GENIUS FORUMS

Orenholt wrote: If I were to define enlightenment by my own (and possibly flawed) understanding I would say that it means living without delusions or on a smaller level, gaining insight or knowledge of some kind.

Pretty close how I would describe it as well. I'd say it is to gain the adequate knowledge which would free oneself of delusional thinking.

But what that implies as an end goal is certainly fuzzy at best.

It would necessarily be at least somewhat fuzzy for someone who hasn't gain the adequate knowledge, wouldn't you agree?

I don't see enlightenment as an end goal itself but rather a means that one can use to other ends. Otherwise, what would a person do? Merely live out the rest of their life as a hermit doing nothing to help humanity and simply bask in their own enlightenment?

Other than the basking part, what is wrong with that? Sure, the seeker would have to sacrifice worldly desires and the emotional pleasures that come with it, but is living within the mediocrity of a delusional lifestyle really worth it?

By what basis would you measure your life in terms of doing what is right without having first rid yourself of delusions about reality?

(whoops, I read your post as saying "nothing but help humanity")

Russell wrote: It would necessarily be at least somewhat fuzzy someone who hasn't gain the adequate knowledge, wouldn't you agree?

Well, yes of course but that's the main reason I'm asking.

Russell wrote: Other than the basking part, what is wrong with that? Sure, the seeker would have to sacrifice worldly desires and the emotional pleasures that come with it, but is living with the mediocrity of a delusional lifestyle really worth it?

It just seems like a waste to not share or encourage enlightenment with other people and some how improve the human condition if possible.


I wouldn't say that all delusional lifestyles are mediocre though. If you look at someone like Hitler for example I'd say his life was fairly dramatic and even grandiose in a sense. In no way am I saying that being a delusional mass murderer is a good thing, I'm just saying it's not mediocre.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:When there's no identifation, there's nothing at all. Why would nothing be "wrong"?

Yes, that is my point. Lack of any identification whatsoever is not wrong identification, at least not literally.

Orenholt wrote:I don't know that I'd say that emotion and rationality are equal but if you have something at your disposal why not use it as a tool of sorts?

That question doesn't really mean anything because I can pose it back to you - why use something you have at your disposal as a tool of sorts?

Emotion is useless when it comes to enlightenment as I define it.

What exactly is the end goal of enlightenment anyway?

Why are you asking us?

Sorry, I misread the part of your post about helping people. I'd say helping humanity is actually part and parcel to enlightenment. All the sages we know of in history didn't write wise sayings for self indulgence.

And Hitler was mediocre in the sense that he was unwise, and led unwise people into doing unwise things. The scale at which he did it doesn't mean much other than to show how dangerous mediocrity can be.

jupiviv wrote: That question doesn't really mean anything because I can pose it back to you - why use something you have at your disposal as a tool of sorts?

The same reason you use any tool for anything really when it comes down to it.
Maybe it's the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness to quote the declaration of independence.
Maybe it's some other reason for you personally.
That's precisely why I asked "what is the end goal of enlightenment?"

jupiviv wrote: Emotion is useless when it comes to enlightenment as I define it.

How DO you define it?

jupiviv wrote: Why are you asking us?

Well I thought that you might know. At the least I would consider your answer and decide if it seems rational or not.
Of course I won't take your word as the absolute truth just by reading it but having an idea of what other people think gives me more to think about.

Russell wrote:Sorry, I misread the part of your post about helping people. I'd say helping humanity is actually part and parcel to enlightenment. All the sages we know of in history didn't write wise sayings for self indulgence.

Ah ok. We're in agreement about this then. :)
And while that's good and dandy, do you think you could expand on WHY it's good to help humanity?

Russell wrote:And Hitler was mediocre in the sense that he was unwise, and led unwise people into doing unwise things. The scale at which he did it doesn't mean much other than to show how dangerous mediocrity can be.

Yes, I would agree with that too which is why I added "in a sense" in my post as well.

Orenholt wrote:The same reason you use any tool for anything really when it comes down to it.

A tool cannot be used for all purposes. Your question was why we shouldn't use emotion to achieve enlightenment, since it is available to us. It doesn't mean anything because whether we should use it or not depends on what we define enlightenment to be, but you haven't defined it.

Well I thought that you might know. At the least I would consider your answer and decide if it seems rational or not.
Of course I won't take your word as the absolute truth just by reading it but having an idea of what other people think gives me more to think about.

There's no point in knowing the definitions of others if you want to define something yourself. It's up to you what you define something to be.

But since you asked, I define the goal of enlightenment to be living in accord with a flawless understanding of the nature of things.

Orenholt wrote:And while that's good and dandy, do you think you could expand on WHY it's good to help humanity?

I think what you're asking is, is rationality alone, in absence of sentiment, enough reason to help fellow man?

I'd say the answer is yes simply because the rational person sees his neighbors (and in fact all of existence) as an extension of his self. The only motive to avoid or refuse helping others in improving themselves would be for selfish, and therefore egotistical, reasons only.

On the other hand, relying on sentimental value, to any degree, is unstable and dangerous. One might only help people when they're in the mood to, and indeed may choose instead to hurt others in response to their own hurt feelings.

jupiviv wrote: A tool cannot be used for all purposes. Your question was why we shouldn't use emotion to achieve enlightenment, since it is available to us. It doesn't mean anything because whether we should use it or not depends on what we define enlightenment to be, but you haven't defined it.

Ah but I already did:

Orenholt wrote: If I were to define enlightenment by my own (and possibly flawed) understanding I would say that it means living without delusions or on a smaller level, gaining insight or knowledge of some kind.

but my question is regarding what the end goal of enlightenment IS and perhaps emotion could help in that pursuit.

jupiviv wrote: But since you asked, I define the goal of enlightenment to be living in accord with a flawless understanding of the nature of things.

But what would that mean in the more specifics?
What world problems would be solved if any?

Russell wrote:I think what you're asking is, is rationality alone, in absence of sentiment, enough reason to help fellow man?

I'd say the answer is yes simply because the rational person sees his neighbors (and in fact all of existence) as an extension of his self.

While I would agree that a rational person would see the universe as an extension of himself, how is that possible when one realizes there is no self to have an extension of and furthermore that the extension itself is illusory?

Russell wrote: The only motive to avoid or refuse helping others in improving themselves would be for selfish, and therefore egotistical, reasons only.

On the other hand, relying on sentimental value, to any degree, is unstable and dangerous. One might only help people when they're in the mood to, and indeed may choose instead to hurt others in response to their own hurt feelings.

I think that it would come down to having character and dedication to your cause rather than just living as you feel at the moment.

Orenholt wrote:but my question is regarding what the end goal of enlightenment IS

So you're asking what the end goal of living without delusions is? What is your definition of a delusion?

and perhaps emotion could help in that pursuit.

How do you define emotion?

Orenholt wrote:

jupiviv wrote:But since you asked, I define the goal of enlightenment to be living in accord with a flawless understanding of the nature of things.

But what would that mean in the more specifics?

Enlightenment is the knowledge of Reality. Anyone who possesses such knowledge will naturally have the goal of applying that understanding to everything they experience.

What world problems would be solved if any?

Why are you assuming that the goal of an enlightened person is to solve world problems? Isn't your question itself about what the goal is?

jupiviv wrote: So you're asking what the end goal of living without delusions is? What is your definition of a delusion?

Yes, I'm asking that.
My definition of delusion is "a false impression" at it's most basic.

jupiviv wrote: How do you define emotion?

I define emotion as both a specific kind of internal chemical reaction in the brain to something perceived or experienced AND as "motive" which is associated with a desire to do things.

jupiviv wrote: Enlightenment is the knowledge of Reality. Anyone who possesses such knowledge will naturally have the goal of applying that understanding to everything they experience.

I find that interesting considering that you said: "A tool cannot be used for all purposes."

jupiviv wrote: Why are you assuming that the goal of an enlightened person is to solve world problems?

Well that's why I added, "if any" to the question. Perhaps it wouldn't solve world problems at all. I honestly don't know.

jupiviv wrote:Isn't your question itself about what the goal is?

Yes.

Orenholt wrote:My definition of delusion is "a false impression" at it's most basic.

Then the goal of living without false impressions is to have true impressions. What other goal could it have?

I define emotion as both a specific kind of internal chemical reaction in the brain to something perceived or experienced AND as "motive" which is associated with a desire to do things.

Such a reaction could be wise, in which case it would not hinder the goal of becoming wise. Likewise with motives. To the degree a motive/desire is not deluded, it wouldn't detract wisdom.

I myself define emotion more specifically, i.e, as a kind of delusion, or false impression as you say.

Orenholt wrote:

jupiviv wrote:Enlightenment is the knowledge of Reality. Anyone who possesses such knowledge will naturally have the goal of applying that understanding to everything they experience.

I find that interesting considering that you said: "A tool cannot be used for all purposes."

Enlightenment can only be used to understand Reality, or live without delusions.

jupiviv wrote: Then the goal of living without false impressions is to have true impressions. What other goal could it have?

It seems a bit simplistic but I suppose it makes sense.
I just would think that one would do something with those true impressions rather than simply "having" them.
Maybe there's some remaining messiah complex left over in my brain somewhere but I would think that the whole point of anything rational would be to make the world a better place somehow.

jupiviv wrote: I myself define emotion more specifically, i.e, as a kind of delusion, or false impression as you say.

Why is that?

jupiviv wrote: Enlightenment can only be used to understand Reality, or live without delusions.

Once you do understand reality and have no delusions wouldn't you have significantly more personal power to effect change consciously?

Orenholt wrote:I just would think that one would do something with those true impressions rather than simply "having" them.

Yes - try to make those less fortunate than oneself have those true impressions as well. That's no small task!

jupiviv wrote:I myself define emotion more specifically, i.e, as a kind of delusion, or false impression as you say.

Why is that?

Because the things that are conventionally called emotions like love, jealousy, happiness etc. are delusions.

Once you do understand reality and have no delusions wouldn't you have significantly more personal power to effect change consciously?

I don't know what you mean by "personal power", but you would certainly be acting consciously. That itself is a huge change in the world, because virtually no one act consciously.

jupiviv wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:When there's no identifation, there's nothing at all. Why would nothing be "wrong"?

Yes, that is my point. Lack of any identification whatsoever is not wrong identification, at least not literally.

But wrong instances of identification could still occur then? Perhaps I was using identification more like assigning false attributes, like square pegs not fitting in round holes. Because square does not equal round. There are still pegs, holes and shapes.

Before we forget, this was about the relation between emotion, attachment and "wrong identification" which you asked about: "How can there be wrong identification?". The answer would be: "when be believe we're something we are not". And then defend the mistake until death takes us apart.

Orenholt wrote: The start is to define enlightenment for myself? I'm sorry but that's a bit too vague for me.

Maybe you could show me by example? How do you define enlightenment and what does that mean the end goal is for you?


If I were to define enlightenment by my own (and possibly flawed) understanding I would say that it means living without delusions or on a smaller level, gaining insight or knowledge of some kind.

But what that implies as an end goal is certainly fuzzy at best. I don't see enlightenment as an end goal itself but rather a means that one can use to other ends. Otherwise, what would a person do? Merely live out the rest of their life as a hermit doing nothing to help humanity and simply bask in their own enlightenment?

If enlightenment is living without delusions then haven't you also defined its own end goal? A goal is tied up with a desire or a flow of events like causes and effects. They will always come and go as nature flows like that. You seem to ask if enlightenment would be part of an even grander and greater scheme, some higher purpose. But if that was so, then fulfilling and knowing that grander and greater scheme would be your real definition of enlightenment. And there you have instantaneously shifted the goal posts and got yourself a newer higher enlightenment, even higher than living without delusions!

I think enlightenment always relates to the highest achievable in a given field. That's why I asked to define it because the issue of "end goal" is very much tied up with the whole thing, by definition!

Orenholt wrote:While I would agree that a rational person would see the universe as an extension of himself, how is that possible when one realizes there is no self to have an extension of and furthermore that the extension itself is illusory?

For the sake of practicality. While it's true that in reality there is no inherently existing self, (as all things are merely made up of thoughts), nature still nonetheless creates the experience of consciousness, and uprooting the ego as an influential basis of consciousness is useful for the sake of logical consistency and rationality.

I know this seems rather contradictory on the surface but with enough thought one can see the consistency in this.

I think that it would come down to having character and dedication to your cause rather than just living as you feel at the moment.

Yes but one is still in potential danger to the degree that sentimental values play a role in one's thinking.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The answer would be: "when be believe we're something we are not".

I agree with that. But I wouldn't say this is wrong identification in the literal sense, rather partial or spurious identification.

jupiviv wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The answer would be: "when be believe we're something we are not".

I agree with that. But I wouldn't say this is wrong identification in the literal sense, rather partial or spurious identification.

Spurious is a better word indeed. Wrong sounds too moralistic anyway.