GENIUS FORUMS

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.

Too complicated.

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.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:In my opinion, only three categories are necessary –

Perfectly Enlightened, Imperfectly Enlightened and Deluded.

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: 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.

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.

maestro,

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.

If you believe that Schopenhauer failed to achieve any understanding of reality, then he was deluded, despite all his efforts.

Maestro,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

df,

No-self doesn't mean "no self," it means an intimate understanding of self and the surrounding world as one and the same.

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.

There is no such thing as perfect enlightenment. There's no final level, like in a computer game. There's always more to discover.

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.

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.

Then why not Socrates?


Do you think what you said will be the end?

loof,

Then why not Socrates?

I made no mention of Socrates.

Do you think what you said will be the end?

I will say other things in the future.

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.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:df,

No-self doesn't mean "no self," it means an intimate understanding of self and the surrounding world as one and the same.

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.

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.

There is no such thing as perfect enlightenment. There's no final level, like in a computer game. There's always more to discover.

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.

"Matters at hand" don't necessarily exclude discovering new things.

df,

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.

If it doesn't make logical sense, why do you believe it?

"Matters at hand" don't necessarily exclude discovering new things.

I never excluded discovery from the list of matters than one can focus one's attention on.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:df,

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.

If it doesn't make logical sense, why do you believe it?

It makes a different kind of sense.