Enlightened! Really?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
BardoXV
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2015 7:21 am

Re: Enlightened! Really?

Post by BardoXV »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
BardoXV wrote:Enlightenment is a state of being, not an objective thing or an opinion.
"States" and "beings" are just more things you're bringing to the table, objective or subjective, it doesn't matter. You seem here like someone who kicks "things" out the front door and invites them all back through the back door. Next thing will be that you're refusing to describe enlightenment after just describing it using your own private set of meanings. For example, what is a "state of being"? States and beings both refer to things usually.
I was using 'thing' as a physical object and 'state of being' as non physical, like an idea or a thought. If you are considering a thought or idea as a physical object then we are not using words the same way. So in my usage I am removing 'things' (physical objects) but am not bringing 'things' back in, only 'non-thing' ideas and thoughts or concepts.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Enlightened! Really?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

A physical object starts and ends in our mind as just another thought or idea. A thing, conceptually, is defined by a context and the interpretations arising in that context. In that sense you're trying to make distinctions here where none are existing. The "thing" is formed by you in every case and it appears like you seem to propose keeping one side of the coin while abandoning the other. It cannot be done that way as you still have the coinage intact!
Email: message@sent.as
Web: sorenkierkegaard.nl
BardoXV
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2015 7:21 am

Re: Enlightened! Really?

Post by BardoXV »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:A physical object starts and ends in our mind as just another thought or idea. A thing, conceptually, is defined by a context and the interpretations arising in that context. In that sense you're trying to make distinctions here where none are existing. The "thing" is formed by you in every case and it appears like you seem to propose keeping one side of the coin while abandoning the other. It cannot be done that way as you still have the coinage intact!

Then we disagree on the nature of thoughts and ideas, to me that are non-physical, but you seem to be claiming that because they are based on physical objects, they must in turn be physical themselves. Do I understand you correctly?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Enlightened! Really?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

BardoXV wrote: you seem to be claiming that because they are based on physical objects, they must in turn be physical themselves. Do I understand you correctly?
Only a tiny fragment of the known "physical world" can be experienced through the mechanism of senses or sensors. And even then a lot has to be imagined and interpreted as these are always shifting in relativity. But the reverse must then be true as well: concepts and ideas rarely have any direct link to physical exact objects or events. There's a referencing somewhere of course but very indirect and intangible when examined more closely.

This reasoning would lead to the idea that a "thing" is the mental construct with some complex of relations to the barely defined forces and productions around us. But perhaps it's best to try something more abstract and work with identities: lets have "A" and distinguish it from everything not being "A". At this level physicality is not a factor anymore because the only decisive factor here is proper identification versus "unknown". Now reasoning can continue.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Enlightened! Really?

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

Kunyab,
It seems as if enlightenment is not a objective thing but a matter of opinion.
Enlightenment is where opinion finally crashes against the reef of fact, the closest point to objective truth that a subjective being can get. The old "A=A". After that is an Infinite abyss.
One can also say that cultists can recognize each other. Does this mean what they believe in is true.
This is a classical way of poisoning the well. The truth of someone's beliefs entirely depends on what they believe. Just because someone is labelled a cultist does not mean they are wrong, just as being labelled enlightened does not mean you are right. Every religion began as a cult (with more or less enlightened founders), and there's every reason to believe that there will be more religions invented in the future.
The common view assumes that space and time are the fundamental reality of the world, consciousness is an artifact of the brain and millions of years of evolution.
I question that this is the common view. The entire Islamo-Judeo-Christian framework posits the personal soul (consciousness) as a planet orbiting around the conscious center of Reality, God. That common sense view is more the modern humanist's view than the view of the majority.
Vedantic view is that consciousness is the fundamental reality, time and space and human body are just experiences running on top of it.
Anyway, can't it be both views? There doesn't seem any pressing urge to choose one possible interpretation over the other, and a good scientist wouldn't. If it fulfilled Ockham's Razor, I might understand. But to choose one over the other so as to have a new label for oneself seems unnecessary.

For instance, I consider myself a philosophy geek, but that's because I'm always practicing philosophy, by myself if I have to, with others when I have the opportunity. I don't hide behind my label as though it's made me invincible to the attacks of mere mortals. Other people are better at philosophy than I am, and other people sometimes don't care about philosophy one whit. Recognizing such hard limits is part of geekdom. Which brings to mind this little piece of opinion: sacrificing my family for philosophy would be ludicrous. Why would someone who dances with enlightenment behave so foolishly?
A mindful man needs few words.
ramijng1099
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2015 11:17 pm

Re: Enlightened! Really?

Post by ramijng1099 »

help me I have read wisdom of infinite by Quinn and my path to enlightenment turns out to be disastrous. After reading the book my personality and behavior were altered as if I've become a different person thinking things like from sages, religion and stuff. There one day that it became worst and my family has no choice but to put me into rehab because I was behaving like a psycho for several years I found myself like having a schizophrenia. Sadly that all my stress or depression was put on to waste and disappointment and the book was no help at all. Honestly I was deeply depressed by the time I read the book and have no one to talk to so I search the internet alone for help but this was really unlucky for me, I felt like I'm all wasted.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Enlightened! Really?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

ramijng1099 wrote:help me I have read wisdom of infinite by Quinn and my path to enlightenment turns out to be disastrous. After reading the book my personality and behavior were altered as if I've become a different person thinking things like from sages, religion and stuff. There one day that it became worst and my family has no choice but to put me into rehab because I was behaving like a psycho for several years I found myself like having a schizophrenia. Sadly that all my stress or depression was put on to waste and disappointment and the book was no help at all. Honestly I was deeply depressed by the time I read the book and have no one to talk to so I search the internet alone for help but this was really unlucky for me, I felt like I'm all wasted.
Hello, so if I understand you right, you were a bit of a mess before you read the book and still were a bit of a mess after reading it. Then a crisis happened. Nothing much changed but you have now something to blame for it all? Are you coming here just to put blame on something, like some kind of victim?

But really, you might want to focus on basic mental stability, honesty and self-knowledge before delving into any philosophical work as it will only add more stress and conflict when wrestling with existential topics. In your case that seems to be exactly what happened. You were looking for something or someone to be so you tried on a "sage" jacket. It's perfectly understandable but it doesn't seem like a good idea to blame others for the circumstance you have found your self in, like some disturbed chemical balance or other learned patterns of behavior. Philosophy is powerful stuff and you might have to avoid it like you'd avoid consciousness altering drugs or extreme stress. For more or less the same reasons.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Enlightened! Really?

Post by Russell Parr »

ramijng1099 wrote:help me I have read wisdom of infinite by Quinn and my path to enlightenment turns out to be disastrous. After reading the book my personality and behavior were altered as if I've become a different person thinking things like from sages, religion and stuff. There one day that it became worst and my family has no choice but to put me into rehab because I was behaving like a psycho for several years I found myself like having a schizophrenia. Sadly that all my stress or depression was put on to waste and disappointment and the book was no help at all. Honestly I was deeply depressed by the time I read the book and have no one to talk to so I search the internet alone for help but this was really unlucky for me, I felt like I'm all wasted.
I missed this earlier. Sounds like an unfortunate turn of events. Taking in sagely wisdom isn't to be taken lightly, and it's certainly not something that happens overnight. Straightforward, no-holds-barred philosophical works such as David's WotI, or Kierkegaard, for example, can be a hard pill to swallow, and quite heavy on the mind if one has little previous experience.

Taking a break from philosophy can help you stay balanced, but if you're seriously impacted by what you've learned, it can also do you good to stay involved in some way. I echo Diebert's suggestions, as well as trying to take in the more lighthearted, poetic style works like the Tao Te Ching and the Dhammapada in between taking on the heavy stuff. Always remember that there are more avenues and ways to learn about Reality, and that if you are struggling, then patiently look for the answers in different ways. Remember to take your time. You can only push the mind so far at a time.
Locked