Who here is enlightened?

[Prophet]

As is often my custom. I don't give people a pass just because they are dead and lots of people like them.

You do not understand me (and many, many others, I suspect) at all, and that you justify attempting to understand opposing arguments in the least charitable light possible is the reason why. You don't care about understanding, you only care about discrediting. Thus, you skip the level of understanding the opposing argument in favor of forcibly misunderstanding it in whichever way you see fit. You never actually have to defeat anyone else's argument when you debate in his way.

In this way the hypocrite debater, or rhetorician, is able to give the illusion of making a weak argument appear strong to the common man. However, the uncommon man will see that the rhetorician's sleight-of-hand proves nothing and their entire debate method is a straw man fallacy.

Is this some attempt to paint me as an inferior? It really shouldn't have any bearing on the argument.

I think it goes beyond the realm of attempt.

Right, and he damns them for being related to those men despite HIS declaration that they venerate these very prophets. Which he additionally damns them for. In other words, regardless of how they treat prophets they have no recourse but damnation.

Not right. He is saying their veneration is false. He is saying they would've killed those prophets just as their ancestors did and taught them to do were they alive in the time of the prophets. He is saying they are the same kind, and faced with another prophet, they would (and did) murder again.

Barring a massive change in your debating style, I will no longer be debating you.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You do not understand me (and many, many others, I suspect) at all, and that you justify attempting to understand opposing arguments in the least charitable light possible is the reason why. You don't care about understanding, you only care about discrediting. Thus, you skip the level of understanding the opposing argument in favor of forcibly misunderstanding it in whichever way you see fit. You never actually have to defeat anyone else's argument when you debate in his way.

In this way the hypocrite debater, or rhetorician, is able to give the illusion of making a weak argument appear strong to the common man. However, the uncommon man will see that the rhetorician's sleight-of-hand proves nothing and their entire debate method is a straw man fallacy.

I'm pretty sure that I am a truer prophet than you are. And more enlightened.

Let me know if you'd like to discuss it.

 

[Prophet]

I'm pretty sure that I am a truer prophet than you are. And more enlightened.

Let me know if you'd like to discuss it.

More enlightened? I guess you could start by describing for me how one can be different levels of enlightened. As I understand it, you are or you are not.

Hanging out at a friend's for the next few hours. I'll be back to compare resumes with you then.

 

[apophenia]

I'm pretty sure that I am a truer prophet than you are. And more enlightened.

Let me know if you'd like to discuss it.

Well, the thread has more or less run its course anyway I think (just my opinion of course), so at this point ...

... entertain us

 

[NIX]

Well, the thread has more or less run its course anyway I think (just my opinion of course), so at this point ...

... entertain us

I wonder what Penumbra has mmm... learned from this thread. I rather suspect she learned more about some of us than she did learn anything much at all about 'enlightenment'.

(and I'm pretty sure that was the point)

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

More enlightened? I guess you could start by describing for me how one can be different levels of enlightened. As I understand it, you are or you are not.

Yeah, that's a common misunderstanding. We who are enlightened realize that enlightenment is not an either/or piece of business.

 

[methylatedghosts]

It's too bad you see it that way because the way I think, questioning and prodding and proving every other thing false is the only way you'll ever reach it. Everyone thinks they have good answers for how to live, but they put down their questions much too easily, accepting lesser answers which they can't prove. They make their homes in the physical world. They accept whatever evil they are taught is necessary.

These unquestioning people never get to see how life is connected by God. These people see only from their myopic points of view. These people see only the outcomes of events and never their causes. It is only from this blindness that they can excuse their selfishness. If they knew they Truth, that all beings are connected in Oneness through God, they would know to do good rather than evil.

Many of them don't even know what evil is. They observe guilt after harming someone, so they assume evil is defined as that which harms others. They have no idea as they commit disgusting acts that the only harm requirement of evil is upon it's performer. Performing evil divides your mind, causing parts of the mind (and the brain according to scans of serial killers) to go dormant.

This dormant part of the mind is known to psychology as the subconscious. In order to bury this part of themselves, beings create the false self, or ego, as it's known in the sciences. This altered version of you....

Hard break. That's enough.

I wonder what you could possibly learn from a lowly unenlightened one such as I, given that you seem to already know it anyway!

That said, there is only person, maybe even two people on this forum who I might have given the title of "enlightened" but I doubt either would like it, and nor would they claim it themselves. I wonder what makes you so different, being that in others it is rather clear in the way they interact with people, and how they choose to impart their knowledge without them having to say so.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I told you during our last interaction that, barring a major change in yourself, I would have no further interactions with you. I am very familiar with your type of person and you in particular. Every argument you construct is based upon feigned understanding. Debating a hypocrite is, to say it nicely, a waste of time.

So you've asked me, "When is Armageddon going to occur and your Son Jesus Christ return?", and when I resisted answering under my previous terms stated nearly a year ago (http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/comparative-religion/129559-thinkers-vs-meditators-33.html#post2862748) you accused me of ad hominem.

What comes up right away is that your question is clearly loaded with your prejudiced stereotype of what Christians believe. What comes up second is your implication of my massive ego in referring to Jesus in jest as my Son. And what comes up now is that you accuse me of ad hominem. So you attempt to make fun of me, implying that I must believe stupid things, implying that I must be a massive egotistical jerk, and cry foul when I return fire? Do you have any idea of how this makes you a hypocrite? Continue this debate with me and I'll make it clear as day for everyone else at the very least.

So after offering to prove you are enlightened by inviting RF members to ask questions to God that you would answer (since your mind works in unison), you refuse to answer the first couple of questions (mine and apophenia) on the basis of a dislike of the questioner.

So let's revisit the post in which the offer was made to see if it had a caveat about it being conditional, or that it was to be a debate?

If you have any questions for God, I will do my best to give a worthy answer.

What is enlightenment like? I invite you to find out for yourself.

Rereading this, I see nothing about your offer as it being a debate, but rather an open unconditional 'invitation' to asks questions of God to show what enlightenment is like...yes?

So to be clear, this is not a debate. So let's get to the question...and this is not mocking Jesus Christ, God, or you, it's a legitimate questions billions of people would love to know...

When is Armageddon going to occur and your Son Jesus Christ return?

Now if you again to refuse to answer the question as promised and go off on a altogether different tangent to avoid explaining to us why you can't answer,..then it will be prove something.

 

[Desert Snake]

(and I'm pretty sure that was the point)

So you think this whole thread was a ploy? That would basically make it a joke, and dishonest. Not to mention bizarre.
I think the OP was serious, and the thread did lead to some good discussion.

 

[YmirGF]

I wonder what Penumbra has mmm... learned from this thread. I rather suspect she learned more about some of us than she did learn anything much at all about 'enlightenment'.

(and I'm pretty sure that was the point)

Unlike some, I don't pretend to know the minds of others, but I think this thread clearly demonstrates my distaste for the term enlightenment. Oddly, it is always an enlivening and enlightening discussion.

I also agree that it was learning about what other people think as opposed to the alleged reality - it's always a subtle, but important difference.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Unlike some, I don't pretend to know the minds of others, but I think this thread clearly demonstrates my distaste for the term enlightenment. Oddly, it is always an enlivening and enlightening discussion.

I also agree that it was learning about what other people think as opposed to the alleged reality - it's always a subtle, but important difference.

I don't think there's been another thread that I wanted to frubal you so much in... :biglaugh:

 

[NIX]

So you think this whole thread was a ploy? That would basically make it a joke, and dishonest. Not to mention bizarre.
I think the OP was serious, and the thread did lead to some good discussion.

A ploy? Penumbra said outright somewhere closer to the beginning of the thread that she was looking more to learn about people in this thread than actually learn 'about enlightenment'. I'm pretty sure I did not misunderstand her words.

I personally much prefer discussions about who people are, to discussions about 'what this or that is' or 'what this or that means', because after so many years reading this forum, it is clear that people define their own subjective realities and all of the words in them.

 

[ratikala]

dear ymir ,

I'm game. Best of luck, in advance. :yes:

I assume from your reply this is some what of am amusement to you , so in that case I can expect little seriousness ?

One might conjecture that that was perhaps my reason for clarifying the matter. Given my replacement for one word, it should be assumed that I was not meaning the same thing. But, yes, I did understand what you were saying. I just disagree.

Obviously, LOL. I understand precisely what you are talking about, I simply disagree. Completeness is a finite concept generated for finite minds to cozy up to. It doesn't take much imagination to comprehend it.

you disagree , :yes: got that !

It's not everyday that one is asked to describe nothing, LOL. I think I understand. English is not your first language, correct? If not, you may miss some of the nuances in what I am saying.

I didnt ask for an expalnation of nothing , I asked in which context you were using it?
prehaps prabhu you spend too much time looking for something to laugh at and missing the question ! or is it mere facetiousness ?

you think wrongly , I am english so as far as I am aware that is my first language ?

Nothing, including "nothing", is complete; just as "nothing" is perfect, beyond change.
(I'm not sure I can put it any more simply than that.)

Bingo! Now you're getting it. The larger point, if you are interested, is that ALL THAT IS is in a perpetual state of becoming - more.

you simply miss my point , or more do not wish to get it
concidering you have rejected ultimate reality , you may have it your way , ....
on a conventional level "ALL THAT IS is in a perpetual state of becoming - more."

Forgive me, I am old and admit I grow impatient with other human animals at times.

I hold nothing against you , but it must be very tiresome , but you are not so old as to hide behind that one !
you know there are some very simple meditations to transmute the aflictive emotions .
but dont tell me youv'e been there , done it , and got the T shirt , .... but what about the practice ? you have to keep doing that .:yes:

I think human animals are being generous with such notions. Sounds great from a marketing standpoint but is a tad difficult to prove.

Beats me. I would speculate that there could be a gulf between what the Buddha actually did and what is widely reported.

now you are sounding old and jaded , ....

That is amusing. Very amusing... and most instructive. So, in effect, you want me to take your word for it? That's so delightful on so many levels...

why not , what do you have to loose

Thanks, now tell me something I don't know. I still bridle at the description of "incorruptibly pure", "without trace of contamination" and specifically "unchanging".

Oh dear ,....you definately are sounding jaded , I doubt you like the word perfect either ? ... well if there wasnt the complete anthisis of this imperfect and human mind set , what point would there be in living ?

ans please please dont give me the sceptics answer , your title says bodhisattva

Thanks again, but I know what it means and have for nearly 4 decades. Again, I am somewhat revolted by the allusions to the rest of reality as being impure and adulterated. From my standpoint, there is only consciousness and these artificial value judgements are unhelpful. It really does detract from what is being alleged.

and this intollerance is it pure ? no it is your true nature adulterated .

Yeah, tell me about it, LOL.

I am trying to , but you find reasons to dig your heals in ,

Binder, dundat - burned the T-shirt. Thanks for the thought though. :drool: I understand you perfectly. I rather doubt you have the faintest idea of what I am talking about though.

I have every idea what you are talking about , but get the feeling that you dont want to look beyond your currently held conception .

As a personality energy essence, I am first and foremost - energy! Energy is action. I will never tire, due to the inherent bliss, I will never become bored and the thrill is in knowing I will never know everything.

then tell your personal energy essence to stop feeling old and cantankerous , it is only a body , dont worry you will get another one , but next time forget collecting T shirts , just do the practice

I know what you are talking about. I disagree. I see an open-ended reality with no upwards/inward limits. You a proposing a "closed system", as it were, and it's not a vision of reality that I care to entertain.

by now I get it that you dissagree , ....yes there is an open ended reality but it can be understood on two levels conventional and ultimate ,but no you have assumed the idea of a closed sysem , it was not my sugestion ! so dont worry about it , it is a noncence !

 

[Prophet]

Yeah, that's a common misunderstanding. We who are enlightened realize that enlightenment is not an either/or piece of business.

This really isn't a demonstration of your correctness that I asked for, but rather, a rewording of the proposition that I challenged. I am not seeing where my incorrect idea is shown to be inferior to your idea.

I've been accused several times here of saying that I am correct over others here by virtue of my belief in my being enlightened. I would like to draw attention of those who were my accusers in this regard so they they can see what it really looks like when a being defends his position in debate in such a fashion. Do you see how he just calls me wrong, clearly citing his enlightenment as the reason? Is this not egregious circular reasoning?

 

[Desert Snake]

I've been accused several times here of saying that I am correct over others here by virtue of my belief in my being enlightened. I would like to draw attention of those who were my accusers in this regard so they they can see what it really looks like when a being defends his position in debate in such a fashion. Do you see how he just calls me wrong, clearly citing his enlightenment as the reason? Is this not egregious circular reasoning?

That's the necessary problem of this debate.

 

[Prophet]

That's the necessary problem of this debate.

I'm afraid I don't understand you. Please expand if you'd be so kind.

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm afraid I don't understand you. Please expand if you'd be so kind.

Sure, I think I brought up the idea earlier in the thread that if someone is asking the question, how are they going to know the right answer?
Taking that further, this being a debate forum, I would expect argumentation once someone claims enlightenment.
In no way am I discouraging your conversation.

p.s. I agree with your point about circular reasoning. Quite amusing actually.

 

[Prophet]

Sure, I think I brought up the idea earlier in the thread that if someone is asking the question, how are they going to know the right answer?
Taking that further, this being a debate forum, I would expect argumentation once someone claims enlightenment.
In no way am I discouraging your conversation.

p.s. I agree with your point about circular reasoning. Quite amusing actually.

Oh. Well, thanks.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

This really isn't a demonstration of your correctness that I asked for, but rather, a rewording of the proposition that I challenged. I am not seeing where my incorrect idea is shown to be inferior to your idea.

How else can I show that your idea is incorrect? Do you mean I should reference some other material or other authority to demonstrate that you misunderstand enlightenment? But that doesn't make sense. As the Enlightened One, I commune with ultimate reality. All I need to do is inform you of the truth, don't I?

I've been accused several times here of saying that I am correct over others here by virtue of my belief in my being enlightened.

Hey, it's what an actual prophet of God does. He has no need to use rationality and evidence. He only needs to announce God's Truth.

But some folks harden their hearts and will not listen.

I would like to draw attention of those who were my accusers in this regard so they they can see what it really looks like when a being defends his position in debate in such a fashion. Do you see how he just calls me wrong, clearly citing his enlightenment as the reason? Is this not egregious circular reasoning?

I wouldn't call it circular reasoning. Does God do circular reasoning when He pronounces the Truth to mankind? No, He simply states what is true. You were confused about the nature of enlightenment, so I corrected you.

 

[YmirGF]

Oh dear ,....you definately are sounding jaded , I doubt you like the word perfect either ? ... well if there wasnt the complete anthisis of this imperfect and human mind set , what point would there be in living ?

You are kidding, right? Um, maybe looking at the "material" world as being complimentary to the so-called "spiritual" world(s), rather than the antithesis, might be a refreshing start. And no, for the record, I do not go for words like "perfect" either. They are, in the bigger picture of reality, a tad hollow and meaningless.

ans please please dont give me the sceptics answer , your title says bodhisattva

I'm well aware of the answers you expect, but I am curious, can you tell me why I have serious reservations about the words and terms I have "issues" with? That discussion, in and of itself, might be most enlightening.

and this intollerance is it pure ? no it is your true nature adulterated.

So pointing out a weakness in the concept you cherish is somehow intolerance? Well, that much is certainly noteworthy. I'll try to remember that. Again, do you have the slightest inkling of an idea why I dislike these terms? Do you think I am just going out of my way to be contrary?

I am trying to , but you find reasons to dig your heals in

Actually, I'm not digging my heals in, as it were, the simple fact is that your arguments or lack thereof are hardly persuasive. It's like your are supporting and promoting an idea that you don't fully understand.

I have every idea what you are talking about , but get the feeling that you dont want to look beyond your currently held conception.

Do you know why that is though, ratikala? If not, I'll tell you again. My current ideas grew out of the very ideas you are talking about. My current ideas are an expansion of that model of the universe. I did happily live with these ideas for 30+ years, so please, don't even try to tell me that I don't understand them. You are welcome to ignore those 30+ years - if you wish.

then tell your personal energy essence to stop feeling old and cantankerous , it is only a body , dont worry you will get another one , but next time forget collecting T shirts , just do the practice

Actually sweet one, this is my last time on this little rock. I may choose to come again, but am not under any constraints to do so.

by now I get it that you dissagree , ....yes there is an open ended reality but it can be understood on two levels conventional and ultimate ,but no you have assumed the idea of a closed sysem , it was not my sugestion ! so dont worry about it , it is a noncence !

Okie dokie.