Why pursue enlightenment?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

DV,
divine focus wrote:like the subjective part of you, or the "unconscious," is in complete direction (as opposed to control) of your life.
Could you rephrase that or expand? The being "in complete direction".
Without control, you are as active or passive as you want to be.
But would any desire to be active or passive resulting in actually being that not count as just an instance of control?
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by RZoo »

divine focus wrote:It's not a question of passivity or activity. It's living like the subjective part of you, or the "unconscious," is in complete direction (as opposed to control) of your life. You deal with control as your conscious, waking self, but it is only an illusion. Trust is the key, leading to natural flow.
So you want to decry "conscious" as "illusion" and glorify "unconscious" as "natural". Why this bias?
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by divine focus »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:DV,
divine focus wrote:like the subjective part of you, or the "unconscious," is in complete direction (as opposed to control) of your life.
Could you rephrase that or expand? The being "in complete direction".
Whatever you do is actually the subjective awareness doing. The only thing you do as the objective awareness is experience. For example, your personality is determined by the subjective. Any changes to it has to make sense to you, but the subjective is that essential to you.
Without control, you are as active or passive as you want to be.
But would any desire to be active or passive resulting in actually being that not count as just an instance of control?
Really everything you do is a function of desire. The want to do anything comes from the subjective, and the carrying out of the desire is the subjective. It may be an instance of control depending on how trusting you are, but that's just an illusion.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by divine focus »

RZoo wrote:
divine focus wrote:It's not a question of passivity or activity. It's living like the subjective part of you, or the "unconscious," is in complete direction (as opposed to control) of your life. You deal with control as your conscious, waking self, but it is only an illusion. Trust is the key, leading to natural flow.
So you want to decry "conscious" as "illusion" and glorify "unconscious" as "natural". Why this bias?
Nope, sorry, control is an illusion, not the conscious self. I wasn't clear there.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by RZoo »

divine focus wrote:
RZoo wrote:
divine focus wrote:It's not a question of passivity or activity. It's living like the subjective part of you, or the "unconscious," is in complete direction (as opposed to control) of your life. You deal with control as your conscious, waking self, but it is only an illusion. Trust is the key, leading to natural flow.
So you want to decry "conscious" as "illusion" and glorify "unconscious" as "natural". Why this bias?
Nope, sorry, control is an illusion, not the conscious self. I wasn't clear there.
So you believe that free will is an illusion? But what does this change?
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by Glostik91 »

RZoo wrote:Enlightenment is for drop-outs, hardly for "geniuses". It's pointless to be passive, restrained, detached and shut off your emotions completely. It's equally hard to sublimate your emotions and to do something productive and meaningful with your life (to change the world). Why favor dropping out?

To reach enlightenment is somewhere on par with reaching death. You'd might as well be a rock or tree or zombie or a lobotomized human being. Why is this so appealing?
To be against this idea of enlightenment is only natural. To be passive, restrained, and detached is pointless. However it is also pointless to be passionate, active, and attached. Which is the better state of affairs?
a gutter rat looking at stars
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

divine focus wrote:Whatever you do is actually the subjective awareness doing. The only thing you do as the objective awareness is experience.
But any interpretation of that experience would be subjective again, right? Why even bother with that notion of "objective awareness" as it's not aware of anything at all. To have any thing, any sense, there's already interpretation!
For example, your personality is determined by the subjective. Any changes to it has to make sense to you, but the subjective is that essential to you.
Not sure about what is "essential" to me. Personalities have their causes, obviously.
Really everything you do is a function of desire. The want to do anything comes from the subjective, and the carrying out of the desire is the subjective. It may be an instance of control depending on how trusting you are, but that's just an illusion.
Why not call it causality instead of "the subjective" or "desire"? The rivers flows towards the sea, desiring to reach it but that's just a figure of speech, right? In any case, at the level of decission making one still needs certain levels of trust and assumption to function. And acting on determined illusions would become a clever game: denouncing a reality while still going along with it, being part of it any way, and thereby making it all real again through the back door.
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by RZoo »

Glostik91 wrote:
RZoo wrote:Enlightenment is for drop-outs, hardly for "geniuses". It's pointless to be passive, restrained, detached and shut off your emotions completely. It's equally hard to sublimate your emotions and to do something productive and meaningful with your life (to change the world). Why favor dropping out?

To reach enlightenment is somewhere on par with reaching death. You'd might as well be a rock or tree or zombie or a lobotomized human being. Why is this so appealing?
To be against this idea of enlightenment is only natural. To be passive, restrained, and detached is pointless. However it is also pointless to be passionate, active, and attached. Which is the better state of affairs?
Ah, a question of values. Which is better for who? For the lazy, tired, weak and suffering, passiveness, restraint and detachment, and for the energetic, creative and healthy, passion, activity and attachment, perhaps?

Life is pointless. Options: A) Live it anyways - why not. B) Make pretending you are dead into a religion, and go around preaching it.
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by divine focus »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
divine focus wrote:Whatever you do is actually the subjective awareness doing. The only thing you do as the objective awareness is experience.
But any interpretation of that experience would be subjective again, right? Why even bother with that notion of "objective awareness" as it's not aware of anything at all. To have any thing, any sense, there's already interpretation!
"Objective" just means abstract relative to the subjective. Your entire reality is created by your perception; it's all your individual reality. "Subjective" just means non-physical. I got these terms from the website in my signature.

The objective awareness is you who's reading this right now. You are aware physically.
Really everything you do is a function of desire. The want to do anything comes from the subjective, and the carrying out of the desire is the subjective. It may be an instance of control depending on how trusting you are, but that's just an illusion.
Why not call it causality instead of "the subjective" or "desire"? The rivers flows towards the sea, desiring to reach it but that's just a figure of speech, right?
This is just what I see going on in my experience. Causality is an intellectual idea that is unnecessary. It supposes an infinite past, but your experience is only ever right now. Why introduce something that you can't experience for yourself?
eliasforum.org/digests.html
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by Glostik91 »

RZoo wrote: Ah, a question of values. Which is better for who? For the lazy, tired, weak and suffering, passiveness, restraint and detachment, and for the energetic, creative and healthy, passion, activity and attachment, perhaps?

Life is pointless. Options: A) Live it anyways - why not. B) Make pretending you are dead into a religion, and go around preaching it.
Which is better for you and why?
a gutter rat looking at stars
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

divine focus wrote:Causality is an intellectual idea that is unnecessary. It supposes an infinite past, but your experience is only ever right now.
That's only because you might not have understood what is really meant with causality. Obviously it doesn't need the addition of timelines to get the principle. And when you talk about experiencing, it might seem like now, but it's only the very recent mixed with former conditioning. You're only looking at fresh footprints and compare them with the older ones. What you'll experience is always past, in front of your nose or further away, but that's relativity for you. Your experiencing remains creation of some "heaven and earth". Any now is never truely in our reach and even while it could be called "source", it's not there to experience!
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by RZoo »

Glostik91 wrote:
RZoo wrote: Ah, a question of values. Which is better for who? For the lazy, tired, weak and suffering, passiveness, restraint and detachment, and for the energetic, creative and healthy, passion, activity and attachment, perhaps?

Life is pointless. Options: A) Live it anyways - why not. B) Make pretending you are dead into a religion, and go around preaching it.
Which is better for you and why?
Not enlightenment, because I find it boring and wasteful of my talents.
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by divine focus »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
divine focus wrote:Causality is an intellectual idea that is unnecessary. It supposes an infinite past, but your experience is only ever right now.
That's only because you might not have understood what is really meant with causality. Obviously it doesn't need the addition of timelines to get the principle. And when you talk about experiencing, it might seem like now, but it's only the very recent mixed with former conditioning. You're only looking at fresh footprints and compare them with the older ones. What you'll experience is always past, in front of your nose or further away, but that's relativity for you. Your experiencing remains creation of some "heaven and earth". Any now is never truely in our reach and even while it could be called "source", it's not there to experience!
The experience of "not now" exists only with the mind in the way of the now. You do experience the now. Only thinking makes it seem as if you do not. This is why I say causality as an intellectual idea is impractical.

Thinking is fun for a time, but at some point you have to realize the reality that's right in front of you. In my experience, I've lost all track of time.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by Glostik91 »

RZoo wrote: Not enlightenment, because I find it boring and wasteful of my talents.
How did you come to realize that being passive, restrained, detached, and shut off from your emotions is enlightenment? Isn't enlightenment just realizing the truth?
a gutter rat looking at stars
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by RZoo »

Glostik91 wrote:
RZoo wrote: Not enlightenment, because I find it boring and wasteful of my talents.
How did you come to realize that being passive, restrained, detached, and shut off from your emotions is enlightenment? Isn't enlightenment just realizing the truth?
That's just my impression based on so-called enlightened figures and general connotation and associations I've found with the term (Buddha, Jesus, Buddhism, etc).

If we accept your definition, then know that we can't distinguish an enlightened from a non-enlightened person (unless they choose to convince us). Hitler could've been just as enlightened as Jesus (or more so). And enlightenment becomes more of a healing process than a religious goal. We would free enlightenment from any particular morality or values.
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by Glostik91 »

RZoo wrote: That's just my impression based on so-called enlightened figures and general connotation and associations I've found with the term (Buddha, Jesus, Buddhism, etc).

If we accept your definition, then know that we can't distinguish an enlightened from a non-enlightened person (unless they choose to convince us). Hitler could've been just as enlightened as Jesus (or more so). And enlightenment becomes more of a healing process than a religious goal. We would free enlightenment from any particular morality or values.
I'm not sure how you're getting this impression. Jesus wept at the death of his friend. Budai was a Zen practitioner. He is commonly known as the fat and laughing buddha.

As for distinguishing an enlightened person from a non-enlightened person, all you have to do is ask.
a gutter rat looking at stars
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

divine focus wrote:The experience of "not now" exists only with the mind in the way of the now. You do experience the now. Only thinking makes it seem as if you do not. This is why I say causality as an intellectual idea is impractical.
All you're having is "not now". Changing that truth is just another trick for your mind which extents way beyond thinking. It's just that in our thoughts ignorance can be more easily traced. Here, you still have a chance. If you leave the intellectual realm without understanding the deception and preparing, all hope is lost.
Thinking is fun for a time, but at some point you have to realize the reality that's right in front of you. In my experience, I've lost all track of time.
Thinking, after the first emotional blocks are dissolved, becomes extremely painful and difficult. It's not "fun". Losing track of time is the easy and fun part.
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by divine focus »

Nothing need be difficult. We'll have to agree to disagree.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by RZoo »

Glostik91 wrote:
RZoo wrote: That's just my impression based on so-called enlightened figures and general connotation and associations I've found with the term (Buddha, Jesus, Buddhism, etc).

If we accept your definition, then know that we can't distinguish an enlightened from a non-enlightened person (unless they choose to convince us). Hitler could've been just as enlightened as Jesus (or more so). And enlightenment becomes more of a healing process than a religious goal. We would free enlightenment from any particular morality or values.
I'm not sure how you're getting this impression. Jesus wept at the death of his friend. Budai was a Zen practitioner. He is commonly known as the fat and laughing buddha.
Good point. I created this confusion and I'll try to explain it.

There are 2 things to consider:
1) How Jesus acted
2) How Jesus would act if he got his way (if everyone agreed with and followed him)

In the first case, how he acted, yes, he wept for others. But if he got his way, if his goal was realized, there would be no more weeping because there would be nothing left to weep about and no "others" left to weep for - that was his ideal.

To further convolute the matter, we have to decide whether "enlightenment" should be amoral or not (I've created a separate thread to pose this question). If "enlightenment" is amoral, then a truly enlightened person should not, at least on the basis of their enlightenment, have a reason to weep for anyone.

When I say that my impression of enlightenment is passive, detached, etc, I guess that's true of the "ideal" world of Jesus, or of an amoral view of enlightenment, but insofar as that ideal world is not realized and an enlightened person can idealize a moral order, there is room for activity. Hope that helps clarify.
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by Glostik91 »

RZoo wrote: Good point. I created this confusion and I'll try to explain it.

There are 2 things to consider:
1) How Jesus acted
2) How Jesus would act if he got his way (if everyone agreed with and followed him)

In the first case, how he acted, yes, he wept for others. But if he got his way, if his goal was realized, there would be no more weeping because there would be nothing left to weep about and no "others" left to weep for - that was his ideal.

To further convolute the matter, we have to decide whether "enlightenment" should be amoral or not (I've created a separate thread to pose this question). If "enlightenment" is amoral, then a truly enlightened person should not, at least on the basis of their enlightenment, have a reason to weep for anyone.

When I say that my impression of enlightenment is passive, detached, etc, I guess that's true of the "ideal" world of Jesus, or of an amoral view of enlightenment, but insofar as that ideal world is not realized and an enlightened person can idealize a moral order, there is room for activity. Hope that helps clarify.
The story continues with Jesus raising his friend from the dead. Why would Jesus cry if he was just going to raise him from the dead anyway?

Deciding if enlightenment is moral or not is already making enlightenment moral and not amoral. If enlightenment was amoral then there would be no deliberation or decision. It would be utterly obvious.
a gutter rat looking at stars
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by RZoo »

Glostik91 wrote:The story continues with Jesus raising his friend from the dead. Why would Jesus cry if he was just going to raise him from the dead anyway?

Deciding if enlightenment is moral or not is already making enlightenment moral and not amoral. If enlightenment was amoral then there would be no deliberation or decision. It would be utterly obvious.
I imagine that Jesus cried for the same reason that I decide.

Unfortunately such conclusions, while witty, won't help clarify the nature of enlightenment.
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by Glostik91 »

RZoo wrote: I imagine that Jesus cried for the same reason that I decide.
Go read the story in John 11. It will tell you why. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+11
35 Jesus wept.

36 Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him!”
Unfortunately such conclusions, while witty, won't help clarify the nature of enlightenment.
How do you know enlightenment needs to be clarified unless you know what enlightenment is?
a gutter rat looking at stars
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by Cahoot »

en-lighten

Prefix: en

“a prefix occurring originally in loanwords from French and productive in English on this model, forming verbs with the general sense “to cause (a person or thing) to be in” the place, condition, or state named by the stem; more specifically, “to confine in or place on” (enshrine; enthrone; entomb); “to cause to be in” (enslave; entrust; enrich; encourage; endear); “to restrict” in the manner named by the stem, typically with the additional sense “on all sides, completely” (enwind; encircle; enclose; entwine). This prefix is also attached to verbs in order to make them transitive, or to give them a transitive marker if they are already transitive (enkindle; enliven; enshield; enface).”

Verb: lighten

“To make light or clear. To illuminate.”

*

What’s the question?

Enlightenment is, was, and will be. What you pursue is the recognition, through perception and interpretation of phenomena, because you have no choice. What is not recognized is obscured. Thus, you seek to end what obscures, i.e., ignorance. Absence of ignorance removes choice.
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by RZoo »

Glostik91 wrote:
Unfortunately such conclusions, while witty, won't help clarify the nature of enlightenment.
How do you know enlightenment needs to be clarified unless you know what enlightenment is?
I don't know, otherwise I wouldn't be in need of clarification.
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by Glostik91 »

RZoo wrote: I don't know, otherwise I wouldn't be in need of clarification.
You are like a man, who when asked what absolute truth is, says, "I don't know."
a gutter rat looking at stars
Locked