Some Questions of Trevor

[kowtaaia]

K: You don't know what you're talking about. 'Buddha' is a title that denotes perfect enlightenment. Study up!

Traditionally, the term "Buddha" can refer to a bodhisattva, or even to an arhat. It doesn't just refer to a perfect being.

There has probably never been a perfect Buddha in all of history. It is a very lofty attainment, after all - maybe too lofty for the human race. Siddhartha Gautama was more likely to have been a bodhisattva, as imperfections can be detected in his behaviour - assuming, of course, that the depictions of his life and teachings can be believed.

Being a bodhsiattva is still a great achievement, and in many ways it does resemble Buddhahood, but it is still a long way short of perfection.

In any case, words don't have fixed meaning. We are free to make them mean whatever we want them to mean. We don't have to be a slave to tradition. Let's leave that to those who don't have any real understanding.

Jesus Christ, you're full of shit. Debating with you is like arguing with a spoiled little girl that wants to be right regardless of fact. Waste someone elses time, please.

Words point. That's all.

Every comment you make reveals a lack of wisdom. All you do is repeat the common, populist, exoteric view of Buddhism that can be found in any New Age city bookstore. You don't seem to have thought about these issues in any substantial manner. Your glib, pseudo-Zennish answers may fool some people, but they don't conceal the very real deficiencies in your understanding.

Do you know what a reference is, genius? It's not your self serving bullshit opinions. Put up or shut up.
Your little girly hissy fit started right after it was pointed out that those that claim enlightenment status, are bogus and deluded. You're all in the head. It's called 'waking sleep'.

.

[Iolaus]

Memberlist says you are registered as "birdofhermes." You can find yourself by going to memberlist and sorting by username/ ascending (Alphabetical starting w/ A, page 2). Can you remember your password?

I tried again, and this time it says I have used an incorrect username or password, or an inactive one.
But I know the password.
I was able to reactivate BoH on another site.
But Iolaus is fine.

[David Quinn]

Unwise wrote:

But you're not understanding. Where can your dream world come from but your own mind? This is also the source of the waking world. You are dreaming up everyone you see. You are dreaming me. You are dreaming up apple-dropping gurus who only exist in your mind. You are dreaming up global warming that only exists in your own dream world. You are alone. Seeing lots of people and thinking that they all have their own souls is the definition of delusion.

Isn't there any global warming in your world?

-

[unwise]

A golden age is dawning in my world, and freedom, communication and individual power is being extended into every corner. All the old powers and forms are falling away and evil doers are being exposed daily.

[David Quinn]

How does the reality of global warming relate to that?

-

[Iolaus]

A golden age is dawning in my world, and freedom, communication and individual power is being extended into every corner. All the old powers and forms are falling away and evil doers are being exposed daily.

No wonder he doesn't want to off himself.

I hope you're right, Nemo.

[Bo]

Hi David

No intended offence - I think the 'analysis' you present is sound (which is what makes it even more hypnotic) - but I think your grasp on "Buddhism" - even Buddhist theory - is quite a significant gap. The real thing is much better.

Best wishes,
Bo

[David Quinn]

What is your understanding of Buddhism, Bo?

-

[Bo]

Dear David

Enough to see miscomprehension when I see it. (although in this case it was a bit obvious).

It is good this is just a forum to discuss Truth, Courage, Honest, Logic, Masculinity, Wisdom, Perfection. I do hope the masculinity topics are well informed though. =)

Peace.

[David Quinn]

Bo wrote:

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

DQ: 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.

B: As one of my friends says, the ego is subtle.

If someone thinks they are enlightened, they've probably just lost it.

The emphasis being on "probably".

Believing oneself to be enlightened can indeed be delusional, and most of the time it is, but not necessarily in all cases. If that was so, then we would have to instantly dismiss Gautama himself, who openly claimed to be enlightened, as being delusional.

I do agree that egotism can be subtle. It can even steal into the hearts of those who like to think they are humbly not claiming to be enlightened.

From the Venerable and highly respected Ajahn Chah:

If your mind tries to tell you it has already attained the level of sotapanna, go and bow to a sotapanna. He'll tell you himself it's all uncertain. If you meet a sakadagami, go and pay respects to him. When he sees you, he'll simply say, "Not a sure thing!" If there's an anagami, go and bow to him. He'll tell you only one thing. "Uncertain!" If you meet even an arahant, go and bow to him. He'll tell you even more firmly, "It's all even more uncertain!" You'll hear the words of the Noble Ones: "Everything is uncertain. Don't cling to anything!"

What a hypocrite this Ajahn Chah is. I certainly don't see him taking his own advice.

Can there be a more comical sight than a guru pretending to be humble and unenlightened, all the while dispensing spiritual advice to others as though he were an expert? It is like watching a doctor who, in the middle of performing open heart surgery on a patient, suddenly claims that he has no medical qualifications.

DQ: 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.

B: 1/ So you think it is the brain that becomes awake?

The brain seems to be the primary organ of consciousness, but I won't argue the point with you. At root, it is impossible to be sure what causes consciousness, other than to say, in a generic sense, that Nature or the Infinite is the cause of it. We can say that it is the Infinite which becomes conscious of its own nature via the rational workings of the brain.

2/ How does the brain become so-called enlightened and how does it know it is?

The brain (or mind) becomes enlightened when it has eliminated all of its delusions about the nature of existence. And it is precisely because it has eliminated its delusions that it is able to accurately determine, with clear-sightedness, that it is enlightened.

-

[Bo]

Dear David - To be honest, there is not much point having a discussion as the lack of comprehension is very clear. If you were to enter into a discussion within any genuine Buddhist tradition or teacher, your ignorance (as in not knowing) would be smelt at the doorstep. And a thought like 'all the other bastards have got it wrong and I'm the only one who understands Buddhism in this whole town' - I mean, wouldn't that even be suspect to you? However, apparently it works for some so what can I say.

Anyway, just for the sake of tying up this loose end -

Believing oneself to be enlightened can indeed be delusional, and most of the time it is, but not necessarily in all cases.

Belief is delusion. The Buddha didn't believe he was enlightened.

You are off base (again).

What a hypocrite this Ajahn Chah is. I certainly don't see him taking his own advice.

What can I say - that's a highly reflective statement.

The brain (or mind) becomes enlightened when it has eliminated all of its delusions about the nature of existence. And it is precisely because it has eliminated its delusions that it is able to accurately determine, with clear-sightedness, that it is enlightened.
-

1. The brain is not the mind
2. Delusions are known and seen. What you are referring to and talking FROM is just delusion itself. I think this is understandable as everyone starts with intellectual comprehension and delusions can be the seed to knowing - but your death hold grip means you are unable to move past it to the path to genuine peace (no need to kid anyone else about it or even prove it - check it out yourself)

May you be well.

Peace,
Bo

[David Quinn]

Bo wrote:

Dear David - To be honest, there is not much point having a discussion as the lack of comprehension is very clear. If you were to enter into a discussion within any genuine Buddhist tradition or teacher, your ignorance (as in not knowing) would be smelt at the doorstep.

I agree that my understanding and wisdom is completely unlike what is commonly taught in Buddhism these days. But then again, I consider modern Buddhism to be a joke.

And a thought like 'all the other bastards have got it wrong and I'm the only one who understands Buddhism in this whole town' - I mean, wouldn't that even be suspect to you? However, apparently it works for some so what can I say.

I agree with anyone who speaks the truth - e.g. Buddha, Diogenes, Lao Tzu, Huang Po, Chuang Tzu, Nagarjuna, Socrates, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, etc. My only disagreement is with those who preach false, shallow, common, populist, exoteric views.

DQ: Believing oneself to be enlightened can indeed be delusional, and most of the time it is, but not necessarily in all cases.

B: Belief is delusion. The Buddha didn't believe he was enlightened.

He believed it in the sense that he knew that he was enlightened. He knew it by the light of his own wisdom.

DQ: What a hypocrite this Ajahn Chah is. I certainly don't see him taking his own advice.

B: What can I say - that's a highly reflective statement.

A meaningless response.

DQ: The brain (or mind) becomes enlightened when it has eliminated all of its delusions about the nature of existence. And it is precisely because it has eliminated its delusions that it is able to accurately determine, with clear-sightedness, that it is enlightened.

B:1. The brain is not the mind

Ah, but that is merely your belief - which, as you pointed out earlier, is delusional.

Delusions are known and seen. What you are referring to and talking FROM is just delusion itself. I think this is understandable as everyone starts with intellectual comprehension and delusions can be the seed to knowing - but your death hold grip means you are unable to move past it to the path to genuine peace (no need to kid anyone else about it or even prove it - check it out yourself)

I have no interest in your "peace". If I wanted that, I would simply take drugs, or have a lobotomy, or join a Buddhist community and spend my time trying to be as thoughtless as possible. No, sorry, I have always been interested in something far greater than that.

--

It is interesting to read of the Buddha's initial enlightenment. As stated in Wikipedia:

At the age of 35, he attained Enlightenment; according to some traditions, this occurred approximately in May, and according to others in December. Gautama, from then on, was known as "The Perfectly Self-Awakened One", the Samyaksambuddha (Pāli: Sammāsambuddha).

At this point, he is believed to have stated that he had realized complete awakening and insight into the nature and cause of human suffering which was ignorance, along with steps necessary to eliminate it.

Note that he openly claimed that he was completely awakened - which, according to the laughable joke which is modern Buddhism, automatically relegates him to the status of a delusional meglomaniac who had no understanding of true Buddhist wisdom!

Just as Christians trample all over Jesus so as to make sure that every sign of life has been crushed out of him, thus enabling them to enjoy life with a clear conscience, so too do modern Buddhists trample all over Siddhartha Gautama.

-

[kowtaaia]

Bo,

Welcome to the Genius Forum.

[Bo]

Bo,

Welcome to the Genius Forum.

Thankyou for the welcome kowtaaia :)

Happily,
Bo

[kowtaaia]

No doubt, you've noticed that the inmates run the asylum. :)

[Leyla Shen]

Are you celibate, kowtaaia?

.

[kowtaaia]

Yes.

[kowtaaia]

...not dead, though. :)

[Bo]

Last kick back, David, as I find this very boring.

*puts on culture debate hat of this Board*

I agree that my understanding and wisdom is completely unlike what is commonly taught in Buddhism these days. But then again, I consider modern Buddhism to be a joke.

It's obvious you consider anyone who doesn't agree with you a joke. That's a bit sad.

I agree with anyone who speaks the truth - e.g. Buddha, Diogenes, Lao Tzu, Huang Po, Chuang Tzu, Nagarjuna, Socrates, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, etc. My only disagreement is with those who preach false, shallow, common, populist, exoteric views.

Well nothing you say reflects the words of Buddha, Huang Po, Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Nagarjuna etc. I think you have good spelling though if that counts.

Your disagreement again is with anyone who doesn't agree with you. Tut tut.

He believed it in the sense that he knew that he was enlightened. He knew it by the light of his own wisdom.

First you said belief. Now you say knowledge. Which is it? You don't actually know (again very obviously)

DQ: What a hypocrite this Ajahn Chah is. I certainly don't see him taking his own advice.

B: What can I say - that's a highly reflective statement.

A meaningless response.

Meaningless is how I feel about this discussion.

Ah, but that is merely your belief - which, as you pointed out earlier, is delusional.

Piggybacking eh. As is evident, you're using second hand beliefs. You don't know it for yourself.

Also the above statement is not a belief.

I have no interest in your "peace". If I wanted that, I would simply take drugs, or have a lobotomy, or join a Buddhist community and spend my time trying to be as thoughtless as possible. No, sorry, I have always been interested in something far greater than that.

I know - the word is megalomaniac

It is interesting to read of the Buddha's initial enlightenment. As stated in Wikipedia:

At least I know now where you are picking up your divine sources from.

Note that he openly claimed that he was completely awakened - which, according to the laughable joke which is modern Buddhism, automatically relegates him to the status of a delusional meglomaniac who had no understanding of true Buddhist wisdom!

It's clear (to the clear minded) that no Buddhist has said the Buddha is a megalomaniac. But it is true that this world has its share of megalomaniacs. A bit sad perhaps.

Just as Christians trample all over Jesus so as to make sure that every sign of life has been crushed out of him, thus enabling them to enjoy life with a clear conscience, so too do modern Buddhists trample all over Siddhartha Gautama.

Another delusion.

Peace - for anyone that is interested with no-one forced to take it :)

[Leyla Shen]

[laughs]

kowtaaia wrote:

...not dead, though. :)

Well, that's an interesting afterthought. Would you say it was a celibate one?

.

[Bo]

No doubt, you've noticed that the inmates run the asylum. :)

Gross miscomprehension and lack of heart makes for boring discussions - alas !

[kowtaaia]

[laughs]

kowtaaia wrote:

...not dead, though. :)

Well, that's an interesting afterthought. Would you say it was a celibate one?

.

No, it was just a play on the "old, but not dead" joke.

[kowtaaia]

No doubt, you've noticed that the inmates run the asylum. :)

Gross miscomprehension and lack of heart makes for boring discussions - alas !

Coupled with ignorance (Buddhist sense) and a thrill seeker mentality; it makes for some really silly philosophy, as well.

[Leyla Shen]

k:

No, it was just a play on the "old, but not dead" joke.

OK.

.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Bo,

Your disagreement again is with anyone who doesn't agree with you. Tut tut.

Umm... sorry to intrude, but this raised an eyebrow. What kind of philosopher agrees with people who disagree with him?