If there's a God:

[takandjive]

Same here. I haven't had an adrenaline rush in a while...I'm bored...

I'd so take you if you were here. No one I know likes them. Bebe, too!

[lightgigantic]

LFA - my brother has it, enough said.
Lesch Nyhan's Disease - I was trying to think of an unpleasant disease to use as an example, and decided at LND.

So, why did God invent those? And other such horrid diseases?

Before one can begin to answer that question one needs to know why you think these things are problems.

[lightgigantic]

Maybe he's LG's apprentice.

You're only speaking like that due to your evolved social instincts

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

I missed out on much of the usual social instincts.

[wynn]

So.. you are not enlightened.
Do you know of people that are enlightened ? And how do we know that they really are ?

I know of persons who are said to be enlightened.

As for how do we know that they really are: the term 'enlightenment' is specific, and if we wish to employ it meaningfully, we have to take to the context it appears in, we have to accept the normative descriptions that come with the context. In this case, Buddhist philosophy, for example.

Without recourse to those normative descriptions, it is a futile exercise to try to figure out what enlightenment is or who is enlightened.

[lightgigantic]

I missed out on much of the usual social instincts.

don't worry

its only your evolved social instincts that make you think that way

[Enmos]

Plopsaland.

http://www.dj2dj.nl/forum/images/smilies/icon_eek.gif

[Enmos]

I know of persons who are said to be enlightened.

As for how do we know that they really are: the term 'enlightenment' is specific, and if we wish to employ it meaningfully, we have to take to the context it appears in, we have to accept the normative descriptions that come with the context. In this case, Buddhist philosophy, for example.

Without recourse to those normative descriptions, it is a futile exercise to try to figure out what enlightenment is or who is enlightened.

Oh I don't know about that..
I think I know a way of figuring out if people are enlightened or not. And it's pretty failsafe too..

One of the ways in which enlightenment is understood in Buddhism is that an enlightened person is not subject to suffering anymore, an enlightened person does not experience suffering even though they might be tortured.

People generally are subject to suffering.

A state of no suffering is thus foreign to the run-of-the-mill person; they cannot relate to it even though they might desire it or have some notions about how it might be like.

[Sarkus]

^ Aren't dead people therefore enlightened? They don't experience suffering even if tortured.

Also - what about someone who has had the pain-centre of their brain made inactive?

[wynn]

^ Aren't dead people therefore enlightened? They don't experience suffering even if tortured.

? How can a person be dead?

Also - what about someone who has had the pain-centre of their brain made inactive?

What about them?

[scifes]

-=-
WHY would I want into heaven???

so that you don't go to eternal hell

Open your eyes and realize that such a god would certainly not be worthy of worship.

true..

but do you have much choice?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Heaven is hell.

I have no choice. I cannot worship.

[scifes]

Heaven is hell.

I have no choice. I cannot worship.

curious..

i actually believe some people can not..

but why..what stops you?? what confiens your ability to do that?

[scifes]

Do you know of people that are enlightened ? And how do we know that they really are ?

you can't..you can only know when you try it yourself..unless from it's appearance it seems deadly(like drugs)..also if it's irreversably addictive(also like drugs)..the proof of the pudding is in the eating..tasting more than one either makes you discover a better one..or strengthens your belief that yours is the best..however..if you taste many which were no match for yours..you should not refuse an especially yummy looking one because you're afraid it'll destroy your past pridw which held for so long..

[scifes]

Ever hear the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes?" That fits Siggy divinely! Pun intended, and you look FABULOUS, Signal. I would know.

looooooool

i'd hug you if you were in front of me...

you see...?
that's EXACTLY why i hate to grow up...

lool..feeling superior and wise now that you're older??



oh man this'll definitly go down..

[swarm]

Swarmy, that's Mommy's SPECIAL happy pipe. You stay away from that and go read your religious text like a good boy. *Cough.*

Don't try and teach grandma how to suck eggs.

[swarm]

For one, it's a logical conclusion.

Not it isn't, its a bald unsupported claim on your part.

For two, speculating about enlightenment or the range of powers of a Buddha is off limits in the sense that it would bring madness and vexation to anyone who would try to speculate about it.

Nice try, but considering if some one is enlightened is not considering the "Buddha-range." Nor would I worry too much about "madness and vexation" from considering "Buddha-range." As Bankei said, my magic power is that when I'm hungry, I eat and when I'm tired, I rest.

As I said: the enlightened can make themselves know and demonstrate their attainment satisfactorily. Just as the Buddha did and all the various master through the ages have done. If your teacher can't satisfactorily demonstrate that he has something to teach, move on. If he says he can't be questioned, run.

For three, it is a tradition at least in Theravada Buddhism not to make claims to the public that one is enlightened, and not to speculate about other people's enlightenment.

Sure walking into a crowd and declaring yourself enlightened is not particularly smart. But they have means by which enlightenment is verified and masters are acknowledged.

Bottom line in Buddhism is put up or shut up. Empty claims of enlightenment are insufficient.

Except that this also includes that those to whom they demonstrate this enlightenment are willing to do what it takes to become qualified to recognize enlightenment.

So? If you want to learn how to recognize something subtle and difficult to see it may require some study. When a would be biologist looks in a microscope they don't see what a professor of biology does. A novice artist doesn't see what a master artist does.

But the master can point out what they see to the student. That is part of what we like to call "teaching."

The average run-of-the-mill person cannot tell between a charlatan and a spiritually advanced being.

Sure they can. Why do you think the charlatan preys on the gullible and excludes anything which remotely looks like skepticism?

But even the gullible can eventually catch a clue, which is how false guru exposé sites get going.

There is still hope for you. Just remember - when there is a basis to a claim, the person making it is not afraid of skeptical inquiry.

[visceral_instinct]

Before one can begin to answer that question one needs to know why you think these things are problems.

You again overlooked the fact that I was making a more general point, but I'll bite anyway.

Why is LFA a problem? Lemme see. Lack of language, lack of any kind of self sufficiency unless you want to count peeing on the sofa by yourself, random behavioural 'seizures' involving smashing yourself in the head with your fist and/or trying to wrench your family members' metacarpal bones out of their normal position...yeah, disorder.

Lesch Nyhan Disease? I'll let Wikipedia answer that one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesch-Nyhan_syndrome

Enjoy.

[Enmos]

Also - what about someone who has had the pain-centre of their brain made inactive?

They can still be tortured in a way, it just depends on what you call torture.
For instance, by making them watch a loved one being tortured.

[Enmos]

you can't..you can only know when you try it yourself..

That's not particularly delusion-proof.

unless from it's appearance it seems deadly(like drugs)..also if it's irreversably addictive(also like drugs)..the proof of the pudding is in the eating..tasting more than one either makes you discover a better one..or strengthens your belief that yours is the best..however..if you taste many which were no match for yours..you should not refuse an especially yummy looking one because you're afraid it'll destroy your past pridw which held for so long..

I'm sorry man, I have no clue what this is about.