentially useful data. Spiritual "authority" is a huge trap, and one fallen into by the great majority of people, but also one that I and "QSR" generally have spoken about and against with tremendous force.There would have to be checks and balances so to speak to keep a person from falling into the subjective traps that, at least on this forum, become so painfully evident.
- Alex Jacob
- Posts: 1671
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
- Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole
Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.
Dan, Dan! Put the tip of that 'sword' up your overtight asshole and push. I am not accostomed to being talked to by you with this flippancy, you peasant. In my world you'd be flogged. Stop all the bluster and make your meager points. This display of yours is unbecoming. Do the people in your world actually take you seriously? You warrant laughter.
Your post, and your ideas, are at the level of a pretentious third-grader. I will maybe, but maybe not, start all over again with you when I have the time.
Now get your Australian self under a little control...
Your post, and your ideas, are at the level of a pretentious third-grader. I will maybe, but maybe not, start all over again with you when I have the time.
Now get your Australian self under a little control...
Ni ange, ni bête
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.
Alex, surely you mean "precocious"? But yes, you're right, my points are at the level of a third-grader. How does it feel to have admitted that a third grader is smarter than you? Must sting a little, huh?
My points are in fact cogent and pertinent, and dare I say, pointed. The discussion has been been perfectly dialectic thus far. Either agree with my points or show them to be wrong. Anything other than that is well, pointless. There is no need for this "starting over" bullshit you constantly engage in. Are you actually aware you constantly engage in that if the discourse isn't going exactly how you'd like it? I can tell you just about everybody else is.
Address my response on its merits or don't bother replying.
My points are in fact cogent and pertinent, and dare I say, pointed. The discussion has been been perfectly dialectic thus far. Either agree with my points or show them to be wrong. Anything other than that is well, pointless. There is no need for this "starting over" bullshit you constantly engage in. Are you actually aware you constantly engage in that if the discourse isn't going exactly how you'd like it? I can tell you just about everybody else is.
Address my response on its merits or don't bother replying.
-
SeekerOfWisdom
- Posts: 2336
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm
Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.
Why is it that people kiss ass Dan and those guys? Did they do something I don't know about perhaps?
-
SeekerOfWisdom
- Posts: 2336
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm
Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.
We are all ultimately one... it is more like we are all the same nobody. "thy brothers art thou" or somethingabuddha
- Diebert van Rhijn
- Posts: 6469
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.
I think the crucial differences between dealing with the topic of enlightenment in what some would call "QRS" style (god bless abbreviated trinities) and what you can find in most cults, books, gurus and religions these days are the following two:
a. Humor, a distinct lack of decorum and apt opportunity to crack any joke you'd like. Not everyone will always laugh as humor is an acquired taste after all. But one can't help to appreciate the irony and twists of human deception and language traps. Where deep humor is missing, suspicion needs to rise, simply because humor is the twisted twin of reason.
b. Reason, a dedication to the power of logic fully including but not limited to the scientific method and approach. This is bound to have a strong culling and trimming effect and therefore generally rejected by the hungry ghosts of any enlightenment industry at some level sooner or later.
Since humor is extremely relative and potentially abusive and neurotic in display, one should really understand that applied reason and a full acceptance of the type of enlightenment already present in the body of science (without suggesting it's all too "lopsided" as those critics often turn out themselves lopsided) become the crucial distinctions between a good approach and a bad approach to any spiritual topic.
a. Humor, a distinct lack of decorum and apt opportunity to crack any joke you'd like. Not everyone will always laugh as humor is an acquired taste after all. But one can't help to appreciate the irony and twists of human deception and language traps. Where deep humor is missing, suspicion needs to rise, simply because humor is the twisted twin of reason.
b. Reason, a dedication to the power of logic fully including but not limited to the scientific method and approach. This is bound to have a strong culling and trimming effect and therefore generally rejected by the hungry ghosts of any enlightenment industry at some level sooner or later.
Since humor is extremely relative and potentially abusive and neurotic in display, one should really understand that applied reason and a full acceptance of the type of enlightenment already present in the body of science (without suggesting it's all too "lopsided" as those critics often turn out themselves lopsided) become the crucial distinctions between a good approach and a bad approach to any spiritual topic.
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.
Ah well, what the hell....
The rest of your post wasn't worthy of reply, so I'm done.
So, you lifted that description from the Wiki entry on Jñāna, huh?, but anyway... I prefer "free of false conceptualisation", but the difference is negligible if the ideas underlying the words are understood correctly. But let's examine this little label you've decided to impose on things: "hybrid Buddhism". What does that even mean? What is Buddhism? What is a "hybrid" of it? isn't every single and variant Buddhist tradition a hybrid of some kind? What is the authentic Buddhism? It's a totally frivolous and unhelpful label, Alex. I don't even really care about "Buddhism". It's a religion that has grown out of one man's spiritual philosophy (yes, please don't remind me his philosophy is borne of a Vedic background. Hell, Buddhism is a "hybrid" of that!) Buddhism is enormously complicated in that sense and those complications ought be of no interest to a thinking person interested in getting to the core issues of the nature of Reality. What interests me is the basic ideas articulated by the Buddha and which of those can be discerned and judged to be sound, reasonable, true. The religious cultures that have grown up around those "teachings" are of no interest to me at all. They do not represent the philosophy of the Buddha in any pure sense as far as I'm concerned. I make that judgement on the basis of my own understanding of Reality and how that accords with what the Buddha said. You get, don't you, that everyone, without exception, does that precise thing? The difference is I'm honest enough and aware enough to know it and state it. You'd be surprised how deeply and widely people are unable to recognise the "authority" they bring to their every judgement. People really hate responsibility. But that's another matter....Alex Jacob wrote:I think that what you are describing is a a realization of 'pure awareness free of conceptual encumbrances' or that is more or less the interpretation I have made of your peculiar and hybrid 'Buddhism'.A Really Smart Third Grader wrote:An analytical, reasoned approach to understanding reality is the only path there is. You can't "faith" your way to enlightenment. Enlightenment is not, of itself, intellectual understanding or knowledge, but it cannot be attained without those building blocks. It's a bit like a person who goes into psychotherapy. The therapist can help them intellectually understand the issues they are facing but he/she cannot make the person incorporate that understanding into their psyche. They have to take that step, the step of their consciousness being altered as a result of that understanding. Whether that happens or not is really in God's hands (oh, fuck, I did it...)
I don't care about that. The Buddha did not advocate any such plurality. But of course people who find thinking too difficult would embrace the idea that they can just meditate, emote or generally wish their way into attainment. This is part and parcel of the religious psyche.There is a definite logic in it, I think. So too is there a logic in jñāna generally. But, within the systems that brought those notions to you, linguistically, as in the root meanings at the core of the words, other means are also understood as possible.
Please demonstrate this madness. Please demonstrate what can be known without the application of reason to the issue. Ponzi my arse.What you seem to have done is to tyrannically assert one means or method as against any other and to spuriously concoct a strange and tendentious system of organizing your perception, and one in which you 'reign supreme': you become the ultimate arbiter of a hypothesized state which, by your own definition, cannot be objectively known. It is only known to the one experiencing it! The whole system becomes very quickly a recipe for madness, and this madness is played out by EVERYONE who participates in the system. It is, in it's way, a 'Ponzi scheme of the mind'.
Lots of people deny this approach. Never spoken to a Wiccan?Still, no one and not I would every deny the importance of 'an analytical, reasoned approach to understanding reality'.
Philosophy in some respects is a science of the mind, at least in the sense of a process of testing hypotheses.Unless I am mistaken, that pretty much describes the scientific approach and method which has certainly totally transformed man's relationship to the world.
Sure, but as I've said I have no interest in religious waffle, and this is essentially what you're referring to. Apprehending the nature of Reality has exactly nothing to do with empirical considerations (other than appreciating what the empirical is). Enlightenment does not entail, nor does it confer in any way knowledge of the "physical" world in the sense that we understand empirical models. If you can show me an instance where the Buddha suggests it does, I'd like to see it.What is a little odd is that, prior to the Western explosion and opening up into knowledge (jñāna of a radically new order), there is no cultural system that had access to an accurate Jñāna-system, in a material sciences sense. And so their grasp of cosmology was completely erroneous. It was filled with misconceptions, 'peopled' with misconceptions if you will. And yet you suggest that even with this basic erroneousness (misunderstanding, misconception, partiality, etc.) that on other levels, i.e. in a mystical sense, they indeed grasped Reality, and therefor could realize 'pure awareness free of conceptual encumbrances' toward their, shall we say, imagined or projected Reality.
Pratītyasamutpāda.But what 'you' have done is something really pretty weird. You start from a Western-based rationalistic order (Question: What in the East corresponds to your Aristotelian 'A=A'? Surely there must be something within the vast Veda knowledge-base?)
Yeah, I reject the religious crap. Go figure. The problem you appear to have with that is beyond my comprehension. It's as though you're arguing that "Buddhism" as we know it is a completely authentic vision and representation of what the Buddha espoused and that we should accept it wholesale. That's absurd on the face of it.and shoot it full of Buddhist mysticism with its Buddhistic take of a jñāna-method of realization. With this manoeuvre you are able to, shall we say, 'salvage' a certain amount from the Occidental repositories while you simultaneously jettison from them everything that you merely don't like or that makes you uncomfortable.
Oh, yeah, there's no end to how far we'll go. Word to the wise.Then, you go further
Stop distorting it strangely, dude!by positioning yourselves within strangely distortable Weiningerian sexism
What is your point? Why don't you simply say the issue of the masculine and feminine dimensions of mind are of no significance to you with respect to philosophic or spiritual endeavours? We will simply disagree on that. That disagreement isn't all that important, frankly. It's not a make or break issue.to precipitate a sort of sexual war within ideas. (That precipitates no trainwreck of satisfying intercourse, heh heh). And once you have constructed this Edifice, you perch yourself within it and chortle in supremely confident arrogance about your own mastery and superiority. [Lightening flares out, the sky darkens, the Earth shakes!] ;-)
That's your problem.I really do not see an alternative to stating it in these terms.
If it were true, yes, it would lend itself to such analysis. Sadly, it's just not. Sorry.Now, if this is true, if my assessment is close to the truth or has any relationship to it, it establishes a platform for describing who is attracted to the system and why they are attracted.
In other words, you've spent an inordinate amount of time functioning on the basis on an error. That's why discussion with you has been limited.And this is what I have described, or tried to, over a long period of time,
Um, that's because you're wrong. You get that? You........are......simply.......wrong.and also what is resisted tooth-and-nail.
Buddy, it's religion that draws people who crave the kind of certainty you're talking about. And what they crave is certitude, not certainty. Do you appreciate the difference? Philosophy is, in part, about determining whether certainty is even possible. Your attempt to characterise what I or Kevin and David or whomever else, does, as "religious" is too stupid to be taken seriously. Hence, my flippancy.But that is part of the way the system functions: like a religious platform it offers a means to an 'absolute certainty' and draws the people who most lack that.
That may be true for some. We tend to discourage such people (but you prefer to judge anyone that agrees with us as a mindless follower. It's your prerogative if you want to insult these people.) But you would have been blind to that dynamic of ours, given your agenda. But you've also described yourself in that sentence I suspect.The part that is interesting is that these are 'religion-hungry' folks, and those who have been forced to fall away from religious structures because of these 'acids of modernity' but in whom it is all still there, functioning.
Oh, yawn, yawn, yawn. Belief does not "comprise" religion, but is a core ingredient in every religion. It's part of what the term means. My philosophy is in no sense religious, nor does it remotely encourage that particular mind set. You simply think that way because it's the only mind set you can identify with, apparently.You said, Dan, that your system cannot be a religion because it is free of 'beliefs', but I suggest that that is not what comprises a religion. And if you had a little more access to Western knowledge-bases you'd be able to know this, too.*
The rest of your post wasn't worthy of reply, so I'm done.
- Alex Jacob
- Posts: 1671
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
- Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole
Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.
There. Breathe out. Now breathe in again. Big breath! Do that 10 times. Now sit. Yes, sit! SIT DOWN! Good. Now, let the juices settle. Whew!
I'll get back to you.
(Breathe!)
I'll get back to you.
(Breathe!)
Ni ange, ni bête
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.
Take all the time you need. I know creative writing isn't easy.
Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.
What is the objectivity in claiming to be free of false conceptualisations?I prefer "free of false conceptualisation", but the difference is negligible if the ideas underlying the words are understood correctly. But let's examine this little label you've decided to impose on things: "hybrid Buddhism". What does that even mean? What is Buddhism? What is a "hybrid" of it? isn't every single and variant Buddhist tradition a hybrid of some kind? What is the authentic Buddhism? It's a totally frivolous and unhelpful label, Alex.
Or people just "subjective" their way into no delusion?
-
ROB
Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.
A=ATomas wrote:What evidence can you put forth that what you say is true?ROB wrote:A child is not enlightened. He is blameless.
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.
Have you been reading the discussion? There is no objectivity to even be considered here. Objectivity is a chimera.Bobo wrote:What is the objectivity in claiming to be free of false conceptualisations?I prefer "free of false conceptualisation", but the difference is negligible if the ideas underlying the words are understood correctly. But let's examine this little label you've decided to impose on things: "hybrid Buddhism". What does that even mean? What is Buddhism? What is a "hybrid" of it? isn't every single and variant Buddhist tradition a hybrid of some kind? What is the authentic Buddhism? It's a totally frivolous and unhelpful label, Alex.
Or people just "subjective" their way into no delusion?
- Alex Jacob
- Posts: 1671
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
- Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole
Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.
I use a group of different resources available on-line when I am reading. Having an iPhone is pretty extraordinary and really helpful as a research tool (I did not write the following post on my iPhone!).Dan wrote:So, you lifted that description from the Wiki entry on jñāna, huh?
When reading 'Dr Glas' by Hjalmar Söderberg, written around the turn of the century, he mentions numerous pieces of music within his story and it was sort of trippy to be able to pull up the music in 3 seconds on YouTube and listen while still engaged in the material. The Free Dictionary by Farlex is excellent for all the major languages. Simply amazing for a student or researcher. If I were interested in the texts that interest you I am sure I would have all sort of texts downloaded and accessible. I know you meant it as an insult but I think Wiki is really a great resource. Sometimes the entries are tip-top and just as often they are so-so. But since I am not at all interested in your text-sources, or only very marginally, yes, I referred to the wiki page. But the real point is about the degree to which 'you' are locked within (as it is divided in Indian philosophy) a jñāna modality. It is one of the reasons why your philosophical approach and the religious attitude that derives from it, is flawed.
This is in a nut shell the manoeuvre that you employ time and time again. I think it is flawed. First, I agreed with your point because you essentially begged me to do so. You asked me to agree with you so you might proceed with your rather tired logic-games. So I did. You are under this idea that understanding in life is dependent on getting people in a head lock and forcing points. But I don't see it like this. If the example is Can a woman know if a man loves her? I would say that a woman has access to a whole range of knowledge, or ways of knowing (seeing, deciding, analyzing) that are well beyond a strict 'ratiocination' of the sort you exalt in your own person. People have untold different sorts of 'ways of knowing' about the world they live in. In my view, the more that we explore a whole gamut of different ways, and the more we understand how different people understand their world (quite different from you, for example), the more we can understand about ourselves and about people.How did you verify that? Do you realise that in putting that question to you, I've done one of two things: put your point to the sword completely (which is what I will contend I've done), or, forced you to take the view that not a thing we think can be other than uncertain. If the latter, then you are in no position to know whether you're right or not and have to face the possibility that I, in fact, am. God I love logic.
I saw this quite early in the style of discourse and the style of thinking that was held up as 'supreme'. It is flawed not because logic is flawed, but because each 'thinking-system' is its own closed world, semi-hermetic, and logic-systems function within thinking-systems. In math and in certain kinds of strict philosophical thinking, the kind of thinking you exalt is necessary and good. But within 'life as a whole' and within other kinds of thought-systems, or in many MANY different situations in life I am pretty certain that we rely on a whole group of other 'signs' (in a semiotic sense, to divest it of mysticism of 'signs and portents'), but ALSO in a sense that could be called mystic, or as I say Hermeneutic in an original sense, when we confront important junctures. Well, people I mean. But I also mean 'sages' and many different people, from many different traditions, who operate their knowledge in the context of the life they live or lived.
In respect to: 'If the latter, then you are in no position to know whether you're right or not and have to face the possibility that I, in fact, am', my sincere answer is that you are a person with your head sufficiently stuffed up your own ass and that you have so narrowed your 'tools' of awareness and understanding that you have made yourself in some senses a distorted being. But I know too that this is what you desire. You have ways and means to valuate it, and also a (small) group of people who share your desires and with whom you can get the affirmations you need, etc. etc. It is a complex little system but, in the end, it is not really and truly for me to judge.
Um, think 'tendentiousness'. Think the blending of extreme opposites. Take your take on this brand of 'jñāna' you have assembled and honed. It is not at all that I don't think the harsh and strong methods are in any sense wrong, in fact they are very very good and needed, and in this sense there is really very much that commends 'your system of philosophy', but simultaneously there is a group of 'things' that you excise from your selves, that you won't allow to be a part of your methodology, and with this attitude you close yourself off ... from a great deal. It is true that you do this for certain reasons, and they are not unintelligible reasons, but in my own view your emphasis leads you into errors. And of course I have written about 'all that' at length. It has not been perfect. Much of it has been off the cuff even. But to get clear about 'what are these omissions' has for me been the task I set myself to. I learned tons. Nothing obviously of use to you, but then I don't really write for you!'Hybrid Buddhism'. What does that even mean?
Buddha-shmudda. I don't believe it can be known exactly what this man, the Buddha, advocated exactly. But none of that is my point really. You apparently know what he 'advocated' and you are, according to you, living it. I am not interested in those things, or not in that way.I don't care about that. The Buddha did not advocate any such plurality. But of course people who find thinking too difficult would embrace the idea that they can just meditate, emote or generally wish their way into attainment. This is part and parcel of the religious psyche.
And, though I have said it before, it is very surprising to come to understand what really allows a person to grow. I mean in the sense of 'evolve within their incarnation'. I personally believe that you, as a philosopher, have very little real contact with people in the first place to understand the wide dimensions of experience, understanding, growth and realization possible within life. And because you are also willfully unlettered and unfamiliar with your own Literature, there is a great deal about human experience ... that just flies over your head. And there you won't be helped. In your late 40s or however old you are you are sufficiently established on your road, and 'the road we travel at a certain point rises up to claim us'. Our choices become Fate. Still, to be really really honest, you have a great deal going for you though I know you can only receive that with contempt, from the likes of me.
For years I have been writing about this. And now, you nutcase, you desire a 'word-proof' that satisfies you, constructed of your brand of 'logic', and one you can then parse and so not hear at all what is being said. 'Obstinacy makes it impossible to hear for all one has ears'.Please demonstrate this madness. Please demonstrate what can be known without the application of reason to the issue. Ponzi my arse.
If you are 'enlightened', and if your friends are 'enlightened', then I definitively must reject 'enlightenment' as something desirable! You see? It all turns back upon Values.Sure, but as I've said I have no interest in religious waffle, and this is essentially what you're referring to. Apprehending the nature of Reality has exactly nothing to do with empirical considerations (other than appreciating what the empirical is). Enlightenment does not entail, nor does it confer in any way knowledge of the "physical" world in the sense that we understand empirical models. If you can show me an instance where the Buddha suggests it does, I'd like to see it.
But I was alluding to something different. Every religious-philosophical systems, and certainly the Vedic one, fell apart at the point when its material sciences were seen to be insufficient. I mean this in the grandest sense, not that traces of influence were not left. Now, we have discovered a 'real road' of material penetration, but in other areas we don't have a cohesive system. But this may come to us, it may arise, and it may happen that another grand cultural-philsophical-scientific-ethical-moral model is forged. I know that that is not of much immediate interest to you, if only insofar as you feel you have in your hands The and the Only Absolute, but I was alluding to something else.
I have written about this extensively in other places.Alex wrote:...while you simultaneously jettison from them everything that you merely don't like or that makes you uncomfortable.
Perhaps because I take the issue somewhat more seriously than you? It IS in fact a 'make or break' issue because the way that we relate and understand the female and the feminine may be of quintessential relevance and importance. But again, it resolves in Values. Dennis, for example, can value nothing, because his 'philosophy' evacuates any notion of Value. While you are not Dennis, your philosophical system takes very definite positions in regard to the female and to femininity which I feel are part of its flaws. 'We' have some definite areas of agreement, as you know. But at a fundamental level I am convinced that 'your' understanding of both women and the feminine is skewed. I have done a certain amount of work to try to articulate why this might be so and to present it on the forum, but it requires a great deal more research.What is your point? Why don't you simply say the issue of the masculine and feminine dimensions of mind are of no significance to you with respect to philosophic or spiritual endeavours? We will simply disagree on that. That disagreement isn't all that important, frankly. It's not a make or break issue.
Religion in the sense I mean it is the total presence and activity of a given person as he sits within his 'knowledge and understanding field'. Every person, certainly yourself, is 'religious' in this, the more essential sense. But to help you to understand this when you are so obviously in 'obstinate ass' mode, and permanently, is not to my interest. But you likely understand the gist. Others here will grasp more.Belief does not "comprise" religion, but is a core ingredient in every religion. It's part of what the term means. My philosophy is in no sense religious, nor does it remotely encourage that particular mind set.
Oh God, Oh God, have mercy! A couple of buffoons, in their buffoon outfits, discussing who is and who is not 'enlightened' and how it might be decided! It is exactly in this KIND of area that your having deviated from 'sanity' shows up. But again, it resolves in Values. If this is 'value' to you-plural, who will stop you? 'Enlightenment' is a most stooopid category, for questionable folks who have lost track of the real issues at stake in life. What more can be said???Joshua Stone: There are those within Zen circles who would state that unless they personally qualify a person as having passed the stage of being “enlightened” they are not ‘officially’ enlightened. Must we all be in agreement that Quinn is officially functioning within the state of “enlightened genius” for it to be true? Must I have your official approval in order to actually be “enlightened?”
What would it matter if I gave you my official approval or not? You would have to be enlightened yourself in order to discern whether my approval was worth anything to begin with - in which case, you wouldn't need my approval.David Quinn
Push come to shove, it has been all very interesting. I don't dislike you or anyone here. But based on your discourse, in my view, you have simply missed the mark. But it is what you want. It works for you somehow. I have tried to show that there can be much much more that is part and parcel of spiritual life.
Unsuccessfully! ;-)
Ni ange, ni bête
Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.
There is a reason to ignore anyone who claims to be enlightened.Dan Rowden wrote:Have you been reading the discussion? There is no objectivity to even be considered here. Objectivity is a chimera.
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.
Ignore? Maybe. What's the reason you have in mind, specifically? I don't have any real time for people who unilaterally (out of any sensible context) make that claim either. But I have less time for those that speak with obvious spiritual authority and knowledge then, when pressed, turn around and deny their words imply they have such an attainment.
Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.
The reason is that delusion is subjective.
Since it is subjective, there is no way of claiming to be without delusions if someone else claims that you are deluded.
And there is no need for authority or knowledge to deny any claim of enlightenment.
Since it is subjective, there is no way of claiming to be without delusions if someone else claims that you are deluded.
And there is no need for authority or knowledge to deny any claim of enlightenment.
Last edited by Bobo on Sat Feb 23, 2013 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Dennis Mahar
- Posts: 4082
- Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm
Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.
Alex,
is this judgement of yours absolutely true or is it a judgement relative to your comprehension ability?
a prejudice, an aversion?
The truth is you don't know.
You can't know Dan's subjective experience.
You are pissing in the wind.
and judge you do.but, in the end, it is not really and truly for me to judge.
is this judgement of yours absolutely true or is it a judgement relative to your comprehension ability?
a prejudice, an aversion?
The truth is you don't know.
You can't know Dan's subjective experience.
You are pissing in the wind.
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.
Well, I tossed a coin to see if I'd respond tho this. I lost, so here goes:
Have fun researching your life away. Don't forget Pratītyasamutpāda will you now?
See ya.
Dan wrote:How did you verify that? Do you realise that in putting that question to you, I've done one of two things: put your point to the sword completely (which is what I will contend I've done), or, forced you to take the view that not a thing we think can be other than uncertain. If the latter, then you are in no position to know whether you're right or not and have to face the possibility that I, in fact, am. God I love logic.
Oh, I see, logic is a "manoeuvre" to you? No wonder you hate actual philosophy so much. You're aware you hate it, aren't you? Following an idea where it leads, logically, exploring its corrolaries to establish its credibility as an idea is what thinking persons do, Alex. It the very basis of philosophic inquiry. You seem to get all funny when it leads to a place where something is properly established. Or is it just when it leads to a place that doesn't suit you?Alex wrote:This is in a nut shell the manoeuvre that you employ time and time again.
Yes, indeed. Philosophy is flawed. I get it.I think it is flawed.
That is pathetic, even for you. I challenged you to put up or shut up so as to get somewhere in the discussion of that point. You know, dialectic, logic, philosophy. I'm sorry, I'll stop swearing.First, I agreed with your point because you essentially begged me to do so.
Logic games, huh? Pertinent questions that lead naturally from the very statement you made is a logic game? Screw you, Alex. You are impossible. You make a point then run away from its implications (if not the point itself) when you see that it's going wrong for you. There's no possibility of discourse of any intellectual integrity with you.You asked me to agree with you so you might proceed with your rather tired logic-games.
Have fun researching your life away. Don't forget Pratītyasamutpāda will you now?
See ya.
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: I, Unidian, "Naturyl," James Quirk, am a popcorn maker.
I think what you mean is there's no way to "prove" to another that you are without delusions. If that's sort of what you're getting at, it's true but irrelevant to the person who is enlightened. No-one can truly know if you're enlightened or not, so there's no real reason to ever "claim" such a thing. What would it mean to do so? Nothing, really.Bobo wrote:The reason is that delusion is subjective. Since it is subjective, there is no way of claiming to be without delusions if someone else claims that you are deluded. And there is no need for authority or knowledge to deny any claim of enlightenment.
