Enlightened Almost enlightened deluded/hyped & Philosopher t
Enlightened Almost enlightened deluded/hyped & Philosopher t
I would say that instead of only two categories of enlightened verses non enlightened we need these five categories to accurately describe the various varieties of "sages" on display.
Enlightened: Perfect grasp of ones own and universal reality, clear logical consistent thinking.
Almost enlightened: Almost clear grasp of personal and universal reality, certain misconceptions and illogical delusions remain (Example the concept of universal soul or God). Mostly free from tradition and culture.
Deluded: Arrogant egoistic and enlightened status declared by fiat. Full of misconceptions spewing concepts without any real understanding. Contradictions abound in behavior and thought.
Hyped: Popularly known to be enlightened, but closer scrutiny reveals not much value and deluded thoughts.
Philosopher types: Reason intelligently and derive useful conclusions but do not deal with the basic illusion of self and are thus severely limited in wisdom.
("Maybe due to western world's obsession with the individual and individuality", Self as a hero fighting against an unjust/stupid world.)
Here are some examples
First category: Bodhidharma and Nagarjuna
Second Category: Ramakrishna, Osho, J Krishnamurti
Deluded, Hyped: Most of the popular gurus, U.G. Krishnamurti (maybe), Dalai Lama.
Philosopher types: Nietzsche, Diogenes, Socrates, Sartre (most western philosophers with few exceptions).
What do you think of this classification. Feel free to suggest any more categories or make a case for collapsing some of the categories.
Enlightened: Perfect grasp of ones own and universal reality, clear logical consistent thinking.
Almost enlightened: Almost clear grasp of personal and universal reality, certain misconceptions and illogical delusions remain (Example the concept of universal soul or God). Mostly free from tradition and culture.
Deluded: Arrogant egoistic and enlightened status declared by fiat. Full of misconceptions spewing concepts without any real understanding. Contradictions abound in behavior and thought.
Hyped: Popularly known to be enlightened, but closer scrutiny reveals not much value and deluded thoughts.
Philosopher types: Reason intelligently and derive useful conclusions but do not deal with the basic illusion of self and are thus severely limited in wisdom.
("Maybe due to western world's obsession with the individual and individuality", Self as a hero fighting against an unjust/stupid world.)
Here are some examples
First category: Bodhidharma and Nagarjuna
Second Category: Ramakrishna, Osho, J Krishnamurti
Deluded, Hyped: Most of the popular gurus, U.G. Krishnamurti (maybe), Dalai Lama.
Philosopher types: Nietzsche, Diogenes, Socrates, Sartre (most western philosophers with few exceptions).
What do you think of this classification. Feel free to suggest any more categories or make a case for collapsing some of the categories.
- Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Enlightened Almost enlightened deluded/hyped & Philosopher t
Too complicated.
- Ryan Rudolph
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
Re: Enlightened Almost enlightened deluded/hyped & Philosopher t
In my opinion, only three categories are necessary –
Perfectly Enlightened, Imperfectly Enlightened and Deluded.
And you will find that most of your examples will fall into either Imperfectly Enlightened or Deluded. I actually question whether or not there has ever been a perfectly enlightened human, especially with what we now know about the myriad of genetic and hormonal imperfections.
Moreover it is not coincidence that the ones we assume are perfectly enlightened are Sages from ancient times, where little empirical data exists about their personal lives outside the teachings. However, if such empirical data did exist, I bet we would discover that these men had some of their own imperfections similar to some of the contemporary sages of the last couple centuries.
Perfectly Enlightened, Imperfectly Enlightened and Deluded.
And you will find that most of your examples will fall into either Imperfectly Enlightened or Deluded. I actually question whether or not there has ever been a perfectly enlightened human, especially with what we now know about the myriad of genetic and hormonal imperfections.
Moreover it is not coincidence that the ones we assume are perfectly enlightened are Sages from ancient times, where little empirical data exists about their personal lives outside the teachings. However, if such empirical data did exist, I bet we would discover that these men had some of their own imperfections similar to some of the contemporary sages of the last couple centuries.
Re: Enlightened Almost enlightened deluded/hyped & Philosopher t
Well where will you place philosophers such as Schopenhauer, clearly they were not in the first two categories, but they were not like the phony gurus as they made sincere effort to understand the world. Thus there has to be one more category.Ryan Rudolph wrote:In my opinion, only three categories are necessary –
Perfectly Enlightened, Imperfectly Enlightened and Deluded.
The question is not of perfection (of the body/mind) but of perfection in understanding the nature of no self and causality. In that sense Nagarjuna and Bodhidharma are direct and unequivocal. While some of these imperfect sages sometimes posit God and a universal self and such.Ryan Rudolph wrote: Moreover it is not coincidence that the ones we assume are perfectly enlightened are Sages from ancient times, where little empirical data exists about their personal lives outside the teachings. However, if such empirical data did exist, I bet we would discover that these men had some of their own imperfections similar to some of the contemporary sages of the last couple centuries.
- Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Enlightened Almost enlightened deluded/hyped & Philosopher t
maestro,
If you believe that Schopenhauer failed to achieve any understanding of reality, then he was deluded, despite all his efforts.Well where will you place philosophers such as Schopenhauer, clearly they were not in the first two categories, but they were not like the phony gurus as they made sincere effort to understand the world.
- Ryan Rudolph
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
Re: Enlightened Almost enlightened deluded/hyped & Philosopher t
Maestro,
Some gurus like Jiddu Krishnamurti could have in fact had direct access to the enlightened state, but when he tried to teach, he used abstractions like god or the timeless or the infinite. And sometimes K got too romantic over the truth, but overall it is difficult to know just how imperfect a person is when they seem to be speaking from a place that is close to the truth.
I would say for most humans, one is either deluded or imperfectly enlightened, and based on Schopenhauer’s work; I would say he was probably imperfectly enlightened. He understood the world as the will to power, and the vice of ‘woman’ in the world. And many of his writings depict that he was quite sensitive to the unnecessary suffering of humanity. He seems like a man that tried his best to live a truthful life, and did his best for his genetic configuration.Well where will you place philosophers such as Schopenhauer, clearly they were not in the first two categories, but they were not like the phony gurus as they made sincere effort to understand the world. Thus there has to be one more category.
Yes, but when they use the term ‘god’ or the term ‘universal self’ they could be pointing to a universal state of no self. It is difficult to know whether they believed in an abstraction, or whether they were using a different term to point to the enlightened state.The question is not of perfection (of the body/mind) but of perfection in understanding the nature of no self and causality. In that sense Nagarjuna and Bodhidharma are direct and unequivocal. While some of these imperfect sages sometimes posit God and a universal self and such.
Some gurus like Jiddu Krishnamurti could have in fact had direct access to the enlightened state, but when he tried to teach, he used abstractions like god or the timeless or the infinite. And sometimes K got too romantic over the truth, but overall it is difficult to know just how imperfect a person is when they seem to be speaking from a place that is close to the truth.
- divine focus
- Posts: 611
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm
Re: Enlightened Almost enlightened deluded/hyped & Philosopher t
A lot of people take the different teachings too literally. No-self doesn't mean "no self," it means an intimate understanding of self and the surrounding world as one and the same.
There is no such thing as perfect enlightenment. There's no final level, like in a computer game. There's always more to discover.
There is no such thing as perfect enlightenment. There's no final level, like in a computer game. There's always more to discover.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
- Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Enlightened Almost enlightened deluded/hyped & Philosopher t
df,
The second half of this sentence disproves the first. No self literally means no self. Any appearance of the self is an illusion, and any notion of a self that a person has is a delusion because there is no meaningful distinction between self and world.No-self doesn't mean "no self," it means an intimate understanding of self and the surrounding world as one and the same.
Perfect enlightenment involves an understanding and appreciation of the infinite nature of knowledge and wisdom. If someone were aware -- truly aware -- of what it means for there to always be more to discover, and thus stopped trying to discover new things, and instead focused his attention on matters at hand, he would be enlightened. Trying to focus one's attention on matters at hand without that deep understanding is not, however, enlightenment.There is no such thing as perfect enlightenment. There's no final level, like in a computer game. There's always more to discover.
Re: Enlightened Almost enlightened deluded/hyped & Philosopher t
Then why not Socrates?Perfect enlightenment involves an understanding and appreciation of the infinite nature of knowledge and wisdom. If someone were aware -- truly aware -- of what it means for there to always be more to discover, and thus stopped trying to discover new things, and instead focused his attention on matters at hand, he would be enlightened. Trying to focus one's attention on matters at hand without that deep understanding is not, however, enlightenment.
Do you think what you said will be the end?
- Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Enlightened Almost enlightened deluded/hyped & Philosopher t
loof,
I made no mention of Socrates.Then why not Socrates?
I will say other things in the future.Do you think what you said will be the end?
Re: Enlightened Almost enlightened deluded/hyped & Philosopher t
What good do any all or any of these titles do for either the people claiming them or for others? Personally, I can't imagine a "74% enlightened" badge or something similar helping me or anyone I interact with in any manner. Will it entitle me to a discount at Wal-Mart? If not, I'll have to wait until I get the title of "senior citizen," which is actually useful.
I live in a tub.
- divine focus
- Posts: 611
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm
Re: Enlightened Almost enlightened deluded/hyped & Philosopher t
Every perennial wisdom teaching agrees that all is one and, paradoxically, the one is infinite. If there were no self, there would be no "one." It may not make logical sense, but it is what it is.Trevor Salyzyn wrote:df,The second half of this sentence disproves the first. No self literally means no self. Any appearance of the self is an illusion, and any notion of a self that a person has is a delusion because there is no meaningful distinction between self and world.No-self doesn't mean "no self," it means an intimate understanding of self and the surrounding world as one and the same.
"Matters at hand" don't necessarily exclude discovering new things.Perfect enlightenment involves an understanding and appreciation of the infinite nature of knowledge and wisdom. If someone were aware -- truly aware -- of what it means for there to always be more to discover, and thus stopped trying to discover new things, and instead focused his attention on matters at hand, he would be enlightened. Trying to focus one's attention on matters at hand without that deep understanding is not, however, enlightenment.There is no such thing as perfect enlightenment. There's no final level, like in a computer game. There's always more to discover.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
- Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Enlightened Almost enlightened deluded/hyped & Philosopher t
df,
If it doesn't make logical sense, why do you believe it?Every perennial wisdom teaching agrees that all is one and, paradoxically, the one is infinite. If there were no self, there would be no "one." It may not make logical sense, but it is what it is.
I never excluded discovery from the list of matters than one can focus one's attention on."Matters at hand" don't necessarily exclude discovering new things.
- divine focus
- Posts: 611
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm
Re: Enlightened Almost enlightened deluded/hyped & Philosopher t
It makes a different kind of sense.Trevor Salyzyn wrote:df,If it doesn't make logical sense, why do you believe it?Every perennial wisdom teaching agrees that all is one and, paradoxically, the one is infinite. If there were no self, there would be no "one." It may not make logical sense, but it is what it is.
eliasforum.org/digests.html