Ram Bomjon

[Alvin_Chan]

David wrote:

Better to know both the rational and irrational, and master both.

Not sure what “mastering irrational” means, but I think you don’t mean getting mad . Knowing the process of getting mad and those who are mad, and understanding the cause-and-effect of this and that (like how to feel bliss and/or sound like an idiot), ALL these are rather rational for me, as long as such understandings have at least a vague predictive power.
It’s pretty easy to judge whether one has master the rational or not. But I’m not sure whether how much irrational B. Russell or Ken Wilber has mastered. This Ram Bomjon, although I sympathize with him, is nothing but a poor boy used to attract tourists.
I am just starting on this spiritual stuff, you know. So I don’t claim to be accurate on this: I think we can be quite sure who is NOT enlightened, but there are no good signs of anyone who is enlightened (98% of the time). Buddha is a great man ( and generally considered to be elightened) not because of the amount of time he can sit without food, but because of his teachings and how he influenced and inspired those following him. And I think this is the single (and most reliable) clue which we can based when we judge whether someone is enlightened.
For me, the wisdom and the ability to influence the others positively that Jesus or Buddha has, are far more convincing and appealing to me as someone who is enlightened. Afterall, if enlightenment means an “inner potato couch” who is not responsive, better hit your head hard as a high road to enlightenment.
I agree that Buddha is great. But we keep seeing those who obviously have psychological problems ( and keep infusing the others with their “NEW THEORY OF XXXXX” ) being considered as enlightened(or great). The “NEW THEORY OF XXXXX” can be an indication that the guys want fame/respect/money. They keep using pseudoscience in an attempt to sound “clever”. This is the kind the “irrational” that I don’t think I have to (or need to) master… Their talent is to make wrong and unsupported statements sound great, and is obviously something bad for people. (except being quite entertaining sometimes)
Good spiritual teachings are usually simple to understand, though not necessarily simple to do.

[david_obsidian]

Trip1 said:
The problem that I find with this logic is that you seem to have left out transrational, which includes integral and beyond. Placing rational at the top of the ladder is extremely limiting, and actually leaves no room for the idea of enlightenment in the vertical stages of consciousness.
Umm, Brett, I didn’t put the rational on the top of the ladder… I don’t know how that came across. Regarding the transrational and beyond, I don’t know that kind of language well … yet anyway.
I actually have a copy of the ‘What Is Enlightenment’ issue you speak of, and I’ve read about half of it, and intend to get to the rest of it. I do like it a lot, finding it frightfully interesting…
Apologies for the threadjack, but I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this, as I personally found it to be quite fascinating and it seems to fit it quite well with the current topic at hand.
I’ll be getting back.
Alvin said:
Not sure what “mastering irrational” means, but I think you don’t mean getting mad
Alvin, I should have said non-rational. There, I’ve edited it. I’m not sure the irrational is something which can be mastered. Excuse my sploppy writing if it is causing confusion,.
An example of mastering the non-rational is mastering your emotions. Your emotions are not in fact a process of your rational mind, and mastering them is not generally an achievement of the rational mind. No, making irrational ‘Theories of XXXXX’ is not an example of mastering the non-rational. What you have said is true unfortunately – people try to get fame with the newest and greatest irrational ‘Theories of XXXXX’.

[trip1 (Brett)]

Hi David,

@david_obsidian

Umm, Brett, I didn’t put the rational on the top of the ladder… I don’t know how that came across. Regarding the transrational and beyond, I don’t know that kind of language well … yet anyway.

Whoops, my apologies for taking your statement out of context. At least a good discussion seems to be forming out of it.

@david_obsidian

I actually have a copy of the ‘What Is Enlightenment’ issue you speak of, and I’ve read about half of it, and intend to get to the rest of it. I do like it a lot, finding it frightfully interesting…

Great, I’ll be looking forward to discussing this further as I feel it’s a topic which everyone will be able to benefit from.