An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Pam Seeback »

ardy: Still the gateless gate sits there waiting for us to understand.
Which means all one has to do is want to understand it. First, it seems worthy to note this from Wiki:

Although the short title The Gateless Gate has become fairly common in English, this translation must be rejected upon closer scrutiny. A particular source of criticism is the fact that in the rendering, "Gateless Gate", the word "gate" occurs twice. However, the two Chinese characters being translated here are 門 (mén) and 關 (guān), which are different words and usually have distinct meanings. In order to more accurately reflect this, the translations The Gateless Passage, The Gateless Barrier or The Gateless Checkpoint are used.

The character 無 (wú) has a fairly straightforward meaning: no, not, or without. However, within Chinese Mahayana Buddhism, the term 無 (wú) is often a synonym for 空 (sunyata). This implies that the 無 (wú) rather than negating the gate (as in "gateless") is specifying it, and hence refers to the "Gate of Emptiness". This is consistent with the Chinese Buddhist notion that the "Gate of Emptiness" 空門 is basically a synonym for Buddhism, or Buddhist practice.


So the Gate of Emptiness is about the practice of emptiness. Calling on wiki again:

The Pali canon uses the term emptiness in three ways: "as a meditative dwelling, as an attribute of objects, and as a type of awareness-release." The Suñña Sutta, part of the Pāli canon, relates that the monk Ānanda, Buddha's attendant asked, "It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?" The Buddha replied, "Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ānanda, that the world is empty."

So, the Gate of Emptiness can be understood because the Buddha understood it and because the Buddha understood it, everyone can understand it. But they have to desire this one thing more than any other thing, the desire that end all desires :-) The Gate of Emptiness, understood: The world is empty of a self. Belief in a self causes desire-attachment, dukkha. Therefore, by way of mindfulness, being the Gate, dukkha is extinguished.

In relating this to your thoughts on "You Have to Say Something", what it comes down to is that indeed, you do have to say something many, many times for its absorption to occur, as many times as are necessary, the something being the absolute truth of emptiness (is it not THE best thing to have possession of absolute truth?). So it is not simply a matter of falling into nihilism by being silent, it is a matter of living truthfully or in ignorance.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by ardy »

movingalways wrote:
ardy: Still the gateless gate sits there waiting for us to understand.
Which means all one has to do is want to understand it. First, it seems worthy to note this from Wiki:

Although the short title The Gateless Gate has become fairly common in English, this translation must be rejected upon closer scrutiny. A particular source of criticism is the fact that in the rendering, "Gateless Gate", the word "gate" occurs twice. However, the two Chinese characters being translated here are 門 (mén) and 關 (guān), which are different words and usually have distinct meanings. In order to more accurately reflect this, the translations The Gateless Passage, The Gateless Barrier or The Gateless Checkpoint are used.

The character 無 (wú) has a fairly straightforward meaning: no, not, or without. However, within Chinese Mahayana Buddhism, the term 無 (wú) is often a synonym for 空 (sunyata). This implies that the 無 (wú) rather than negating the gate (as in "gateless") is specifying it, and hence refers to the "Gate of Emptiness". This is consistent with the Chinese Buddhist notion that the "Gate of Emptiness" 空門 is basically a synonym for Buddhism, or Buddhist practice.


So the Gate of Emptiness is about the practice of emptiness. Calling on wiki again:

The Pali canon uses the term emptiness in three ways: "as a meditative dwelling, as an attribute of objects, and as a type of awareness-release." The Suñña Sutta, part of the Pāli canon, relates that the monk Ānanda, Buddha's attendant asked, "It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?" The Buddha replied, "Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ānanda, that the world is empty."

So, the Gate of Emptiness can be understood because the Buddha understood it and because the Buddha understood it, everyone can understand it. But they have to desire this one thing more than any other thing, the desire that end all desires :-) The Gate of Emptiness, understood: The world is empty of a self. Belief in a self causes desire-attachment, dukkha. Therefore, by way of mindfulness, being the Gate, dukkha is extinguished.

In relating this to your thoughts on "You Have to Say Something", what it comes down to is that indeed, you do have to say something many, many times for its absorption to occur, as many times as are necessary, the something being the absolute truth of emptiness (is it not THE best thing to have possession of absolute truth?). So it is not simply a matter of falling into nihilism by being silent, it is a matter of living truthfully or in ignorance.
Hi There is no argument from me in what you wrote. Wiki is weird is some things but in general I agree.

In a conversation with Deibert I stated to him that an average person needs to hear the truth 100 times but an intelligent person needs to hear it several thousand times. And that is why a few here do not wish to understand it in any other language than logic and analysis. In my view they are building a massive wall that will never be overcome, due to the fact that the recognition is an insight and not a logical construct.

I find the idea of a gateless gate far more attractive as a descriptive noun than the gate of emptiness. I see no contradiction in both descriptions regardless of an interpretation of Chinese characters state. Anyway a statement like emptiness pegs it down, it is far greater than that.

I am reading Original Nature: Zen comments on the Sixth Patriarch's Platform Sutra. This quote below comes from that.

Great Emptiness. You cannot perceive it. You cannot conceive it. You cannot dream of it. All you know is the world of desire and the world of appearance. Human knowledge cannot penetrate that Emptiness.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Russell Parr »

ardy wrote: In a conversation with Deibert I stated to him that an average person needs to hear the truth 100 times but an intelligent person needs to hear it several thousand times. And that is why a few here do not wish to understand it in any other language than logic and analysis. In my view they are building a massive wall that will never be overcome, due to the fact that the recognition is an insight and not a logical construct.
The language of Enlightenment is no language. Yet it is through language that we are provided the stepping stones so that we may gain insight.

I must say, though, that your persistence in proclaiming your judgement of those of us here, by some high authority that you'll say you don't really have, along with your preference in poetic-like expressions, which may yet be profound but still often contain varying degrees of vagueness, appears to me to be a testament to the lack of faith you have in your own logic, not in logic itself.
I find the idea of a gateless gate far more attractive as a descriptive noun than the gate of emptiness. I see no contradiction in both descriptions regardless of an interpretation of Chinese characters state. Anyway a statement like emptiness pegs it down, it is far greater than that.
If a certain phrase or style helps you understand better, then that is fine. This doesn't apply to everyone else. In becoming wise we overcome the obstacles of language itself, regardless of styles, translations, choice of words.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Russell wrote:The language of Enlightenment is no language. Yet it is through language that we are provided the stepping stones so that we may gain insight. ... In becoming wise we overcome the obstacles of language itself, regardless of styles, translations, choice of words.
Lately I'm wondering if the notion of self and our selves as existence is not purely a function of language. One could interpret the various exchanges of nature including various chemical reactions as a primal form of language. The animal and human languages are not that much different in essence. For example one creature threatens to attack and the opponent starts making a defensive move. Neither attack or defense happens, we're having postures replacing the actual energy consuming, risky fights. Nevertheless nothing changes in function and basic movement. The natural development of languages could be seen as an outcropping of that.

If we'd go with this view of consciousness and self-consciousness as dependently arising out of these complex exchanges, being it purposeful or purposeless (which remains undetermined at this level) it's easier to see how one cannot avoid language -- careful, deliberate, self-reflecting language to address the notions of self, truth and consciousness. And how it's certainly not possible to just "step outside language" as some kind of escape hatch. The language and exchanges we're being caught up in will not stop. All kinds of subliminal, non-verbal variations, the iceberg of language and self, not to mention all what's being said by not saying it, all implicit exchanges will just continue as long as we breath or show up somewhere.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Russell Parr »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Lately I'm wondering if the notion of self and our selves as existence is not purely a function of language. One could interpret the various exchanges of nature including various chemical reactions as a primal form of language. The animal and human languages are not that much different in essence. For example one creature threatens to attack and the opponent starts making a defensive move. Neither attack or defense happens, we're having postures replacing the actual energy consuming, risky fights. Nevertheless nothing changes in function and basic movement. The natural development of languages could be seen as an outcropping of that.

If we'd go with this view of consciousness and self-consciousness as dependently arising out of these complex exchanges, being it purposeful or purposeless (which remains undetermined at this level) it's easier to see how one cannot avoid language -- careful, deliberate, self-reflecting language to address the notions of self, truth and consciousness. And how it's certainly not possible to just "step outside language" as some kind of escape hatch. The language and exchanges we're being caught up in will not stop. All kinds of subliminal, non-verbal variations, the iceberg of language and self, not to mention all what's being said by not saying it, all implicit exchanges will just continue as long as we breath or show up somewhere.
From here we can classify logic as the "language of consciousness," with the rest being beneath that in subconsciousness, non-logical forms of language. The ideal of Enlightenment can be described as perfectly logical consciousness, in which the sage has flawless reasoning, the ego (self) is constantly transcended, and the Tao is realized in every moment of thought. Clearly, things don't work out this way, which makes it an ideal. We cannot completely sever ourselves from our unconscious roots. The best we sentient beings have available to us is the path. Life for those on the path, in which accurate knowledge of ultimate reality is amassed, is a life spent striving towards the ideal.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Bobo »

Maybe communication is a better word to describe the exchanges than language here, in the case of self-consciousness it would appear to be an agent doing and another receiving where possibly there's none. Alternatively anything that can be passed down by words are the lowest forms of consciousness, only latent common sense, instead of higher sensations, blanded with sounds.

Comparing Lao-tsu with the few other mythical beasts he could be compared to, from Jesus and the Buddha we only have second to third hand accounts about them and they didn't seem to be quite the writers, from Socrates we have some first hand accounts of and he probably thought that whatever was he was doing writing would be missing a great part of it. Imagine if someone were to one of these guys and said "hey I totally get what you are saying, I don't think you are being too effective, we've this logic thing so why don't you just write it down and show it to people and then we're done with it".
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Bobo wrote:Maybe communication is a better word to describe the exchanges than language here, in the case of self-consciousness it would appear to be an agent doing and another receiving where possibly there's none.
Sure. Perhaps signs even to capture all possibilities. Like linguistics is seen as part of semiotics.
Alternatively anything that can be passed down by words are the lowest forms of consciousness, only latent common sense, instead of higher sensations, blanded with sounds.
Yes, it seems that words are aimed to re-mind another of an experience, then re-lived in another context. What could possibly go wrong? :-)
Comparing Lao-tsu with the few other mythical beasts he could be compared to, from Jesus and the Buddha we only have second to third hand accounts about them and they didn't seem to be quite the writers, from Socrates we have some first hand accounts of and he probably thought that whatever was he was doing writing would be missing a great part of it. Imagine if someone were to one of these guys and said "hey I totally get what you are saying, I don't think you are being too effective, we've this logic thing so why don't you just write it down and show it to people and then we're done with it".
It would be even more weird if someone in the 21st century would write his wisdom using the style, syntax, method and cultural context of something centuries back. which is of course how many pretentious wonks write about wisdom because all they can hope for is the glory of a colorful parrot.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Bobo »

If language is taken to be everywhere one may hear things when no one is there and see things beyond their meanings.
Case 6 The Buddha Holds Out a Flower                        六 世尊拈花
 
世尊、昔、在靈山會上拈花示衆。
When Shakyamuni Buddha was at Mount Grdhrakuta, he held out a flower to his listeners.
是時、衆皆默然。
Everyone was silent.
惟迦葉者破顔微笑。
Only Mahakashyapa broke into a broad smile.
世尊云、吾有正方眼藏、涅槃妙心、實相無相、微妙法門、不立文字、教外別傳、付囑摩訶迦葉。
The Buddha said, "I have the True Dharma Eye, the Marvelous Mind of Nirvana, the True Form of the Formless, and the Subtle Dharma Gate, independent of words and transmitted beyond doctrine. This I have entrusted to Mahakashyapa."
 
Mumon's Comment
無門曰、黄面瞿曇、傍若無人。
Golden-faced Gautama really disregarded his listeners.
壓良爲賤、縣羊頭賣狗肉。
He made the good look bad and sold dog's meat labeled as mutton.
將謂、多少奇特。
He himself thought it was wonderful.
只如當時大衆都笑、正方眼藏、作麼生傳。
If, however, everyone in the audience had laughed, how could he have transmitted his True Eye?
設使迦葉不笑、正方眼藏又作麼生傳。
And again, if Mahakashyapa had not smiled, how could the Buddha have transmitted it?
若道正方眼藏有傳授、黄面老子、誑□閭閻。
If you say the True Dharma Eye can be transmitted, then the golden-faced old man would be a city slicker who cheats the country bumpkin.
若道無傳授、爲甚麼獨許迦葉。
If you say it cannot be transmitted, then why did the Buddha approve of Mahakashyapa?
 
Mumon's Verse 頌曰
拈起花來      Holding out a flower,
尾巴已露      The Buddha betrayed his curly tail.
迦葉破顔      Heaven and earth were bewildered,
人天罔措      At Mahakashyapa's smile.
The Buddha sold dog's meat to people willing to buy it. If they weren't willing to buy it how could he have transmitted the True Dharma Eye, the Marvelous Mind of Nirvana, the True Form of the Formless, and the Subtle Dharma Gate, independent of words and transmitted beyond doctrine. Do you think that the Buddha is using language to transmit the true eye?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Bobo wrote:If language is taken to be everywhere one may hear things when no one is there and see things beyond their meanings.
A fine description of the situation, depending on exact intention! Does the tree actually (meaningfully) fall in the forest when nobody is there to hear it fall at that moment? It's impossible to see "things beyond their meanings". This is because the meaning contains all the connections to it you are experiencing-- being sensory or logical connections.
When Shakyamuni Buddha was at Mount Grdhrakuta, he held out a flower to his listeners. Everyone was silent. Only Mahakashyapa broke into a broad smile. The Buddha said, "I have the True Dharma Eye, the Marvelous Mind of Nirvana, the True Form of the Formless, and the Subtle Dharma Gate, independent of words and transmitted beyond doctrine. This I have entrusted to Mahakashyapa."
 
Mumon's Comment: Golden-faced Gautama really disregarded his listeners. He made the good look bad and sold dog's meat labeled as mutton.
He himself thought it was wonderful. If, however, everyone in the audience had laughed, how could he have transmitted his True Eye? And again, if Mahakashyapa had not smiled, how could the Buddha have transmitted it? If you say the True Dharma Eye can be transmitted, then the golden-faced old man would be a city slicker who cheats the country bumpkin. If you say it cannot be transmitted, then why did the Buddha approve of Mahakashyapa?
No wisdom was "transmitted" -- only one understanding was being affirmed by another since they were the same. That's what similar understandings do. That's also communication: to resonate with the similar. The flower is meaningless without the context (listeners, teachings) and was obviously intended as the unexpected. The silence came from those expecting some usual follow-up, some traditional lesson to follow as the context might suggest. The one "lost sheep M" realized the teaching was never going to be more than holding out dead plant material arranged with some pretty color. The following dynamic flowed from mutual understanding, arrising out of that situation. How does it translate?

Or so the story goes. Perhaps M was a half-wit who smiled at everything? Was he uncomfortable and had a nervous reaction? The answer is that it doesn't matter as this story, like all others, was meant as teaching device (flower). The wise picks his own wisdom from it. He doesn't care about what "exactly happened there and then". There's no one still left to hear that ancient tree falling exactly there and then after all. There never is.
 
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Pam Seeback »

Russell: From here we can classify logic as the "language of consciousness," with the rest being beneath that in subconsciousness, non-logical forms of language. The ideal of Enlightenment can be described as perfectly logical consciousness, in which the sage has flawless reasoning, the ego (self) is constantly transcended, and the Tao is realized in every moment of thought. Clearly, things don't work out this way, which makes it an ideal. We cannot completely sever ourselves from our unconscious roots. The best we sentient beings have available to us is the path. Life for those on the path, in which accurate knowledge of ultimate reality is amassed, is a life spent striving towards the ideal.
If we cannot completely sever ourselves from our unconscious roots (an absolute statement) then flawless logical consciousness is not possible. Which begs the question, is it not delusional to strive for something that is impossible to attain?
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Russell Parr »

movingalways wrote:If we cannot completely sever ourselves from our unconscious roots (an absolute statement) then flawless logical consciousness is not possible. Which begs the question, is it not delusional to strive for something that is impossible to attain?
We might be able to develop an understanding that is completely severed from unconsciousness, but the struggle I refer to is in perfecting one's habits in consistency with perfect knowledge.

I often wonder how consistently the wisest of sages experience nirvana? Days, maybe months at time? Maybe it's more realistic to expect a sort of floating back in forth between nearly perfect nirvana, and slightly less. On a scale of 1-10, absolute Nirvana being a 10 and the Hell realms is a 1, perhaps a sage drifts somewhere between 7 or 8, and 9.x most days?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

The truths of causality and change always will put some qualifiers on any statement about any constancy of experiencing this or that. Since perfection itself could not change or modify -since it then could not be called perfect or pure anymore- we should realize that perfection can only ever already be the case and will remain the case. Any "logical consciousness" could never be flawless in that sense by its very definition!

Spinoza tried to say it like this: "The mind is eternal, in so far as it conceives things under the form of eternity". One way to see this is that since only the eternal is perfect, the present, being timeless in its abstracted sense (not as experience but as conception) will be perfect and everything leading up to this moment and branching out of that moment is perfect. However it's the human being and the earth, moon, sun and planets which all move. The conclusion could follow that the perfected sage is not human, not "from this earth". It would be more truthful to say he's a star in heaven in comparison. Like Weininger perhaps phrased best: "The deepest will of man is towards this perfect, timeless existence; he is compact of the desire for immortality"

Perfection always brings up the issue of time. Weininger again as he tried out these words: Psychologically, “time” is the time in which we live, and “the future” is the time which we are still to experience. Formal, transcendental time, however, does not cease with physical death, but extends beyond the individual. It is eternally posited precisely by those who have eternal life.
This would mean perfection appears in the eye of perfection and can never be properly conceived by the imperfect or any bit of creation.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Russell Parr »

Reminds me of this: In Nirvana, one realizes that Samsara is really Nirvana, and has always been.

Or, to keep the 1st line of the Tao Te Ching theme going: The Enlightenment that can be pondered, rated and fluctuated is not the true Enlightenment.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Bobo »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It's impossible to see "things beyond their meanings". This is because the meaning contains all the connections to it you are experiencing-- being sensory or logical connections.
Then words or actions beyond their meaning or are you saying that it means what it means?
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The following dynamic flowed from mutual understanding, arrising out of that situation. How does it translate?
Soundless audience
translated understanding
I don't get it
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: The conclusion could follow that the perfected sage is not human, not "from this earth". It would be more truthful to say he's a star in heaven in comparison. Like Weininger perhaps phrased best: "The deepest will of man is towards this perfect, timeless existence; he is compact of the desire for immortality"
It may just be fear of death coupled with ancestor worship, or even worse. Better let the sky out of it.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Pam Seeback »

Russell: We might be able to develop an understanding that is completely severed from unconsciousness, but the struggle I refer to is in perfecting one's habits in consistency with perfect knowledge.
The point I was trying to make is in agreement with your acknowledgment of the struggle to perfect one's habits in consistency with the perfect knowledge of emptiness. Which means that one who is perfected of the knowledge of emptiness will be successfully severed of thinking about consciousness (and by default, its contrast of unconsciousness).
I often wonder how consistently the wisest of sages experience nirvana? Days, maybe months at time? Maybe it's more realistic to expect a sort of floating back in forth between nearly perfect nirvana, and slightly less. On a scale of 1-10, absolute Nirvana being a 10 and the Hell realms is a 1, perhaps a sage drifts somewhere between 7 or 8, and 9.x most days?
Nirvana is a concept used by consciousness, therefore, there is no such thing as absolute Nirvana.

Which is why what you said here is partially true:
In Nirvana, one realizes that Samsara is really Nirvana, and has always been.
Because Nirvana is a concept, one cannot be "in Nirvana" anymore than one can be "in (the concept of) Samsara". Viewed from the eternal of not being attached to any concept, Nirvana and Samara are one in the same by way of their emptiness, in other words, they are not things to be attained (to enter into) or rejected (to step away from). It could be said that holding the contrast of Nirvana and Samsara in one's consciousness is the perfect koan, each one cancels the other and what is "left" is the eternal truth of emptiness.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Russell Parr »

movingalways wrote:
In Nirvana, one realizes that Samsara is really Nirvana, and has always been.
Because Nirvana is a concept, one cannot be "in Nirvana" anymore than one can be "in (the concept of) Samsara". Viewed from the eternal of not being attached to any concept, Nirvana and Samara are one in the same by way of their emptiness, in other words, they are not things to be attained (to enter into) or rejected (to step away from). It could be said that holding the contrast of Nirvana and Samsara in one's consciousness is the perfect koan, each one cancels the other and what is "left" is the eternal truth of emptiness.
Not to say I've been using the term perfectly myself (maybe even sloppily), but I think you mean to say that while "Nirvana" is a concept, that which it refers to is non-dualistic, so one cannot literally "be in" Nirvana. Samsara, contrarily, is the ignorant, ego-driven false perception of Nirvana. Of course, one can't use prepositional phrases or oppositional terms without seemingly contradicting the implication that Nirvana is formless, which is an inherent problem in trying to describe it in simple terms, or even at all. One must discern the formlessness implied from a true statement regarding formlessness, although the statement itself employs and relies on form.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Pam Seeback »

Russell: One must discern the formlessness implied from a true statement regarding formlessness, although the statement itself employs and relies on form.
Everyone must find "the" word (form) that best describes formlessness for them, the perfection process at work.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Bobo wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It's impossible to see "things beyond their meanings". This is because the meaning contains all the connections to it you are experiencing-- being sensory or logical connections.
Then words or actions beyond their meaning or are you saying that it means what it means?
Words or actions contain their meaning or meaning contains words or actions, that depends on persepctive. But it seems useless to refer to words and action outside of meaning. Or meanings unconnected to words or actions of any kind. Like talking about forms within the formless
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The following dynamic flowed from mutual understanding, arrising out of that situation. How does it translate?
Soundless audience
translated understanding
I don't get it
Worn out Haiku ways
say absolutely nothing
still way - too many
Diebert wrote: The conclusion could follow that the perfected sage is not human, not "from this earth". It would be more truthful to say he's a star in heaven in comparison. Like Weininger perhaps phrased best: "The deepest will of man is towards this perfect, timeless existence; he is compact of the desire for immortality"
It may just be fear of death coupled with ancestor worship, or even worse. Better let the sky out of it.
Weininger answers from beyond the grave:
  • The fixed stars signify the angel in man. That is why man orients himself by them and that is why women have no appreciation for the starry sky; because they have no sense of the angel in man. ( On last things )
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert: Weininger answers from beyond the grave:

The fixed stars signify the angel in man. That is why man orients himself by them and that is why women have no appreciation for the starry sky; because they have no sense of the angel in man. ( On last things )
On last things? Please expand.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Bobo »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Weininger answers from beyond the grave:

The fixed stars signify the angel in man. That is why man orients himself by them and that is why women have no appreciation for the starry sky; because they have no sense of the angel in man. ( On last things )
The fixed stars are just the names and books in his collection. Women are draw by lights, Weininger is closer to be flashy and shining like a diva than fixed and oriented like an angel.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

movingalways wrote:
Diebert: Weininger answers from beyond the grave:

The fixed stars signify the angel in man. That is why man orients himself by them and that is why women have no appreciation for the starry sky; because they have no sense of the angel in man. ( On last things )
On last things? Please expand.
It should have read: from "On last things". Sorry about that! As for the title of that work, in his native tongue "Über Die Letzten Dinge", it's given to his posthumous collected writings by his friend Dr. Moritz Rappaport. But in my view a better translation is more something like "eschatology". The German relates here to the "end of times" as in theology "the four last things": death, judgment, heaven and hell. Also his final published words, his Nachlaß.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Bobo wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Weininger answers from beyond the grave:

The fixed stars signify the angel in man. That is why man orients himself by them and that is why women have no appreciation for the starry sky; because they have no sense of the angel in man. ( On last things )
The fixed stars are just the names and books in his collection. Women are draw by lights, Weininger is closer to be flashy and shining like a diva than fixed and oriented like an angel.
Good one! Yes he was clearly the rock star thinker against a dramatic background like "fin de siècle" Vienna. Of course light draws all kinds of hungry moths and then there's the burning or just continuing fluttering.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Bobo »

He was referring to this line of kant "Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me", there's this (possible commentary on it) by Nietzsche “As long as you still experience the stars as something "above you", you lack the eye of knowledge".

The orientation by the sky he's talking about is that the sky can be used for orientation quite literally, one can't exactly blame women for them not being sailors. Maybe one can say that women are more found of astrology than men, but again some of weininger's writtings are closer to superstition than reality.

-
With his eye entrusted
The Buddha betrayed his tail
Form of the formless
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Bobo wrote:He was referring to this line of kant "Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me", there's this (possible commentary on it) by Nietzsche “As long as you still experience the stars as something "above you", you lack the eye of knowledge".
Hmm, yes. But I'm not sure what your point is. Obviously Otto's not talking about astrophysics or astrology. Nietzsche's critique of Kant's material outlook is well known and it's not different with Weininger though as he continues with his last judgements:
  • The starry heavens and the moral law are fundamentally one and the same. The universalism of the categorical imperative is the universalism of the universe. The infinity of the universe is only the “thought-picture” of the infinity of the moral volition.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Bobo »

Kant wrote some on cosmology so maybe he meant something different in the quote other than just awe and orientation. Anyway besides the relation of immortality with the categorical imperative and why women wouldn't admire it, the will to immortitality may instead be a will to immortalize what is mortal.

I think this immortality idea comes from Plato it creates a division between mortality here and immortality there, the exceptional man seeks immortality (maybe everyone seeks immortality I don't know), I think Nietzsche would have the inverse view, the common man must make these distinctions to explain the exceptional man, for the lowest man the higher must have different values, otherworldly ideals, if they had the same values he would be the lowest.
Locked