Would a TEP be concerned about the enlightenment of others?

[xerosaburu]

TEP - Truly Enlightened Person

Why?

Why not?

[Matt Gregory]

A TEP values wisdom. If he didn't then he wouldn't be enlightened, because it has to be willed due to the flawed natural condition of human consciousness (I think if human consciousness was more highly developed, meaning better memory, then enlightened would be its natural state, but that's just a theory). But in valuing wisdom, it's valuable everywhere not just in your own consciousness. This follows from valuing wisdom purely and not merely as a means. So that's why a TEP values wisdom in others.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Another way to put it is that he involuntary feels discontent because of the stupidity of others and that feeling forces him to bring it to their attention.

That is the only thing motivating him.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

A truly enlightened person would not see any but the most superficial separation between himself and others. He would value their enlightenment as much as he values his own.

[Matt Gregory]

No Ryan, a wise person doesn't feel any discontent.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Trevor wrote:

A truly enlightened person would not see any but the most superficial separation between himself and others. He would value their enlightenment as much as he values his own.

What causes him to be concerned with others imperfections?

Matt wrote:

No Ryan, a wise person doesn't feel any discontent.

What caused you to write that? What is the motivator?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Ryan,

What causes him to be concerned with others imperfections?

His own momentum. Once achieving enlightenment, that which caused him to become enlightened in himself extends to others.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Trevor wrote:

His own momentum

What do you mean by momentum, can you explain it in psychological terms?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Ryan,

What do you mean by momentum, can you explain it in psychological terms?

I think the word is "habit". An enlightened person would only change his habits for a reason.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Trevor,

I think the word is "habit". An enlightened person would only change his habits for a reason.

What is the psychological reason as to why he changes his habits?

[Dan Rowden]

What Matt said is right. Enlightened people still have goals and values as these are a natural part of consciousness. If his goal is the survival of wisdom, for example, then obviously the enlightening of others matters as wisdom will have more chance of survival the more wise people there are. There's also another way to look at it, which is a view that Kevin has historically taken - that others are really an extension of our own selves so it's a natural thing to work to enlighten them.

[Matt Gregory]

Matt wrote:

No Ryan, a wise person doesn't feel any discontent.

What caused you to write that? What is the motivator?

Discontent :-)

[Ryan Rudolph]

Dan wrote:

If his goal is the survival of wisdom, for example, then obviously the enlightening of others matters as wisdom will have more chance of survival the more wise people there are. There's also another way to look at it, which is a view that Kevin has historically taken - that others are really an extension of our own selves so it's a natural thing to work to enlighten them.

Both these claims suggest that the acquirement of knowledge is the motivator for enlightened people.

For instance: you say that one is motivated by the knowledge that the higher number of wise people is better because it increases the changes of my survival and the species. And you also say that one is motivated by the knowledge that others are an extension of ourselves and therefore it only makes sense to help them.

However we cannot have two different motivations for one behavior (correcting other peoples imperfections)

you are missing the deeper psychological motivator, you are imagining conceptual motivations, but you fail to be aware of the actual motivator in the moment. Subjective feeling is what motivates us to act, regardless as to whether we are enlightened or deluded.

For instance: if you don’t agree with someone’s post, you don’t think conceptually to yourself every time “ah, well this person is an extension of myself so I’d better point out their delusion this time", or you don’t think to yourself "ah, well if I help, my chances of survival will increase."

I am asking what is the momentary motivator that propels you to point out someone’s imperfections? The answer is discontent. Creativity cannot happen without discontent. And it seems to me that we are stuck with it for eternity.

“When I first discovered that I was solely motivated by involuntary discontent, I was quite discontent with the whole thing”

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Ryan,

What is the psychological reason as to why he changes his habits?

Initially, he would change his habits to best achieve enlightenment. Once totally enlightened, he would see no reason to change these habits -- since they would very likely be healthy habits gained over the course of a deepening understanding of truth -- and he would then continue to enlighten others by the very process that he used to enlighten himself.

If there was discontent, it is gone by this time. He is merely acting habitually.

If that's not "psychological" enough for you, I'm sorry. I'm not a psychologist.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Trevor,

If there was discontent, it is gone by this time. He is merely acting habitually.

Are you speaking from your own experience? Are you solely motivated by robotic habits in everything you do, without a single psychological motivation? Next time you judge someone’s post as unintelligent pay attention to the inward process that is happening, and note what motivates you to respond to that judgement.

because 'Habit' is merely the outward manifestation of an inwardly motivated response.

[sschaula]

In my opinion, the enlightened person doesn't care about enlightening others since the enlightenment process has nothing to do with reality but everything to do with discovering reality. Enlightenment isn't real. If the "enlightened person" is helping others towards discovering reality for themselves, it's a clear sign that they're not enlightened.

Enlightenment doesn't exist. Delusion exists.

To put this into an analogy: delusion is light and enlightenment is darkness. Light alone exists, and darkness is simply the absence of light. Delusion exists, and enlightenment would be the absence of delusion, if it did exist. But it doesn't, there's too much light.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Scott wrote:

the enlightened person doesn't care about enlightening others since the enlightenment process has nothing to do with reality but everything to do with discovering reality.

Scott, you are in contradiction because by writing this are you trying to enlighten us, and my question to you is –

What is the psychological motivation as to why are wrote what you did?

This entire thread is about how when when we read a post that we disagree with, there is an involuntary discontent that propels us forward to correct what we think is incorrect in the others thinking.

If you step back for a moment, you will realize that you yourself are motivated by this discontent, and therefore you are programmed to help humanity against your will, whether you want to or not.

Before you reject this Scott, think about it. Reread this entire post, see how many have been weary of the idea of discontent, and then continue to think about it, and then look at your post again, and try to figure out what the psychological motivation was that propelled you to write what you did.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Ryan,

Are you speaking from your own experience?

Yes, obviously.

Are you solely motivated by robotic habits in everything you do, without a single psychological motivation?

No, I do not behave in such a manner in everything I do, because I am not totally enlightened. But I thought we were talking theoretically, about a totally enlightened person (a Buddha). He would, by what the definition implies, behave in a "robotic" fashion.

Next time you judge someone’s post as unintelligent pay attention to the inward process that is happening, and note what motivates you to respond to that judgement.

I haven't judged you as unintelligent. I'm answering your questions to the best of my ability, and I trust that you will be able to make of my answers what you will.

I do not make a habit of delving deep into my inward processes while answering posts, unless it is beyond my ability to supply an answer. In that case, I go for a long walk until I remember that the best way to answer most questions is by logical deduction, not mystic trances of self-discovery.

because 'Habit' is merely the outward manifestation of an inwardly motivated response.

I'm not certain what this proves.

[sschaula]

Ryan,

Scott, you are in contradiction because by writing this are you trying to enlighten us

No, I am trying to pluck people's heads out of their asses. I don't believe in enlightenment.

and my question to you is –

What is the psychological motivation as to why are wrote what you did?

Well, I saw the topic and clicked on it because I wanted to see if people were still believing in lies. When I saw that was the case, I felt compelled to post since I value truth and wisdom. I think the world could be a better place if people weren't so dumb.

This entire thread is about how when when we read a post that we disagree with, there is an involuntary discontent that propels us forward to correct what we think is incorrect in the others thinking.

If you step back for a moment, you will realize that you yourself are motivated by this discontent, and therefore you are programmed to help humanity against your will, whether you want to or not.

Against my will? I knew I was posting. Although I agree that free will is an illusion and we are caused to do everything, I still made the choice to post it.

I almost didn't want to post, because I know how these things end up. People just bicker and for the most part everyone gets nowhere. But I chose to post it anyway because I figured: the less stupid people in the world, the better. If one person caught the hook, it'd be worth the time taken.

[Leyla Shen]

Hi, Scott:

Well, I saw the topic and clicked on it because I wanted to see if people were still believing in lies. When I saw that was the case, I felt compelled to post since I value truth and wisdom.

As far as I can discern, the valuing of truth and wisdom belongs to those who are enlightened and can discern it.

I still don't get how you can hold this as a value and then say you don't believe in enlightenment.

.

[sschaula]

No one is free of delusion and stupidity, so enlightenment doesn't exist. A deluded and stupid person can still value truth and wisdom, and can still know it. It doesn't make them free of delusion and stupidity.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Scott, I believe you're just sick of hearing the word "enlightenment". I use it in contrast to lack of wisdom.

Saying you don't believe in enlightenment is like saying you don't believe in intelligence, or emotional stability, or a healthy lifestyle. It's just silly.

[Dionysius the Undying]

If I may quote the nearly inimicable Lao Tzu:

When a foolish man hears of the Tao, he laughs
If he didn't laugh, it wouldn't be the Tao

sschaula, a stupid and deluded person may THINK he values truth, wisdom, enlightenment, etc, but if he is truly stupid and deluded, he does not comprehend what truth, wisdom, and enlightenment actually are. He is simply caught up in his own delusion, and cannot be said to value these things, properly speaking.

[Sapius]

Another way to put it is that he involuntary feels discontent because of the stupidity of others and that feeling forces him to bring it to their attention.

That is the only thing motivating him.

Just want you to clear something...

What do you mean by ‘feelings’? Is it something like you feel a cool breeze? And is that the same as feeling ‘discontent’? Is there not any reasoning involved for discontent to come about? How do you see the possibility of an animal being "discontent"?

[sschaula]

Trevor,

Scott, I believe you're just sick of hearing the word "enlightenment". I use it in contrast to lack of wisdom.

I don't think that's the case. I like the word enlightenment. I seems like a lovely thing. It conjures images of peaceful buddhas sitting on kusa grass in a placid scene. Ahhhh, so beautiful. If only I could be there too!

Using the word wisdom, on the other hand, represents arrogant geeks. People who think they are transcending their peopleness. I realize the word itself means the exact opposite, but that's what it represents to me. Perhaps due to people using it too loosely.

I'm seriously not just being argumentative here. That's what the two words represent to me. One is very fake and one is very real.

By the way, I would like to add that the two terms are much alike in actual meaning. I would say that I don't believe in wise people, either. Wisdom does exist, though....fools can come to know the truth. They just can't shake their foolishness.

Saying you don't believe in enlightenment is like saying you don't believe in intelligence, or emotional stability, or a healthy lifestyle. It's just silly.

Well, I kind of don't believe in those things. Someone can be intelligent, but there's bound to be something which proves them to be stupid. Someone can be emotionally stable for the time being, but that's probably due to some kind of underlying problem with the person. You can meditate yourself into a state of peace, but can you really be considered peaceful? You can tell yourself everything is fine, but when the shit hits the fan, are you going to be able to keep telling yourself that? Healthy lifestyle...everyone dies. Every body decays as well as grows. I've tried to be healthy for a few years now and you can get close, but death is imminent. There is no cure.

So I guess I'd say all of those ideas are kind of silly.

And I wouldn't even put an idea like enlightenment in the same category as those things, which are much more believable and possible. To truly be free of delusion is unthinkable.

Funny how the unwise are the ones which claim that becoming wise is possible. Where are the wise ones making any claims?