Then what enlightenment is is subjective? — Harry Hindu

How much do you weigh?

In the East it mean the realization of emptiness. In the West it means weight-loss.

Narcissism is wrong too.

What is it to be Enlightened?

To be enlightened is to find out that you were wrong in thinking a particular thought and instead of doubling down you change your mind. — Harry Hindu

Wrong.

Eckardt on Detachment

The mind of him who stands detached is of such nobility that whatever he sees is true and whatever he desires he obtains and whatever he commands must be obeyed. And this you must know for sure: when the free mind is quite detached, it constrains God to itself and if it were able to stand formless and free of all accidentals, it would assume God’s proper nature … The man who stands thus in utter detachment is rapt into eternity in such a way that nothing transient can move him …

Now you may ask what this detachment is, that is so noble in itself. You should know that true detachment is nothing else but a mind that stands unmoved by all accidents of joy or sorrow, honour, shame or disgrace, as a mountain of lead stands unmoved by a breath of wind1. This immovable detachment brings a man into the greatest likeness to God. For the reason why God is God is because of His immovable detachment and from this detachment, He has His purity, His simplicity and His immutability. Therefore, if a man is to be like God, as far as a creature can have likeness with God, this must come from detachment. This draws a man into purity, and from purity into simplicity, and from simplicity into immutability, and these things make a likeness between God and that man …

You should know that the outer man can be active while the inner man is completely free of this activity and unmoved … Here is an analogy: a door swings open and shuts on its hinge. I would compare the outer woodwork of the door to the outer man and the hinge to the inner man. When the door opens and shuts, the boards move back and forth but the hinge stays in the same place and is never moved thereby. It is the same in this case if you understand it rightly.

Now I ask: What is the object of pure detachment? My answer is that the object of pure detachment is neither this nor that 2. It rests on absolutely nothing and I will tell you why: pure detachment rests on the highest and he is at his highest, in whom God can work all His will … And so, if the heart is ready to receive the highest, it must rest on absolutely nothing and in that lies the greatest potentiality which can exist …

Again I ask: What is the prayer of a detached heart? My answer is that detachment and purity cannot pray, for whoever prays wants God to grant him something or else wants God to take something from him. But a detached heart desires nothing at all, nor has it anything it wants to get rid of. Therefore it is free of all prayers or its prayer consists of nothing but being uniform with God. That is all its prayer …

Therefore it is totally subject to God, and therefore it is in the highest degree of uniformity with God and is also the most receptive to divine influence …

Now take note, all who are wise! No man is happier than he who has the greatest detachment.
— Meister Eckhardt On Detachment — Wayfarer

So is this part of a stand-up routine or what? The door hinge bit was particularly hilarious. :lol:

That is inexplicably funny. Maybe my subconscious has a better memory than my conscious mind.

You’re the one who’s employed the term “non-attachment”. If you don’t mean what that appears to represent then maybe it’s not the right term.

It is far more real than this 'non-attachment' concept that you appear to put so much stock in.
— praxis

Not on the experiential level. — Janus

You have no attachment to anything or anyone, including yourself?
— praxis

I wouldn't claim that. — Janus

:chin:

I have no argument with dopamine being a part of the story, and only a part, even in the biological, neurological context. — Janus

I may have misrepresented the work if I suggested that it was presented in a manner divorced from a larger picture or story, although the title alone, Dopamine Nation, should indicate otherwise.

From the experiential perspective it doesn't exist at all — Janus

Not sure what you could mean by that. That we can't actually see the compound function in the body? It is far more real than this 'non-attachment' concept that you appear to put so much stock in.

A major premise of the work is that biological systems seek homeostasis, and without going into the details, the basic result is that too much pleasure eventually leads to pain, and vice-versa. I mention this because of the passing thought I had while reading that ascetic spiritual practices, which may be commonly regarded as virtuous or ego reductive, simply lead to pleasure, of a kind, hence the phrase samadhi junkie.

I believe you are describing this phenomena.

I seem to remember a Leonard Cohen song with the lyric line something like "Do we have the strength to be alone together?" — Janus

I remember his lyrics stating that there's a crack in everything, and that's how the light gets in.

Hilarious. I'm just glad I wasn't drinking anything while watching. Probably would have ruined my keyboard. John Oliver has done stories on the NRA but he mixes humor and being informative.

The same event can be reinforcing or aversive depending on our success or failure at anticipating it and thus making sense of it within our system of anticipations. — Joshs

A bell may or may not make a dog salivate depending on its conditioning or, as you say, ‘system of anticipations’.

in prediction-based approaches affectivity is bound up with the relationship one senses between anticipation and realization. — Joshs

In this case isn’t affect hedonic (relating to or considered in terms of pleasant or unpleasant interoception)?

How is affect somehow not hedonic?

I imagine it's a state of equanimity in which thoughts and feelings arise and are clearly seen and felt but are not indulged in. Think about pain; as long as you are embodied pain cannot definitely be avoided. But as, I think it was, Tom Storm told us in another thread recently, his father was able to switch pain off, undergo dental procedures without anaesthetic and said "It only hurts of you let it". — Janus

I suppose that I find this subject particularly interesting now because I just finished a book called Dopamine Nation. As the title indicates, the book delves into the underlying physiology of pleasure and pain. On the most basic level, studies show that without reward (pleasure) and punishment (pain) we really wouldn’t be motivated to do much of anything. So there’s that. On another level, we are a social species, and that being the case, the opinions of other and out relationships to others matter to us. We are dependent on others to maintain our homeostasis. In our development we cannot thrive, or even survive, without the support of others. Laughably, it comes to mind that purpose of religion (including Buddhism) is to bind (form strong attachment) communities.

Isn’t it ironic that this so called “raft” strengthens what it claims to dismantle?

For me there are different kinds of beauty. There is moral beauty for example. A saint would be morally beautiful. To admire something would be to love it in some sense it seems to me. — Janus

Even a saint isn’t perfect and given sufficient time would surely eventually disappoint. How could someone experience disappointed if they weren’t attached to this moral beauty?

But in any case, is it the senses that tell you that or do you reach that conclusion from something you've read or is it just an intuition you have? — Janus

Even if it were something that I experienced with my senses, I couldn’t know what I was experiencing without all the previous sense experience that built my internal representation of the world.

Love and beauty are not the same thing. I guess we now have to decide what love means.

the psychotic still has a mind, however unbalanced it might be. — Janus

A mind that would not exists without sensory input in its development. Minds don’t just pop into existence.

If I feel love for someone, do I need to be attached to that love in order to act lovingly towards them? — Janus

In non-attachment, why would you love any particular person?

That, even if true, is not the point. — Janus

I know that my objections are off-point. Regarding how true it is, how long do you think your mind would last without any sensory input? Maybe a few months or a year?

:up:

It is meaningless to say that anyone doesn’t rely on sensory knowledge because minds are built on it. No sensory input, no mind.
— praxis

Is it the senses that tell you that? — Janus

Minds require (are completely dependent on) sensory input to simply exist.

It is what I imagine. What do you imagine it’s like?

I wouldn’t claim that it’s impossible either. It is a rather dreary goal though, to be an uncaring zombie.

Neither [Parm & Ploti] rely on or espouse empirical or sensory knowledge but aim at an insight into a 'higher truth' through visionary or non-ordinary states. — Wayfarer

It is meaningless to say that anyone doesn’t rely on sensory knowledge because minds are built on it. No sensory input, no mind.

You've tried and found it impossible? — Janus

You have no attachment to anything or anyone, including yourself?

The common thread defining the state of consciousness referred to in the various traditions as enlightenment, seeing the truth, becoming the real self, becoming free, seeing the true nature of things, becoming authentic and so on, seems to be non-attachment to the ego, the opinions of others and the things of this world in general. — Janus

So a fantasy, in other words.

Enlightenment in the Buddist sense simply means the realization of what they call emptiness, and it has little if anything to do with the development of virtue.

As opposed to the scope of rationalism?

Suffice to note that in classical (i.e. pre-modern) philosophy, rationalism was concerned with arriving at, shall we say, a cosmic truth, without recourse to experience - classical examples being Parmenides and Plotinus. — Wayfarer

Parm & Ploti’s minds both had a grounding in what they experienced with their senses. Without such a grounding they would not have developed minds.

knowledge can only be grounded in what can be experienced by the senses — Wayfarer

Considering that it would be impossible to know anything without such a grounding it’s really not that unreasonable.

The Sand Dune Sermon

The dude's robe caught on some bushes as he climbed the dune, making him spill his drink a little. Once on the mound, surrounded by all that would hear his words of wisdom, he began speaking.

"Things have come to light, man."

"Life is strikes and gutters, ups and downs."

The crowd chants, "Yes, O' Lord"

"No, I’m the Dude, so that’s what you call me. That or, uh His Dudeness, or uh Duder, or El Duderino, if you’re not into the whole brevity thing.”

"Where was I? Oh yeah, this is a very complicated thing, man. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-yous."

The crowd abruptly chants, "Yes, O' Dudeness", startling the dude and making him spill his drink once again.

"Careful man, there's a beverage here!"

"Stop running around, immerse yourself in life and face whatever, man. Chasing pleasure leads to pain and chasing pain leads to pleasure. BALANCE, man. The dude abides in balance."

"Do you abide?"

The crowd chants, "We abide, O' Dudeness!"

Is Buddhism philosophically sound?
— praxis

A vacuous question unless you make it more specific. — Janus

Indeed.

It's amusing how up in arms the self-righteous become. — Janus

Oh no, can't resist...

Oompa loompa doompety doo
I’ve got a perfect puzzle for you
Oompa loompa doompety dee
If you are wise you’ll listen to me

What do you get when you boast of your misogyny
Hating as much as an unrepentant clansman
What are you at, getting terribly bigoted
What do you think will come of that

I don’t like the look of it

Oompa loompa doompety da
If you’re not misogynistic, you will go far
You will live in happiness too
Like the Oompa Loompa Doompety do

The notion that this forum has the power to reform bigotry isn’t shameful, just terribly naive.

And now with that post you think yourself better than a racist. — dimosthenis9

I think he thinks himself smarter than those who debate the banning of an unrepentant misogynist, to be precise.

Is Buddhism philosophically sound?

I am an unrepentant misogynist. — Michael Zwingli

If he’s as influenced by social dynamics as you’ve suggested, it’s likely that he would have been compelled to remain consistent with this statement.

up: — Janus

Thumbs up to the ‘one strike you’re out’ policy of unrepentant misogynists. Thanks for the exercise in futility.