Infinte man fields cozmik "enlightenment" questions
Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:08 pm
It was said that people are enlightened if "lacking delusions in the mind", but even the person with "100% zero delusions of mind" couldn't be sure some tiny delusion isn't hiding somewhere in their head so wouldn't know for sure if perfectly enlightened. Gee-wiz.
The first concern I have is: Do delusions actually occupy the mind and/or brain? Or is that at best a figure of speech? I say that the latter makes more sense and therefore this measure of enlightenment has got to go and cozmik deserves a better answer.
To explain: If the mind is said to actually "contain" delusions then that's either by way of some static modification of the brain matter, or at the very least as some thought over time dependent both on time and thinking. Detract sufficient time for the delusion to exist or be formed and what has your fully enlightened person then got? The same situation as anybody else, namely merely a potentially delusional mind.
Then what happens to the concept of 100% perfect enlightenment-- it becomes meaningless.
(As perhaps it should be!) For even if Jon is perfect at this moment h may not be in the next.
As well as considered "potentially not" in all instants.
As to labeling others "mentally ill" what else but attacks of varied nature can one in dispute or disagreement expect from opponents? We are after all a species prone to working things out far more violently and horrifically with but little provocation.
"All is fair in love and war" has been transformed into: All is fair with lovers and warriors, and there are plenty of them don't you know.
And also when it comes to making a buck. To refrain from ruthless deception is now considered "bad business" and foolhardy. How a few decades can change things!
Have those dusty rag-heads got a fair point after all?
The first concern I have is: Do delusions actually occupy the mind and/or brain? Or is that at best a figure of speech? I say that the latter makes more sense and therefore this measure of enlightenment has got to go and cozmik deserves a better answer.
To explain: If the mind is said to actually "contain" delusions then that's either by way of some static modification of the brain matter, or at the very least as some thought over time dependent both on time and thinking. Detract sufficient time for the delusion to exist or be formed and what has your fully enlightened person then got? The same situation as anybody else, namely merely a potentially delusional mind.
Then what happens to the concept of 100% perfect enlightenment-- it becomes meaningless.
(As perhaps it should be!) For even if Jon is perfect at this moment h may not be in the next.
As well as considered "potentially not" in all instants.
As to labeling others "mentally ill" what else but attacks of varied nature can one in dispute or disagreement expect from opponents? We are after all a species prone to working things out far more violently and horrifically with but little provocation.
"All is fair in love and war" has been transformed into: All is fair with lovers and warriors, and there are plenty of them don't you know.
And also when it comes to making a buck. To refrain from ruthless deception is now considered "bad business" and foolhardy. How a few decades can change things!
Have those dusty rag-heads got a fair point after all?