Some Questions of Trevor

[unwise]

You are all hiding behind empty words. Give it up.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

unwise,

So, of course, nothing in them has any 'inherent' realness. That is not a big discovery. It is a scientific fact.

I would say it is more than a scientific fact: it is a metaphysical fact that can be established with certainty using logic. Here it is held that this lack of inherent existence is a major discovery. Whether it is major or not is up for debate, but it is certainly "foundational", in that it would be impossible to come up with a complete metaphysic without understanding it. Similarly, it is impossible to come up with a complete system of mathematics without addition. Does that, however, automatically mean addition is a major discovery?

Ego is a state of consciousness wherein the world appears.

I'm not sure if that's definition quite covers what you are saying, but I understand your use in context. Specifically, I don't think you want to say ego that the ego itself is a "state".

One can act without any sense of ego - as in playing tennis, doing math homework, discussing Vulcan philosophy or dreaming. Often in dreaming, one is simply acting without thought of an ego. Nevertheless, the ego is active because the world is appearing to an actor. The ego may say there is no ego, but, of course, someone is acting while saying this. He is saying something to ANOTHER. Ego is present. Ego, in fact, is the only real thing in 'world-appearing.'

"I think, therefore I exist."
-Rene Descartes

Sometimes when you use the word "ego", I would use the word "self" instead. My psychology might be wrong, but I think there are two different concepts here.

Also, as a quick side-comment, I was a little put off when you used the term "Cosmic". It sounds like a word that someone would use under the influence of LSD; unfortunately, I realized that you are actually correct in your use. We are in the Cosmos. I'm used to more "academic" sounding words.

Otherwise, I still understand what you are saying. I don't have any specific questions: please continue with your description.

(By the way, I'm not unwise's flunky. I think a lot of people are being unfair to him. He's using a different vocabulary to describe many of the same concepts that we talk about here, probably because he came up with a lot of this on his own and isn't familiar with the traditional jargon. His theory actually fits in pretty well with the other content at this forum. I'm almost embarassed I was poking fun at him for so long.)

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

(By the way, I'm not unwise's flunky. I think a lot of people are being unfair to him. He's using a different vocabulary to describe many of the same concepts that we talk about here, probably because he came up with a lot of this on his own and isn't familiar with the traditional jargon. His theory actually fits in pretty well with the other content at this forum. I'm almost embarassed I was poking fun at him for so long.)

Hey, I was giving him credit when credit was due, and calling him on stuff that looked nuts - same as I do to everyone else. The biggest problem I have with him is that he's snubbing everyone who does not bow down and kiss his feet. If he truly only wants to talk to people who are willing to turn off their own brains except to the point of figuring out "how" he is right rather than "if" he is right, this guy is dangerous.

He is not willing to even discuss his ideas with anyone who is trying to keep an open mind but holding logic and rationality as the measuring stick. I think a number of us were gining him the opportunity to express his thoughts in a rational manner to show us if he has anything good - but instead he throws a crybaby hissy-fit because we were participating in a thread he posted on an open forum. I can't picture a sage who whines, so it's hard to take some of what he says seriously.

He has a few good thoughts IMO, but I'm not going to be complacent about his irrationality to earn his favor - and I'm certainly not going to kiss-up to him to "earn" the right to question what he means.

What's more, when he is insulting, others are likely to be insulting back just on the fairness principle. Being condescending just doesn't cut it.

[unwise]

I'm not sure if that's definition quite covers what you are saying, but I understand your use in context. Specifically, I don't think you want to say ego that the ego itself is a "state".

Trevor, I am using 'ego' in this sense on purpose. I also use 'cosmic self' on purpose. I do not want my explanations to be misunderstood by the usual understanding of certain important terms. The term 'self' is similar to 'god' in that it is RIFE with confusion and misconception. Same with 'ego.' I redefine terms all over the place so that there is clarity. Otherwise you have the misdirection and circular BS that appears at Spock Central.

He's using a different vocabulary to describe many of the same concepts that we talk about here, probably because he came up with a lot of this on his own and isn't familiar with the traditional jargon. His theory actually fits in pretty well with the other content at this forum.

Trevor, I appreciate your defense, but I actually do understand the terminology that is used here. It is not difficult. But, as I say, I have to lead the person's mind in an entirely new direction, and this involves the clarifying or re-defining of the word landscape. You say that my "theory actually fits in pretty well with the content of this forum," but actually it does not at all. It radically opposes what is going on here as David already knows and as you will see.

[sschaula]

Unwise,

You make a lot of declarative statements. Am I to suppose by this that you claim to be enlightened?

No. I claim to be unenlightened. Enlightenment - unenlightenment...I don't see the big deal. I'm just a normal human being - I prefer to leave it at that.

I don't listen to sages. I figure it out for myself...so when someone says "you have to be enlightened to know that" I do have the authority to laugh at them.

I don't believe in children's stories.

If you are enlightened, then plainly say so - not that it would matter or be true, but it would at least be LOGICAL.

I will plainly say that I think the vast majority of people who claim enlightenment status are too egomaniacal for my liking. But if I were to claim enlightenment, it would only seem to make more sense...I don't think it would be any more logical.

Anyway I don't want to take away from any significant discussion you are to have with Trevor here...

Trevor said:

He's using a different vocabulary to describe many of the same concepts that we talk about here, probably because he came up with a lot of this on his own and isn't familiar with the traditional jargon. His theory actually fits in pretty well with the other content at this forum.

I disagree that it's simply a different way of saying the same things. It's not at all. It's an entirely different thing which unwise is talking about.

Here, we place value on truth. Logic. Reasoning. Reality.

Unwise is talking about things beyond truth, logic, reasoning and reality. Beyond doesn't mean greater than. He's saying that our view of reality is limited...which is always the case if you're having a view of reality...yet so is his. And what's worse is that it seems to be impacted by his drives. It doesn't come from a desire for truth. It seems to come from ego.

Anyway, just my view..please continue.

[kowtaaia]

I will plainly say that I think the vast majority of people who claim enlightenment status are too egomaniacal for my liking.

The one thing that you can be absolutely sure of is that EVERYONE that claims enlightenment status, is deluded.

P.S. ...or just lying. :)

[sschaula]

I'm not sure of that.

[kowtaaia]

I'm not sure of that.

Well sir, you can be. :)

[David Quinn]

kowtaaia wrote:

Scott: I will plainly say that I think the vast majority of people who claim enlightenment status are too egomaniacal for my liking.

kowtaaia: The one thing that you can be absolutely sure of is that EVERYONE that claims enlightenment status, is deluded.

Unfortunately, the claim you are making here is far more deluded. For you are effectively claiming that you have looked directly into the minds of everyone in the human race - past, present and future - who have concluded that they are enlightened and found them all to be mistaken.

At least the person claiming enlightenment is simply making a claim about himself, either rightly or wrongly. But you are making a claim on behalf of the whole of humanity, on the basis of no evidence at all.

Moreover, you are also claiming that you are wise enough to know what an enlightened person might be like and what constitutes enlightened behaviour and what doesn't. This is a very pretentious claim, essentially no different to claiming that you are enlightened yourself.

-

[David Quinn]

Trevor wrote:

He's using a different vocabulary to describe many of the same concepts that we talk about here, probably because he came up with a lot of this on his own and isn't familiar with the traditional jargon. His theory actually fits in pretty well with the other content at this forum.

I'm afraid it doesn't, not in the slightest. He and I disagree on almost everything. I consider "unwise" him to be someone of limited insight who is firmly stuck in the realm of form.

By this I mean that he still finds mystical/emotional significance in particular forms, and he still enjoys tethering his mind around these forms. He has never attempted to break free of all forms. He has never tried to open himself up to the formlessness of the Infinite.

UFOs, many-worlds theory, magic, synchronization, Cosmic self, motorbikes, etc - these are solid objects which glitter and amuse him and provide reassurance to his ego. He is like an infant who gets easily distracted by any colorful object which happens to be waved before him.

This is why there is a underlying streak of insincerity in all of his posts, palpable to anyone who reads them. Despite his attempts to sound enlightened and authoritarian, he doesn't really believe in any of the toys he presents. He hasn't gone to the bother of trying to establish whether they are true or not. They don't really connect to anything. That sort of thing doesn't interest him in the slightest. No, he simply likes having toys and showing them off to people, and that is all.

Even the very core of his belief-system, that reality is an irreconcilable duality between the world and consciousness is a toy. It is a palpable glittering object that his ego can grasp hold of and parade around like a trophy. On a fundamental level, it is a case of his ego cunningly remaining in the realm of form, where it knows it can continue to exist unharmed.

The person seeking enlightenment need to learn how to let go of all forms, without exception, if he is to progress. He needs to learn how to dive, with faith, into the Void. But you do have to progress beyond kindergarten before such an attempt can be made.

-

[kowtaaia]

kowtaaia wrote:

Scott: I will plainly say that I think the vast majority of people who claim enlightenment status are too egomaniacal for my liking.

kowtaaia: The one thing that you can be absolutely sure of is that EVERYONE that claims enlightenment status, is deluded.

Unfortunately, the claim you are making here is far more deluded. For you are effectively claiming that you have looked directly into the minds of everyone in the human race - past, present and future - who have concluded that they are enlightened and found them all to be mistaken.

At least the person claiming enlightenment is simply making a claim about himself, either rightly or wrongly. But you are making a claim on behalf of the whole of humanity, on the basis of no evidence at all.

Moreover, you are also claiming that you are wise enough to know what an enlightened person might be like and what constitutes enlightened behaviour and what doesn't. This is a very pretentious claim, essentially no different to claiming that you are enlightened yourself.

-

Nonsense! It has nothing to do with looking into the minds of others or claiming on behalf of humanity. Your last statement about behaviour, is non-sequitur. What is it that claims enlightenment status?

Those falsely imagined words, attributed to the Buddha: "I am awake." have been adopted by and have exposed many deluded, egocentric fools.

[kowtaaia]

...unless, of course, you're using the word 'enlightenment' to mean something other than "awakened".

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

This is why there is a underlying streak of insincerity in all of his posts, palpable to anyone who reads them. Despite his attempts to sound enlightened and authoritarian, he doesn't really believe in any of the toys he presents.

...and that is the glimmer of hope for him. He doesn't really believe his own nonsense.

Here's something he wrote in his UFO thread that also gave me hope for him:

I only see one soul that everyone is plugged into.

That's pretty good. The rest of what he got was a good deal garbled up in what, at the time, I took to be symbolism (and I think that is what Trevor is trying to follow - the meaning under the symbolism). Then again, if we give enough credit to symbolism, the answers to the universe are written in a leaf plucked from a tree.

Right now, unwise is going off on such a self-important tangent that if he does not swallow a heavy dose of humility, he'll lose any insight he may have had access to.

[kowtaaia]

David,

Any thoughts on the Vishuddimagga?



Suffering alone exists, none who suffer;
The deed there is, but no doer thereof;
Enlightenment is, but no one to seek it (ipso facto: no one to be enlightened);
The path is there, but no one to walk it.



.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

eliza,

Right now, unwise is going off on such a self-important tangent that if he does not swallow a heavy dose of humility, he'll lose any insight he may have had access to.

Except I asked him to explain his theory. This thread is actually kinda addressed to me. I'm not saying I'm not grateful for the comments... they keep me from taking him at face value.

He has, however, promised at least a few more posts about his theory. This is not self-importance on his part: I want him to elaborate.

[David Quinn]

kowtaaia wrote:

Those falsely imagined words, attributed to the Buddha: "I am awake." have been adopted by and have exposed many deluded, egocentric fools.

Do you honestly believe that a fully-awakened Buddha is unaware that he is awake?

Suffering alone exists, none who suffer;
The deed there is, but no doer thereof;
Enlightenment is, but no one to seek it (ipso facto: no one to be enlightened);
The path is there, but no one to walk it.

All that is true. However, the brain/body organism which is capable of realizing that the self is an illusion is also capable of realizing the significance of this realization.

In other words, the enlightened brain is awake to its selfless nature. Not only is it enlightened, but it knows that it is enlightened. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

-

[unwise]

David does a lot of psychoanalysis of me without a license. He claims to know that I do not mean what I say, that I am not as far along as his devotees which flatters them, and that I cling to this world and its baubles out of a fear of something or other.

Meanwhile he sets himself up on the power of jibberjabber alone with impeccable orations about 'formlessness' and 'leaving all forms' and the 'formlessness of the void' and seeing 'the infinitude of formless voidlessness in truthiness' and that nothing has 'inherent existence' because 'the peerless formless truthiness of the absolute poop' IS empty.....and so on.....blah blah blah.....It's just throwing a handful of terms like that around.

I say in my first statement about the world that nothing in it is real. You see? It is easy to say. Not complicated at all. But the unrealness of the world still brings pain. What is to be done about it? Why go on the dole if pain can be avoided with enlightenment? Who will suffer hunger?

Who is enlightened according to David? "He who sees the formlessness of the absolute truth of reality." Do you see it David? "Of course." How can we see it too? "Give up all attachments, become manly and go on the dole." When will we be enlightened like you, David? "When you are beyond all concepts and abide in the formless void of poopfulness and truthiness and know that you are inherently non-existent in the reality of truthiness within the dole system." Ok.

Fine. If that is what you want.

But the person is still left to wonder who he is, where he came from, where he is going, and if there is anything else. What is to be done with the pain? One is still asking questions. One is aware of a self and has existential questions about it - as is natural. There are many ways to cut this inner dialogue off. David presents one method with his 'logic.' Drinking is better.

David can call all of these things 'concepts' and 'attachments of the ego' and 'womanly concerns.' --That such existential questions can be avoided. Why not avoid them with alcohol and drugs, sex and rock and roll? Such questions of ego do not arise when one is preoccupied. In fact, self awareness doesn't even arise when one is busy doing anything. If one got off the dole and worked, there would be little time for 'womanly' self absorption and self consciousness.

There is no self awareness in enjoyment. Who then is attached? There is no self there to be attached.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Except I asked him to explain his theory. This thread is actually kinda addressed to me. I'm not saying I'm not grateful for the comments... they keep me from taking him at face value.

He has, however, promised at least a few more posts about his theory. This is not self-importance on his part: I want him to elaborate.

Explaining his theory is not what I was referring to as a self-important tangent. Here are some examples:

I'll entertain any question YOU have to clarify.

The all-caps "you" combined with the popous tone of his statement. So, he thinks he can post a thread on an open forum on a message board that is not his, and tell everybody how to behave? and another example of him doing the same thing:

I would appreciate it if we can converse without all the interruptions.

That isn't the worst of it.

I don't know if this experience bred the sort of contempt I have of earthlings and their world,

He seems to be claiming he is not an earthling, and he has "contempt" for earthlings and their world - that is the seed of something dangerous. Here he is definatly claiming self-importance.

It was coming from the sun. AND, that more info would soon be given to me - or, more of a 'remembering.'

also sounds self-important

Scott my son, you never disappoint me. You always give me a smile. You're like Pavlov's dog.

His son? He's trying to claim to outrank Scott, based on - well, his self-assigned self-importance.

The point of my post is that this event began a series of cascading experiences and realizations that ended in complete enlightenment.

Okay, he considers himself completely enlightened... I'll let that one go for now, and just mention it as a backdrop for other statements of his.

In the UFO thread, I was giving him some slack for the way he was phrasing things. Yeah - the experience happened back in 1996, and he's talking about it now after running across an old CD with the picture, and he should have processed the data dump - if that is what it was, long ago. But again, I cut him some slack thinking maybe it was too overwhelming for him at the time and locked the memory away and was only now able to process it. But then I ran across some old threads where he has gone on about this sort of thing before... If he was going to process his data dump, he should have done so by now - but moving on to his recent posts...

If you traced my life experience, my readings, the people, the places, the disasters, the pain, the satori etc.,you would think that it was all designed by a playwrite to bring me exactly to this knowledge. As a matter of fact, I have been plagued all my life -stopped, hindered, ruined, abused, humiliated, wrecked, beat down. Astrologers say 'my chart' is full of Saturn and '12th house issues.' Opposition. Fire. Breaking down....and enlightenment. Saturn ruins the person so that he turns in. And so it is.

Causality brings all of us to where we are. Disasters, pain, being hindered, ruined, abused, humiliated, wrecked, beat down can also lead one to insanity while thinking he is great, especially if he believes some astrologer who tells him he will be great (and that is what astrologers do because they will get more repeat customers if they tell their customers what the customers want to hear).

Trevor, I know your intent is just to understand his thoughts better to see if there is anything deep in there - but the way you have phrased some things feeds unwise's ego - and that is something the rest of us are being careful to not do because it is unhealthy for unwise.

Here is an example of you feeding his ego:

unwise, this was very interesting, and reminded me strongly of other things I read, albeit in a different form (you'll see what I mean). I apologize ...

Please, do continue.

Trevor,

You are an excellent student! Finally, someone appears with an open mind and a desire to learn.

There were people other than you approaching his theories with an open mind, but he only recognized you after you sucked up to him.

If he only recognizes people who suck up to him, then he has an enormous ego rivaling that of a cult leader.

[unwise]

Trevor is the only person who doesn't approach me as a smart ass. So I look at him and treat him differently. No need to hunt threads down and project another psychoanalytic report.

[sschaula]

Unwise wrote about this forum's ideas:

But the person is still left to wonder who he is, where he came from, where he is going, and if there is anything else. What is to be done with the pain? One is still asking questions.

No, finding the absolute truth through logic takes you to the end of the game. You've simply misunderstood this forum's ideas. Taking another read of Wisdom of the Infinite, this time paying attention, should help.

It takes time, and digging very deep mentally, to go through the process and finally reach a point where you are mostly thinking logically. But when you reach that point, you don't wonder who you are...you've already thought about it and found it out through looking. You don't wonder where you came from, where you're going, and if there's anything else. All of those things are answered by proper understanding. Pain disappears, not because you dumb yourself down, but because you rewire your thinking so that it works in accordance with the way things actually are. You function in harmony, then.

I really don't think you've understood David's ideas just yet, unwise. I don't know...just my opinion. Reread his book!

Oh wait, I guess that's unnecessary since you know it all now. Only unenlightened people should keep open minds?

One is aware of a self and has existential questions about it - as is natural. There are many ways to cut this inner dialogue off. David presents one method with his 'logic.' Drinking is better.

It's not about cutting the inner dialogue off. It's about streamlining the inner dialogue so that it's as sane as it can be. Things like shikantaza cut the inner dialogue off, after doing for a while. This method here is for making the dialogue work better...so that you aren't getting those highs where you think you're the smartest enlightened person ever, and those lows from where people tell you that you're full of it.

[unwise]

Like I said, any activity will cut off inner dialogue and focus the mind on 'what is.' Then everything is fine. In the East it is called Zen. Out here it could be called skiing or fucking.

[kowtaaia]

Do you honestly believe that a fully-awakened Buddha is unaware that he is awake?

For a start, the phrase "fully awakened Buddha" is redundant.

You continue to post non-sequitors.
We were talking about "claiming enlightenment status", not being aware of being awake. Regardless of the fact that you're talking about self consciousness, there is no doubt, that there is no such thing as being aware of being awakened. It's a silly egocentric notion.

All that is true. However, the brain/body organism which is capable of realizing that the self is an illusion is also capable of realizing the significance of this realization.

In other words, the enlightened brain is awake to its selfless nature. Not only is it enlightened, but it knows that it is enlightened. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

Your "realizing that the self is an illusion" is intellectual. Aside from the enlightenment foolishness, you're talking about the brain being aware of absence. That's a thought process, nothing more.

[sschaula]

Unwise,

But even the yogic scriptures are clear: once the mind is one-pointed (silenced and aware of what is), then you need discrimination to reach "enlightenment". Do you disagree with that?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

unwise, what is magic and how can there be acausal events? Of my initial questions, these two bug me the most. There are many magical traditions, and I don't know which one, if any, you are referring to. Also, I thought causality is pretty much a given. Like, even when the big cheese David Hume doubted its necessity, he seemed to be doing it in fun, and didn't completely believe what he was saying.

[unwise]

If you read some of the recorded studies of 'synchronicity,' you will find examples of a-causal activity. The paranormal world is full of similar examples. A person has a dream and the next day something happens exactly as in the dream. How is this understood by causality?

Also, there are many phenomena within the quantum world of experimentation that are a-causal. For instance, an 'effect' can transpire before its 'cause.' Or, two particles separated by millions of light years can act in sympathy with each other. It is not known how or what could 'cause' the effect since light can only travel so fast. The two particles are in communication, but it is impossible in our world of causality.

The Heisenberg Uncertain Principle could also be a case of this. That is, quantum events are only understood in terms of probability. It is no longer possible to understand or follow a chain of events in the quantum world. One-to-one causality breaks down. In fact, causality is only a principle of the gross material world. It is NOT universal as preached here. It does NOT apply to the quantum world

Because of the uncertainties existing at this level, a picture of the submicroscopic world emerges as one of statistical probabilities rather than measurable certainties. On the large scale it is still possible to speak of causality in a framework described in terms of space and time; on the atomic scale this is not possible. Such a description would require exact measurements of such quantities as position, speed, energy, and time, and these quantities cannot be measured exactly because of the uncertainty principle