Enlightenment and Rationality
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 4:05 am
Hi,
I just wanted to express some views about the idea of enlightenment, which interest me a lot, and how I see it connected to the process of reason.
From my viewpoint, the state of enlightenment – if we should call it that– is the same for whoever has ended up permanently abiding there.
That is to say that I believe the people who cut through and into that which is at our foundation share the same ”experience” of the reality of the natural state – even though they came into it from different directions. So, to name a few (big ones, -), Buddah, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Jesus, Meister Eckhart, Lao Tzu, Ramana Maharshi, UG Krishnamurti, Anandamayi, Ramakrishna (add whomever you like) inhabits the same space – that is to say the space underlying the faculties of the mind – the thoughts and emotions (which I see as two sides of the same mechanism). So to follow I would then label (even though this is a trap in itself) the state of the Tao/Natural State/Enlightenment/The Absoulte/Nothingness /God (you get the point, -) as a ”feeling” - in the opposite sense of the ”feelings” attributed to the mechanism of the mind and which follows or dictates a though/thoughts. I would therefore rather put it in the descriptive family of a ’taste’, a ’mood’ or, why not, a ’state’ which escapes the blueprints of the explanatory mind just for the fact that this dualism necessary for that process doesn’t seem to function in the same way – that is to say in the non-dualistic experience.
And this is also where the paradox comes in because it seems like the memory is still very much active during the processes of remaining in this non-dualistic state –and when they are speaking they are then naturally speaking the concepts of thoughts learned from before entering into this state (or maybe altered after - which of course is the same – second hand symbols striking chords with what is a purely subjective experience) and they will naturally speak that certain, colored, language. Hence the difference of “teachings” from UG to Anandamayi, from Lao Tzu to Eckhart. But again they all are in the same state which is beyond the different faculties of thought and emotions that by outward stimulation (a question from somebody for example) seems to still make the respond and address the “experience” of this state, which means that a paradoxical state of recording is still operating which later lends to them a way to address this non-dualism in various manners, most successfully maybe in the not-this not-this teachings.
So to tie it to rationality which is very much a process possible and made important in the experience of the empirical world in the dualistic sense – it may very well lead to that state, just as Ramana entered into the Tao in a very different way quite separated from the processes of rationality. That is to say it will never exist a “way” or a system to reach the natural state (thought I acknowledge that reach is a wrong word to use) – but I certainly believe in the process of logic to be the natural way for me to exist in my day to day living and to see things as I think is clear and sane – but I have no hopes that it will lead me to the State which will most certainly be beyond these processes, but then again it just might, as the same way that if I for the sake of some absurd curiosity tried some ancient sauna mediation or if I just tired of everything in a deep state of depression went to a 99cent Store for distraction, might enter into this state. I truly believe it is that unpredictable – the state of affairs leading one beyond what one know into being that which doesn’t separate.
I don’t know, just felt like writing because I feel that this is a very interesting forum, which I enjoy reading from and it is always of great interest entering into discussions in these topics. And I have more to say but I felt that it best comes out when a discussion has started and the ball playing is in full motion.
All the best,
Chris
I just wanted to express some views about the idea of enlightenment, which interest me a lot, and how I see it connected to the process of reason.
From my viewpoint, the state of enlightenment – if we should call it that– is the same for whoever has ended up permanently abiding there.
That is to say that I believe the people who cut through and into that which is at our foundation share the same ”experience” of the reality of the natural state – even though they came into it from different directions. So, to name a few (big ones, -), Buddah, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Jesus, Meister Eckhart, Lao Tzu, Ramana Maharshi, UG Krishnamurti, Anandamayi, Ramakrishna (add whomever you like) inhabits the same space – that is to say the space underlying the faculties of the mind – the thoughts and emotions (which I see as two sides of the same mechanism). So to follow I would then label (even though this is a trap in itself) the state of the Tao/Natural State/Enlightenment/The Absoulte/Nothingness /God (you get the point, -) as a ”feeling” - in the opposite sense of the ”feelings” attributed to the mechanism of the mind and which follows or dictates a though/thoughts. I would therefore rather put it in the descriptive family of a ’taste’, a ’mood’ or, why not, a ’state’ which escapes the blueprints of the explanatory mind just for the fact that this dualism necessary for that process doesn’t seem to function in the same way – that is to say in the non-dualistic experience.
And this is also where the paradox comes in because it seems like the memory is still very much active during the processes of remaining in this non-dualistic state –and when they are speaking they are then naturally speaking the concepts of thoughts learned from before entering into this state (or maybe altered after - which of course is the same – second hand symbols striking chords with what is a purely subjective experience) and they will naturally speak that certain, colored, language. Hence the difference of “teachings” from UG to Anandamayi, from Lao Tzu to Eckhart. But again they all are in the same state which is beyond the different faculties of thought and emotions that by outward stimulation (a question from somebody for example) seems to still make the respond and address the “experience” of this state, which means that a paradoxical state of recording is still operating which later lends to them a way to address this non-dualism in various manners, most successfully maybe in the not-this not-this teachings.
So to tie it to rationality which is very much a process possible and made important in the experience of the empirical world in the dualistic sense – it may very well lead to that state, just as Ramana entered into the Tao in a very different way quite separated from the processes of rationality. That is to say it will never exist a “way” or a system to reach the natural state (thought I acknowledge that reach is a wrong word to use) – but I certainly believe in the process of logic to be the natural way for me to exist in my day to day living and to see things as I think is clear and sane – but I have no hopes that it will lead me to the State which will most certainly be beyond these processes, but then again it just might, as the same way that if I for the sake of some absurd curiosity tried some ancient sauna mediation or if I just tired of everything in a deep state of depression went to a 99cent Store for distraction, might enter into this state. I truly believe it is that unpredictable – the state of affairs leading one beyond what one know into being that which doesn’t separate.
I don’t know, just felt like writing because I feel that this is a very interesting forum, which I enjoy reading from and it is always of great interest entering into discussions in these topics. And I have more to say but I felt that it best comes out when a discussion has started and the ball playing is in full motion.
All the best,
Chris