Why pursue enlightenment?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by RZoo »

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?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Well, you first started with defining your own idea of what others would see here as enlightenment, as something "passive, restrained" including "shutting off emotions" and then you rage against this idea. Why is that so appealing?

Anyway, you imply a better alternative situation I suppose, one full of activity, less limitations and somehow "open" to emotions. Fair enough but a bit vague, don't you think? How would you describe a person who is not "shut off" from emotions? What do you even think emotions are in this context? Not that literature has defined them very well either. Have you ever really thought about these things or are you just saying something because you want to take these "geniuses" a notch or two down?

But go ahead, show you have some thought and define your terms, show your own philosophy of life and by all means demonstrate something of that fully active, unlimited, engaged, passionate person you so value to be! Although that sounds to me too close like another claim of enlightenment, a "closet claim" to know better!
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by RZoo »

As a flip through any dictionary will reveal, human language is extremely vague. Perhaps one ought to attempt to create a well-defined subset of the English language sometime.... Until then, communication is more of an art than a science. The listener or reader has to attempt to understand the words he is reading and ask questions about anything that's not clear. To ask for everything to be well-defined and precise is to ask for an impossible feat, or at least for a new dictionary to be written. Let's not shut off the conversation in such a way. ;-)
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by Bobo »

Because things appear in contrast to one another. By putting dropping out first one can achieve the effects of the opposite of it.

You can see the science of language as the process from the clear to the vague, and the art of it as the movement from the vague to the clear. Maybe 'death' will appear as more clear than 'life', so it would be part of the science of enlightenment.
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by RZoo »

Bobo wrote:Because things appear in contrast to one another. By putting dropping out first one can achieve the effects of the opposite of it.
What are you saying? By dropping out, one can achieve the same effects of staying in?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

RZoo wrote:To ask for everything to be well-defined and precise is to ask for an impossible feat, or at least for a new dictionary to be written. Let's not shut off the conversation in such a way. ;-)
Fair enough. But tell me which reference you used to look up enlightenment and link it to passivity and repression of all things emotional? Were you perhaps thinking of meditating monks or Stoic philosophers? Or did you have certain people of the Genius Forum in mind? There are many definitions around, even around here, because of the ambiguity of language and experience (or even reality). But that doesn't mean we should never try to clarify ourselves!
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by RZoo »

My understanding of enlightenment is something like: Living in conscious awareness of one's position as part of the world. It is in opposition to the view of oneself as a separate entity in the world. The goal of enlightenment is to fully renounce one's ego. One will no longer experience shallow emotional connections and responses to the things around oneself knowing that all is connected and that such superficial things aren't of substantial importance. While enlightenment doesn't necessitate passivity (correct me if I'm wrong?), the two always seem to be associated. (Maybe people with a longing for passivity tend to be drawn towards enlightenment?) It's also always arbitrarily associated with peace, love and harmony.

How have I done? Is there anything you'd like to add or disagree with?
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by Bobo »

Not the same effects but similar. Some people may see it in terms of hard and easy, maybe it's just hard to find the easy way.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by TheImmanent »

The ego is passive (acted upon), restrained (consigned to a specific place and duration), detached (conceives all things as separate) and shut off from any true emotion or idea (only possessed by misconceptions).

Enlightenment is active (that by which everything is), limitless (cannot be captured by any form), wholesome (complete in itself), blissful (in perfect expression of its own infinite nature).
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by Cahoot »

TheImmanent wrote:The ego is passive (acted upon), restrained (consigned to a specific place and duration), detached (conceives all things as separate) and shut off from any true emotion or idea (only possessed by misconceptions).

Enlightenment is active (that by which everything is), limitless (cannot be captured by any form), wholesome (complete in itself), blissful (in perfect expression of its own infinite nature).
Enlightenment indeed involves doing nothing, in the sense of spirit being choicelessly commended to the absolute, so that the doer who once did, does nothing but be the awareness that witnesses while the body and intelligence become functionaries of the primary doer, the absolute, which usually does prompt non-localized, contagious activity energized by spirit.

Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O LORD God of truth.
Psalms 31:5
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by RZoo »

TheImmanent wrote:Enlightenment is active (that by which everything is), limitless (cannot be captured by any form), wholesome (complete in itself), blissful (in perfect expression of its own infinite nature).
Thank you for the metaphysical nonsense and stringing together of meaningless grunting sounds taken outside their scope/context. ;-)

Enlightenment = "the ultimate answer to the question of life". There, we've answered the question by our own definition. Now that is truly truth! (tautological) Worship it, bitches!
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by RZoo »

"Self" is defined as answer to the ultimate question of life. (What is life, why does it exist, what is absolute?)

A great many human beings (perhaps all?) have been conscious of the ultimate question of life and of our lack of an answer. Some define the answer as "God", others as "Self", others as "thing in itself", and so on.

Almost all those who define the answer also try to preach morality alongside it. Many of these people also preach a moral law that one should maximize the time that one is conscious of "Self" (worship, meditation, etc).

"Enlightenment" is a religion that combines the moral values of peace, love, inaction, harmony, and passivity with thinking about "Self".

What all of these people have failed to provide, is a plausible reason why "Enlightenment" is a worthy pursuit or a worthwhile way to spend one's time/life. :-)
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by Bobo »

Your life is worthless, is that enough for a plausible reason?
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by RZoo »

Bobo wrote:Your life is worthless, is that enough for a plausible reason?
Your life is worthless - so what? We need more, for example:
A. Your life is worthless.
B. You dislike your life being worthless.
C. You view "enlightenment" as providing worth to life.
Conclusion: You view pursuing enlightenment as a cure to your dissatisfaction with life.
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by TheImmanent »

Cahoot wrote:
TheImmanent wrote:The ego is passive (acted upon), restrained (consigned to a specific place and duration), detached (conceives all things as separate) and shut off from any true emotion or idea (only possessed by misconceptions).

Enlightenment is active (that by which everything is), limitless (cannot be captured by any form), wholesome (complete in itself), blissful (in perfect expression of its own infinite nature).
Enlightenment indeed involves doing nothing, in the sense of spirit being choicelessly commended to the absolute, so that the doer who once did, does nothing but be the awareness that witnesses while the body and intelligence become functionaries of the primary doer, the absolute, which usually does prompt non-localized, contagious activity energized by spirit.

Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O LORD God of truth.
Psalms 31:5
The doer who once did was never anything but an incorrect conclusion. He never actually did anything. There is no activity but awareness, i.e., enlightenment. Passive awareness is a contradiction.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

RZoo wrote:My understanding of enlightenment is something like: Living in conscious awareness of one's position as part of the world. It is in opposition to the view of oneself as a separate entity in the world.
It's difficult to see here any difference between these two positions. Both see themselves as part or entity which is in both cases defined against a backdrop with some force, intention or will. Or perhaps just "circumstance".
One will no longer experience shallow emotional connections and responses to the things around oneself knowing that all is connected and that such superficial things aren't of substantial importance.
But that someone would still get wet in the rain, wouldn't they? Most people I know would admit to knowing that "all things are connected" but it doesn't change their value system much. What I think causes a value to arise is the identification with something. There's for example always some identification with the body and its survival as the instincts will kick in for example when drowning, but it's still possible to let go for strong willed people who are really desiring death. And some do, depending if they have an overarching value (a love or hate). They might want to die to save or even hurt someone else. That's called being "devoured" by their deeply nested emotions.

You do have a point though, because when a person stops identifying altogether, his self-image starts to collapse as it's not being reinforced anymore. This might lead to a very passive, wrecked and sick end result. But wisdom is not about rejecting everything, it's about embracing the things found to be right and live and die for those. Wisdom is not about having no value and no identity (and as such ego-function). If it were the wise would forever find himself in opposition to counter all values which might arise out of his natural development. In my opinion this opposition, this longing for "non-existence" often manifests as a strong rejection, even hatred or spite against life and its illusive appearances. This is how the "enlightened" appear sometimes to retreat and spin. This forum is a place to put them through the meat grinder.

In that spirit, you're very welcome here.
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by RZoo »

TheImmanent wrote:The doer who once did was never anything but an incorrect conclusion. He never actually did anything. There is no activity but awareness, i.e., enlightenment. Passive awareness is a contradiction.
There is no awareness, either. All dualities are illusions, not just the ones you are biased against. We get it - there is no truth to be found in language or human concepts, only utility. (Or maybe it would be better to say that the human concept of "truth" is a usually taken out of its meaningful scope or context?) These understandings are merely the first step to convalescence (for someone who suffers from philosophy).
TheImmanent
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:46 am

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by TheImmanent »

RZoo wrote:
TheImmanent wrote:The doer who once did was never anything but an incorrect conclusion. He never actually did anything. There is no activity but awareness, i.e., enlightenment. Passive awareness is a contradiction.
There is no awareness, either. All dualities are illusions, not just the ones you are biased against. We get it - there is no truth to be found in language or human concepts, only utility. (Or maybe it would be better to say that the human concept of "truth" is a usually taken out of its meaningful scope or context?) These understandings are merely the first step to convalescence (for someone who suffers from philosophy).
There is no nothing.
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by RZoo »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But wisdom is not about rejecting everything, it's about embracing the things found to be right and live and die for those. Wisdom is not about having no value and no identity (and as such ego-function).
Just to clarify: nothing is objectively "right" or "wrong"; such value judgments are highly personal and arbitrary, found in ourselves - our preferred flavor of delusions, so to speak?

If you accept that, then I can agree with you.

Again, what I dislike about the idea of enlightenment that I've generally observed, is that it's always tied to a specific set of moral values ("positive" emotions, bliss, love, peace). This is an arbitrary and unnecessary association.

If we break this association, then enlightenment becomes something like "a healing process for the overly mental/internalized" or "a solution to the problem of philosophy" rather than a morally-prescriptive religion-philosophy. Once one is enlightened in this sense, one has a burden lifted from them and is free to re-assess what to do with their lives: whether their "true nature" is that of a mass murderer, dictator, or one who sits around meditating.

In the end, the only difference between the "enlightened" and non is that one has a consistent philosophical world view, while the other has simpler delusions (beliefs, convictions). Different motivations and different strengths. And the answer to the question in the title of this thread: Because of the need to resolve inner conflict.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

RZoo wrote: And the answer to the question in the title of this thread: Because of the need to resolve inner conflict.
Some would call that a version of the Hegelian dialectic, the progression of the universe seen as continuous resolution to tensions created by thesis opposing anti-thesis. And perhaps your version of enlightenment could, like with Hegel, be seen as part and parcel of life or existence, the creation of contradiction and the movement to a resolution, or destruction. But if you see this as important understanding, how would you call obtaining this one particular understanding? And don't give me "special knowledge"!
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by RZoo »

The sentence you replied to was only a side remark of minor importance. I'll take the blame for this particular miscommunication as I should have been more clear about that.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

It also functions as reply to:
If we break this association, then enlightenment becomes something like "a healing process for the overly mental/internalized" or "a solution to the problem of philosophy" rather than a morally-prescriptive religion-philosophy.
But feel free to talk further about what you consider enlightenment or at least "the problem of philosophy". And how close to Hegel you think you are your self :-)
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by RZoo »

I haven't read Hegel extensively so I don't know where I stand in relation to him, sorry.

As I said, I consider enlightenment to be a deception at least insofar as it's linked with an arbitrary set of values or morality. For instance, if the preaching of Jesus and Buddha are part of their enlightenment.

Furthermore, if it's linked with the idea of something "absolute" or "ultimate", I find it against deceptive, as it's dwelling in metaphysics.

Finally, if I'm allowed to remove all of this deception from the concept of enlightenment, I can see it as a cure for the problem of philosophy and metaphysics. I can see enlightenment as redemption from "truth" and anything "absolute". But I'm skeptical that this should be termed enlightenment at all; more likely I'm just describing my own taste of "genius".
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by Bobo »

We just have to establish that Worth is worthy to the worthless. Then we can say that Worth is worthy to the worthy, and that's a tautology. And also say that Worth is worthless to the worthy, as they dont need it. But for the sake of the worthless the worthy people tautologically explain their tautologies to the worthless to give them some contact with what is Worth. If we say that the worthless, by being wortheless, cannot recognize what is Worth, they have the tautologies of the worthy to stand by, but that is not enough since by their position they cannot recognize what is Worth, the worthless must also recognize that they are worthless and in doing so they may become worthy of Worth.
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: Why pursue enlightenment?

Post by divine focus »

RZoo wrote:My understanding of enlightenment is something like: Living in conscious awareness of one's position as part of the world. It is in opposition to the view of oneself as a separate entity in the world. The goal of enlightenment is to fully renounce one's ego. One will no longer experience shallow emotional connections and responses to the things around oneself knowing that all is connected and that such superficial things aren't of substantial importance. While enlightenment doesn't necessitate passivity (correct me if I'm wrong?), the two always seem to be associated. (Maybe people with a longing for passivity tend to be drawn towards enlightenment?) It's also always arbitrarily associated with peace, love and harmony.
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.

Without control, you are as active or passive as you want to be.
eliasforum.org/digests.html
Locked