Is there Enlightenment?

[onemoretime]

I say no. But that's because I'm saying so.

 

[zago]

I say yes.

The notion of enlightenment is not mystical, and it really makes sense if you don't get misled by the ocean of misconceptions surrounding it.

Basically I am to understand that enlightenment is a state of having transcended the egoic filter. Most people try to control their experience - they fearfully try to avoid future pain and greedily grasp at future pleasure and comfort.

The enlightened one is aware of the illusory and highly fallible nature of thought. He sees the truth that the universe is utterly unpredictable; any attempt to control it is futile and only leads to extra strain.

He also understands the divisive nature of thought, and the ultimate insufficiency of language itself, which tends to chop reality up into segments. Any thought based, conceptual definition is always incomplete... lacking the full context. Thus, the enlightened one doesn't take thoughts or arguments too seriously, knowing that only a tiny fragment of the picture is on display. His decision making tends to be more flowing, more intuitive/instinctual. His objective reality is what he feels - his subjective reality. He acknowledges that this could mean he is in fact insane, but also understands on a deeper level that there really is no way of knowing all of the objective truth, and to try is a pointless endeavor.

Furthermore, this is possible because he doesn't take life too seriously, as he knows it ends. People get so angry and worried and sad about worldly problems. The enlightened one realizes that there will never be any other time to enjoy but the present, no matter how many things seem wrong.

I've been a seeker since 2007 (when I began to have a series of spiritual experiences), I used to do a lot of meditation, and now I mostly just reflect and listen to talks by my favorite teachers, not because I think it will get me anything, but because I just like to. I have not had a moment of permanent awakening, but to be entirely honest, I think I will. I realize that this is supposedly the "incorrect" belief to have, but it is what I believe nonetheless. Maybe one day, that belief will fall away... but then again, wouldn't that suffice to confirm it?

Who knows. Maybe, maybe not. I currently follow it, though, for better or worse.

 

[zago]

I mean, think about it - how much is out there that we don't know? Just how arrogant are we in what we believe about the universe?

My stance is: incredibly. There is a universe out there of trillions upon trillions of stars. We live on some backwater planet in space, in some backwater moment in time. I think if we knew the full truth of reality, our heads would surely explode.

What's really cool, though, is that we are the products of a good 3 billion years of evolution. That can be relied upon to a far greater extent than people know. The brain is remarkably plastic, and the subconscious, as a neuroscientist once put it, makes the conscious look like the coins in a person's pocket as compared to the U.S. annual GDP.

In other words, you don't ever have to "figure out" the answer. Doing what feels right regardless of having any logical reason, 99.99999 percent of the time (if not 100), will give you a totally awesome outcome, and without the awful stress of self-doubt. The spiritual path is the coming to trust in this.

As the saying goes, "let go and let god."

 

[Typh0n]

I say no - saying that you wake up one day, cross a line and reach a point where you are suddenly "enlightened" seems deluded.

 

[LittleV]

Basically I am to understand that enlightenment is a state of having transcended the egoic filter.

I agree with this; although reaching this state may more or less require maintaining effort, depending on one’s level of personal interference.

The enlightened one is aware of the illusory and highly fallible nature of thought.

…And does not declare absolutes or speak when emotionally compromised or entangled with safeguarded biases. One would meditate before potentially haphazardly negatively influencing one’s fellow living organisms.

He also understands the divisive nature of thought, and the ultimate insufficiency of language itself, which tends to chop reality up into segments. Any thought based, conceptual definition is always incomplete... lacking the full context. Thus, the enlightened one doesn't take thoughts or arguments too seriously, knowing that only a tiny fragment of the picture is on display.

He engages in open-mindedness and both appreciates and forgives conflicting realities.

His decision making tends to be more flowing, more intuitive/instinctual. His objective reality is what he feels - his subjective reality. He acknowledges that this could mean he is in fact insane, but also understands on a deeper level that there really is no way of knowing all of the objective truth, and to try is a pointless endeavor.

The antithesis of a statement does not necessarily negate its significance, with the recognition of ever-changing perspectives. Everything is inter-connected; syntheses could emerge, but could also be undone. The acceptance of oneself as nothing but a moving lens could open oneself to the self/others, and discover freedom from both subjectivity and objectivity. It is an ongoing process that becomes more automatic throughout time and practice. Scientifically, I’d consider this to be the consistent cooperation between the central and peripheral nervous system in peaceful response to the dynamic environment.

 

[INTP]

it means becoming aware of things that are as they are. we become enlightened by all sorts of things all the time

 

[prplchknz]

enlightenment isn't usually an ah-hah moment. It progresses slowly over time so slow you don't even realize it's happening, so no you don't wake up one day enlightened you spend your whole life becoming enlightened. If you keep an open mind, than you die.

 

[LittleV]

Subjective realities at their finest; this is why I’d find aggressively overblown arguments in research to be unproductive in promoting the formation of ideas, while relentlessly spreading their own prejudices and inherent weaknesses.

 

[Society]

if you are asking about the experience: yes - there is the experience of being enlightened, of reaching realizations which impact your world view so profoundly that you have a disturbance relating to your world view prior.

ofcourse, that doesn't actually mean your new world view is better, or even true - it could be miles further away from the truth compared to the last one, it could be that what you think you've realized is entirely BS, it merely seems more true to you at the time.

 

[LittleV]

ofcourse, that doesn't actually mean your new world view is better, or even true - it could be miles further away from the truth compared to the last one, it could be that what you think you've realized is entirely BS, it merely seems more true to you at the time.

*nods*

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Enlightenment is an approach to society originating in the 18th century that values freedom.

Here, in the West, we have freedom.

When eastern religions speak of enlightenment, they are actually referring to the 18th century philosophical tradition.

So Buddhism is really expressive of how the Orient is yearning for the enlightenment ideals of freedom, which they currently lack under authoritarian regimes like China and India.

Therefore, the founding fathers were the some of the earliest western converts to Buddhism.

 

[Cellmold]

In the twilight of the mouth of the cave, the geode hatched and the brothers were born.

The first brother walked towards the light and stood under the open sky. Thus he became too tall. He was the first Man. He found no laws and was enlightened.

The second brother walked towards the darkness and stood under a roof of stone. Thus he achieved the correct height. He was the first Dwarf. He found the laws Tak had written and he was endarkened.

Then Tak looked upon the stone and it was trying to come alive and Tak smiled and wrote: "All things strive". And for the service the stone had given he fashioned it into the first Troll and delighted in the life that came unbidden.

These are the things that Tak wrote.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The excitment the Chinese have when a new McDonalds opens up in Tokyo is a Buddhist impulse.

McDonalds represents the West, and the values of freedom over tyranny.

Hence, by exporting fast food, America is freeing China from tyranny.

 

[Blackmail!]

The excitment the Chinese have when a new McDonalds opens up in Tokyo is a Buddhist impulse.

McDonalds represents the West, and the values of freedom over tyranny.

Hence, by exporting fast food, America is freeing China from tyranny.

1/ Is this message a nonsensical parody of some sort?

2/ By the way, have you noticed that contemporary Taiwan is a more free society than the US?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

1/ Is this message a nonsensical parody of some sort?

That's certainly possible.

2/ By the way, have you noticed that contemporary Taiwan is a more free society than the US?

Do they have more fast food restaurants than the U.S. per capita?

 

[Mole]

Fast food in China represents the values of evidence and reason rather then the values of freedom and equality.

 

[Mole]

I say no. But that's because I'm saying so.

What would happen is we subjected religious enlightenment to the Enlightenment values of evidence and reason?

We would find that millennia of religious enlightenment has led to slavery, misogyny, child abuse, anti-semitism, and genocide.

The fact is that the Enlightenment of 17th and 18th centuries was opposed by those who were religiously enlightened.

Religious enlightenment opposed the Enlightenment values of evidence and reason, freedom and equality.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Fast food in China represents the values of evidence and reason rather then the values of freedom and equality.

No, it represents the triumph of capitalism, which is the same thing as democracy, over communism.

In Soviet Russia and in China, under Mao, you could not choose what products to consume.

The bread lines were frequently stretched.

Now, with McDonalds, the Chinese are free to consume a McRib or a Big Mac, French Fries or Chicken Nuggets.

Freedom depends on choice.

And the best place to emphasize choice is as a consumer of goods.

Hence, McDonalds represents freedom.

There is plenty of evidence to show that fast food is not healthy.

Fast food is unreasonable to consume, so fast food in China cannot represent evidence and reason.

Instead, fast food represents freedom and equality. (All customers are equal to a capitalist business. )

 

[Mole]

Freedom depends on choice.

Au contraire, freedom depends on the limitation of power.

Ever since we discovered that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, we have been learning to limit power through liberal democracy.

And liberal democracy depends on the Separation of Powers, the separation of the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary.

Liberal Democracy also depends on freedom of speech and a thriving civil society.

But alas democracy was crushed by the tanks in Tiannamen Square.

 

[Society]

here's a question for [MENTION=3325]Victor[/MENTION] [MENTION=4660]msg_v2[/MENTION]: what if we had a tyrant that provided the full scope of liberal values and liberterian notions? in effect, a minimalist, non-democratically elected tyrant that took nearly no taxes and did nothing but police and protect the people & their property from violence & theft (from outside & inside).

who would have more freedom? the people under a modern democracy or the people under the liberal tyrant?