That other forum and communication in general

[friend]

That other forum on frank's death has indeed deteriorated, but not for the reason most there think it has. It has almost collapsed (as of this writing) because of the sheer dishonesty of many of its participants.

The post (not mine by the way) which replaced the name adi da with the name Charles Manson in one of the posts by frank's main defender, FeelForGod, was actually brilliant and should have woken up that poster, and many others too, from their slumber of sycophancy. It should have made their bias stand out so starkly in relief that they had to drop it, but somehow most of them missed the post's very good significance, or so it would seem. Apparently they, and their supporters, preferred to take offense rather than see the implications of their dishonest and biased thinking (or non-thinking) made very clear by that post.

Nobody was comparing frank to Charles Manson, in any comprehensive way at least. The implied reference in the post was, of course, not to the people involved but to the form of thinking displayed by the defenders of both Frank and Manson. It pointed out clearly that virtually anyone could be justified by the type of so-called thinking displayed by frank's followers on teh non-duality forum. In other words, that line of argument was clearly invalid since it could worked equally for anyone and their actions. Therefore no one could be legitimized by that technique of arguing.

That's not to say there may not be a valid argument in favour of frank. It's simply that the type of argument being used by that poster at that moment was invalid. Unfortunately he, and his supporters, were simply unable to grasp the significance of that post, or more likely refused to because it so clearly exposed the fallacy in their thinking.

So that forum has indeed deteriorated, but not because someone posted a comment about Charles Manson, but because the posters there simply refused to to be honest enough or, at best, open enough to be able to admit the complete deficiencies of their argument.

That's why Lightmind has always been necessary. Here, all comers of all sides have been able to have their say and been heard, and virtually all levels and methods of argument been accepted alongside each other. Unfortunately, no argument, not even Conrad's or ffac's is considered legitimate by frank's followers if it does not come to the same conclusion as they: That frank was actually who he claimed to be. That's the same way it was in Adidam. If one didn't accept frank as God and every act and utterance of his as therefore infallible, then your thinking, and therfore you, were simply wrong and you didn't understand. In this way, all free discussion was repressed or not allowed.

I think almost anyone here could actually make that argument for them, couldn't we? Any one of us could rationalize every act and word of frank as rational, according to the circular cultic form of thinking used by frank and his followers as well as those of Charles Manson and even those of various types of Christian fundamentalists (I believe the bible is God's word because the bible tells me so), not to mention any other fundamentalist.

But most of us here don't and can't, because we see the the fallacy and the invalidity of the argument. We simply can't support it. We see it isn't unquestionable at all. It's just a story and one that is more full of holes than swiss cheese.

In fact, if there was one lesson that I got from my involvement with frank it was this insight into our (human) mode of thinking and rationalization. I found it incredible to discover what I could come to imagine to be true, if it wasn't thought out thoroughly and my mode of thinking not inspected thoroughly.

How does one go beyond this insight into the fallibility of our own thinking though, and not simply fall into relativism, where anything can seem to be true, that is the question?

Perhaps it tells us not that anything can be true but rather that nothing in words is really true and that one can neither come to the truth, nor communicate it to another, through words. Though we may be able to commune through them, we cannot depend on them. Words are not the truth.

Each of us can only try to use words to express what we see to be so, understanding as clearly as possible the enourmous difficulties and traps they pose. We have somehow forgotten that words and ideas are our invention and come after the fact. We cannot convince another, or even ourselves via words. Even though we come to feel attached to the words (and ideas of course) which we have learned in the past to express what we feel is the truth, we have to realize that the words and ideas are not the thing. None of them.

Words come after the fact, and if they don't succeed in communicating the truth then they have failed in their purpose and should be given up. Perhaps that's where Ramana's dependence on silence excels. The truth speaks for itself. Our ability to put it into words is not some foregone conclusion that we should automatically expect to be accepted by others, and outraged if it doesn't.

Communication is an art form that must include the listener as much as the speaker. If communication fails, both speaker and listener have failed. Neither is right and the other wrong. Truth stands as it is, regardless of our misunderstandings. So, let no one walk away from misunderstanding with the sense of rightness. Clearly we are not communicating, and one of the main reasons, the way I see it, is because we cling to some idea that we are not willing to give up. When that happens, none of us can be honest. We alway shave an angle or a spin to insist on.

It's clear to most of us here that all the rationalizations to support frank's infallibility are unsupportable. But to those who are convinced he was who he claimed to be, or who enjoyed good feelings from those notions which they don't want to give up, are too identified with those arguments to ever give up. Their very understanding of reality is at stake, as well as their sense of well being. They cannot yet see the truth beyond their ideas and words.

That's why the other forum deteriorated. It was doomed to from the beginning because frank's followers were committed to an idea which they were unwilling to inspect, even though they pretended to be participating in a thoughtful conversation. In actual fact, they were unable to participate freely and when this was pointed out they, and their supporters simply became offended.

As far as I am concerned they haven't yet learned one of the most important lessons frank taught, even if he didn't mean to. No only is experience not the truth (as demonstrated during Garbage and the Goddess), even less so are ideas, including and perhaps especially frank's.

[RandomStu]

Any one of us could rationalize every act and word of frank as rational, according to the circular cultic form of thinking used by frank and his followers

Different people can do a practice. They may all call the practice "meditation." Their meditation practices may look identical from the outside. But the mind-set behind the practice, the intention behind the practice, can be entirely different.

One type of meditation (we'll call "Med1") may involve focusing on one particular thing, which could be an idea or belief. The focus becomes so intense that any thought that contradicts the belief is blocked out. The belief is bullet-proof. Therefore, all cognition starts with this bullet-proof belief, and proceeds to rationalize everything else so it won't contradict this central belief.

This is akin to "Creation Science." It may outwardly appear like real science, but if the underlying intention is to find support for the bullet-proof belief in the Biblical story of Creation, then it bears no real connection to real Science.

The other type of meditation ("Med2") means putting down all ideas and beleifs -- at least for a moment -- and then simply observing. All cognition can then start with zero, the mind before ideas and beliefs. We can judges various ideas based on what we observe... rather than starting with the conclusion and working backwards to interpret the observations.

Any meditation tradition that rejects rational, scientific thinking is a Med1. Med2 is in fact similar to a scientific mind. It means learning to recognize and put aside what we want to be true, what we expect to be true, what we think is or should be true... and rather just looking directly at what we perceive.

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

[friend]

I think there is more to religion and enlightenment (and science for that matter) than merely seeing what is true. To me that's too general and non-specific unless, of course, one is referring only to a completely empty mind. Generally speaking though, seeing what is true must always be in relation to some specific context unless, of course, we mean only the infinite, unlimited, undifferentiated, formless, eternal reality, which, for most of us, is just not the real concern. In reality there is something very specific bothering us or something specific we want or expect, whether that is currently identified and articulated or not.

Generally, our sense of enlightenment must always be related to some 'darkness' that each of us feels, conciously or unconsciously. It's that darkness, or sense of darkness which actually motivates us.

This understanding would also go some way in helping explain why there is so much dissension in religion and why religion is such a messy business - the constant claim to one's own possession of the truth while dismissing the truth or enlightenment of another.

Partially our differences lie in our use of different words, ideas, cultural symbols and other criteria such as cultural expectations or the demand for certain experiences, on which we base our judgement of the validity or non-vaidity of our own enlightenment or anyone else's. But I think there is also a specific difference of need we each feel. Each of us has a specific darkness or complex of darknesses which we hope enlightenment will address, however we might define that, and we all seem to be different in that regard. We each define our darkness differently.

What is the point of achieving en-light-enment unless it is in specific relation to some darkened area in ourselves. What is enlightenment other than the removal of the specific darkness we feel. Otherwise the word enlightenment has no real meaning, it seems to me? A guru is supposedly one who removes darkness, but is the darkness the same for everyone? I actually don't think so.

Like many people, I succeeded in having a very specific darkness removed, one which I had previously assumed required enlightenment and which, in fact, felt it would be the defining element of enlightnement. However, what I experienced doesn't appear to relate to what others consider, expect or want enlightenment to be, which was at first quite surprising to me. Partially I think it is the words but I also think it is the particular darkness experienced.

I suspect this phenemenon is the same for a good many people, including frank. There are quite a few folks walking around right now claiming one sort of enlightnement or another, and in most cases I believe it actually is so. The problem is that what was enlightenment for each of them simply doesn't meet what many others see as their requirements or criteria of enlightenment. Their particular darknesses remain unaddressed and untouched. In fact, for many of those people still searching, no one has yet met their criteria, even though a few big religious names may appear to hold the promise of it.

So the whole question of Truth or Enlightenment has to be related to some specific issue, otherwise it is meaningless. The whole discussion of who is or is not enlightened is meaningless without some specific criteria. If you have not been enlighened, that is to say if you haven't had your area of darkness dispelled, then the enlightenment of anyone, including the Buddha or Ramana or anyone is simply meaningless, nothing but hope and expection.

Was frank enlightened, for example? Obviously he didn't satisfy the criteria of many so how could it be said his 'enlightenment' was total. In other words, he didn't effectively address the particular darknesses of everyone. Is there a total enlightenment in any case or is it always individual and in specific relation to one's specific darkness. How else are we to pretend to judge, other than by a specific criteria, and one that is especially important to us as individuals, our particular darkness? If not then frank's, or anyone else's enlightenment is meaningless. It's inconsequential, except perhaps to him and a few others who shared a similar darkness. But still it is not 'total'.

Is there a total enlightenment that can dissolve all darknesses? It doesn't seem so. If there was, then everyone who seeks would be enlightened by now, even according to their own criteria because visionaries claiming total enlightenment have existed for centuries, and yet they haven't satisfied everyone.

Does seeing reality, as it is, dissolve all darkness? I'm not so sure. Perhaps if we simply let the mind and heart become silent and surrender all concerns, that might address all darknesses, in the sense that they would all dissolve. But I think there are specific darknesses which we each feel we need to have addressed, very specific criteria each of us hangs on to, some definite darkness we each need to have light shined on.

But even if that specific darkness is enlightened,or dissolved in light, does it mean that all darknesses of all others are thereby dissolved in light, that all darknesses are enlightened? I think not. Each one has to identify their particular darkness, identify their particular requirement for enlightenment and address that. Surely there is no such thing as general enlightenment, (other than the surrender of all concerns in formless reality). Even the Buddha dismissed what many people see as their essential requirement for enlightenment, namely a comprehensive picture or experience of the whole of existence, even though many still seek precisely that through meditation (no wonder they don't get 'enlightened').

I think it's a big mistake to assume one's own definition (criteria, expectations, hopes etc.) of enlightenment or truth is the same as what the word enlightnement means to others. And I think it is a mistake made by frank. He made something ultimate out of his own insight that he was God (as is everyone of course). He mistakenly thought his own insight would remove everyone's darknesses and was disappointed when it didn't. They, obviously had other darknesses that they needed to be addressed.

So, in my view, seeing truth (or enlightenment) is not quite as simple as it sounds. Unless we are talking about formless undifferentiated reality, we are necessarily referring to something limited and specific. Otherwise what meaning do terms such as truth or enlightenmnet have? I suspect getting this issue a bit staighter is necessary to make religion a little less messy.

[...oneLove]

So, in my view, seeing truth (or enlightenment) is not quite as simple as it sounds. Unless we are talking about formless undifferentiated reality, we are necessarily referring to something limited and specific. Otherwise what meaning do terms such as truth or enlightenmnet have? I suspect getting this issue a bit staighter is necessary to make religion a little less messy.

It's the filter of our self definition that distorts the truth. First, if each and everyone of us would discover the primary truth of who we really are, the rest would be self-evident.

As Ramana might say, find the one who would see "truth" or experience "enlightment", after that one is found, then address these questions..

Check out this 7½ minute video excerpt from John Sherman, clicky: Ramana And "Who Am I"

The above talk is a excerpt from Sherman's complete 1½ hour video (highly recommended): At the End of Your Rope - Meeting with John Sherman. He begins with the following statement:

"I don't come here to offer you descriptions of spiritual reality or to offer you any kind of initiation, shaktipat or spiritual experiences. There has been enough of that already. I come to you only to speak about the immediately present possibility of discovering the truth of your own nature. This possibility -- and the way to go about it -- is the gift of Ramana Maharshi."

...oneLove

[RandomStu]

So, in my view, seeing truth (or enlightenment) is not quite as simple as it sounds. Unless we are talking about formless undifferentiated reality, we are necessarily referring to something limited and specific.

Just now, each of us has a direct experience. For me, it's sitting at a keyboard typing this message. That's an explanation, but the experience itself can never be captured by words; words are just useful to name it. We could call this direct experience "undifferentiated reality" or "formless" or "limited" or "specific"... whatever name we choose, it's entirely different from the experience itself, which is never captured by words. The just-now experience is precisely all I've got... until I make ideas about it with thinking.

Otherwise what meaning do terms such as truth or enlightenmnet have?

The meaning of "truth" and "enlightenment" is that they're teaching words, which can sometimes be used in an attempt to help people. I use "truth" as a name for our just-now experience. I use "enlightenment" to name the moment when the cloud of dream-like thinking (ideas about the experience) disappears, and everything returns to the direct just-now experience.

Lots of times, all that thinking, all those ideas about experience, create suffering. Teaching using words like "truth" and "enlightenment" may sometimes be helpful in pointing us back to experience itself, so that the thought-created suffering disappears.

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

[friend]

Thanks for following up on this thread. I know I have been a bit rambling. I would still like to impress the idea that enlightenment and truth are non-specific words and are therefore actually meaningless, without a specific reference.

I have no problem If a seeker self-confesses to the end of his or her search and there is no longer the darkness which motivated that search. Fine. After all, enlightenment has no more purpose to one who has ended darkness than it has to someone who has no awareness of such a thing as darkness. But I would beware of assuming prematurely, through self-assessment, that darkness and the search has ended. I'm definitely not talking about judging others - only oneself.

I know I maybe over-simplifying to a degree but just to make the communication as simple as possible. There really is such a thing as darkness, even though it turns out to be imaginary or illusionary in ultimate terms, but it is as real as anything else. If there weren't such a thing as a perceived darkness, enlightenment would have not have the slightest significance.

To see this "darkness" a bit more real, consider that most people feel they are in the dark regarding their origins and the "sense" that lies behind all that exists. There are, of course, a huge number of responses to this felt or percieved "darkness, ranging from various cultural belief systems, to just accepting this ignorance as a given in life with the idea that one should just make the best of it one way or another.

Either way, hardly anyone claims that they have resolved the mystery of existence. But it's also true that, in the scale of things, relatively few of us get seriously bothered by this human ignorance. Only a few of us become emotinally disturbed and are unable to find satisfaction in either conventional understandings and beliefs or a simple acceptance of our not-knowing, sufficient to enjoy life. Being "in the dark" in this sense is surely what drives the search for enlightenment, even though each of us relates to that ignorance in different ways and describes it differently.

While I very much appreciate your response Stu, I'm afraid your approach would not have satisfied me in my search for enlightenment. It would have seemed like merely trying to paper over the darkness I felt. And though, I agree, emptiness of mind is a totally acceptable approach, and if that is enough for anyone, that is fine with me, but I for one could not have simply dropped my need to resolve this issue. It was just far too important to me and out of my control.

That's teh kind of darkness I am talking about and there is no reason or need to ignore or cover over an actual darkness if it is motivating a disturbing seeking. It can be dissolved if identified and addressed. After all, the search doesn’t just happen out of nowhere. It has a specific cause. Without darkness where is the need for enlightenment anyway? I hope this becomes a little more clear.

And yes, oneLove,I know John Sherman, having spent a bit of time with him. Good guy.

However, the problem I am trying to get at is that a lot of posters here would simply dismiss John as not enlightened, or as just a neo-adviata type or as an example of non-duality light or some such thing. I know I haven’t been too clear in my last few rambling posts, but it’s this kind of judgemental nonsense, either negative or positive ('enlightened' or 'not enlightened'), that I have been trying to address in these last couple of rants.

It’s good to be skeptical, of course, but all those endless arguments and pompous judgemental proclamations on the nonduality forum over who is or is not enlightened, or who knows the truth, are just ridiculous. Why? Because we throw these words around so easily as if they meant something, and as if we knew and had defined what they meant, and as if we all agreed on what they mean, which we don't. Truth and enlightenment are non-specific words and as such are totally meaningless without a reference to something specific. Everybody questions everything, which is good, but most tend not to question their own idea of 'enlightenment', or assume that it means the same to them as it means to others, and it simply doesn’t.

Is John Sherman enlightened for example? He’d laugh at the question as any truly intelligent person would because it’s a fake question. It doesn’t mean anything, or it means so many things to so many people it is still meaningless.

What does it really mean when someone asserts that someone else is not enlightened. Doesn't it simply mean that they don’t believe that person has achieved what they themselves would like to achieve or, more correctly, that those teachers or speakers don’t seem to be addressing the darkness of the particular listener who is passing judgement on them. That’s all. It's their own darkness which is untouched, not the others enlightenment.

A lot of folks seem to think that working towards enlightenment is like aiming towards a goal, as if one is going to get something positive. They don’t realize that it is actually some darkness that is motivating them to seek for enlightenment and that their job is not to achieve some light, but to identify and penetrate that darkness behind their search. Enlightenment is entirely secondary and dependent on the identification and dissolution of darkness. Light is just the absence of darkness. Without darkness there is no need for enlightenment. The search is not about some great and noble goal to work towards, but more like the removal of an irritation, a pain, a confusion, an obstacle. But very few people take the trouble to investigate the nature of the obstacle or pain (the darkness) they are trying to remove, so they simply miss it.

What could be more ridiculous than someone who admits that they themselves are not enlightened (and therefore are en-darkened themselves) pompously going about proclaiming whether someone or other is or is not enlightened. And what does it matter in any case? All that matters is that they themselves are not enlightened, no matter how intelligent they otherwise are.

It doesn’t matter if anyone else is enlightened or not. It only matters whether each of us is enlightened according to our own criteria, or more correctly, whether we are free of the motivating darkness or irritation which leads us to seek in the first place. Of course, we cannot be free of what we are not aware of so it is essential to identify what is motivating our search, but even that is also no one else’s business unless we choose it to be so.

And just as it is no one’s business whether anyone else is enlightened or not, nor should we make it anyone else’s business whether we are enlightened or not. Dissloving one's sense of darkness is not anything to brag about. It’s no more important than walking around proclaiming you got rid of a wart on your big toe. Yes it’s good for you, but it doesn’t turn one into a perfect person. It might be of some interest to someone else with a wart on their big toe but most people just don’t have that problem. They have other problems many of which the rest of us also still have. Contrary to the myths of realizers from ancient times, resolving one's sense of darkness doesn't turn one into a perfect person.

Frank is a perfect example of this nonsense in that positive sense. Yes, he resolved some important issues and removed some significant darknesses, but huge areas of his person were still left sadly undeveloped and so, naturally was the development of his devotees weak in those same areas (Just one example was how awful their business sense was, not to mention their relationship to the rest of the world in general). They never did resolve the "money" issue (other than through deception of one kind or another, like frank). Frank obviously had many great strengths but he also had huge, huge areas of weakness. He was by no menas anywhere near a perfect person. Nor is anyone, of course, but it was precisely frank’s delusion or insistence that his so-called and self-proclaimed enlightenment made him perfect, all-knowing and infallible, or at least that was the illusion he wanted to impress on his devotees and the fantasy he demanded their agreement on. And it was an illusion he wanted to build along the lines of the exagerated myth of the ancients.

But, to cut this short, all I am suggesting we just drop the ridiculous practice of judging and proclaiming the enlightenment or non-enlightenment of anyone, either others or ourselves. It leads to far too much misunderstanding and discord. In fact let’s drop the use of the word enlightenment altogether (simply because it is non-specific) and rather talk only of the particular darknesses we seek to remove or have removed. I think that would ease communication a great deal, and lead to greater success. In fact, I'm certain it would improve the chances of success if we started to simply think this way.

It's not enlightenment that is important but the removal of darkness. The darkness can be specified. Enlightenment is vaporous and meaningles except in relation to such a concrete specification.

Our purpose is not to gain something, but to see and then allow the evaporation of whatever sense of darkness is driving us to seek. Not that it is necessarily easy but at least we would then be going in the right direction. Without darkness, what need is there for enlightenment in any case?

[~E~]

But, to cut this short, all I am suggesting we just drop the ridiculous practice of judging and proclaiming the enlightenment or non-enlightenment of anyone, either others or ourselves. It leads to far too much misunderstanding and discord.

Hey, I have an idea -- why don't we drop the ridiculous practice of judging those who pass judgment?


My point, as a webmaster, is that judgment is both an aspect of discrimination...and an aspect of free speech!

I do agree that it is rather pointless to worry about who is and who is not "enlightened". Either you are or you are not. And if you are, only you and the one other guy who is enlightened will know about it!



Anyway, sometimes judgment is simply the verbalization of right seeing. If you have a handle on truth, then in my judgment you have a 007 license to pass judgment!



Elias

[RandomStu]

all I am suggesting we just drop the ridiculous practice of judging and proclaiming the enlightenment or non-enlightenment of anyone, either others or ourselves.

Sure, as I've written before, I find it silly when anyone talks about whether or not Da was a Realizer, or declares this or that person "enlightened."

Personally, I wouldn't bother talking about enlightenment or realization at all. We can surely communicate about what our own actual experience is without resorting to such jargon. "Enlightenment" talk is often about repeating ideas from a book, or speculations about the unkonwable mind-state of others. Such discussions aren't evil or anything, they're just far far far less interesting to me than talking about one's own direct experience.

"Enlightenment" etc are only teaching words, and the only time to use teaching words is in those particular situations in which they might help someone. You said that there was a point when you were suffering from not understanding the truth of life, but not ready to simply quiet your mind and see this moment as the truth. (I've likely mangled what you were trying to communicate, but maybe it was something like that?) In such a situation, it could be useful for someone to tell you that you should do this or that practice in order to get Great Holy Enlightenment, and that might inspire you to practice and pay attention and see your thinking and your wants clearly, and in the process experience your "I want to get something" mind as an insubstantial cloud.

That may or may not have been clear, but the point is this. All these words (truth, enlightenment, realization) are only teaching words. They're wonderful in specific situations where they might help inspire someone to make the effort to clarify their minds and reduce suffering. Outside of that specific function, we may ignore them.

With respect to using teaching words... I personally find it somewhat useful to sometimes talk of enlightenment moments (when you'd been in a cloud of thinking, and suddenly return to awareness of just-now, clearly perceiving and responding to the situation). In no case have I ever found it useful to speak of "enlightened beings."

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.c ... di-da.html

[scularue]

Anyway, sometimes judgment is simply the verbalization of right seeing.

Good grief! Stop passing judgment? Why? ??? How! !!!

All living beings pass judgment. That''s how we stay alive. Life is a constant stream of judgments. If we didn't pass judgment on others, how would we ever navigate the minefield of human existence!

What the heck kind of ridiculous new age thinking suggests that we should stop. How could we!

[...oneLove]

Anyway, sometimes judgment is simply the verbalization of right seeing.

Good grief! Stop passing judgment? Why? ??? How! !!!

All living beings pass judgment. That''s how we stay alive. Life is a constant stream of judgments. If we didn't pass judgment on others, how would we ever navigate the minefield of human existence!

What the heck kind of ridiculous new age thinking suggests that we should stop. How could we!

By constantly judging we will never find peace. Judge not lest you be judged.

You are right that we wouldn't be able to navigate our way through existance without a certain amount of judgment. But to truly and honestly realize who we are and the reality of our condition we must suspend judgement for a while and really look; there'll be plenty of time for judgement later.

...oneLove