I have to say there is much to be said for solitude as opposed to "group" spirituality. — Janus

:100: :up:

The only part of this subject that I find worth talking about is the OP. Specifically,

"Assuming that the Gnostics were (and still are) "onto something important" with the role of Gnosis in their perception of life, can it be considered legitimate wisdom? In other words, can personally revealed wisdom be considered truthful and authoritative?

For the purposes of this discussion, wisdom is defined as "useful and sound insight(s).

Is personal Gnosis legitimate wisdom?" [Emphasis added.]

Not all gnosis is inexplicable, but as to that which is, I think it is foolish to think another human could explain the inexplicable. I think it's foolish to try. But it's also foolish to think that just because one doesn't know anything that is inexplicable, then no one else could either. That sounds like a logician and, as far as I'm concerned, logic has it's own 'splaining to do.

How many times my mum said that! "So it goes". That's just the way it is. And we can do nothing about it. — GraveItty

I don't think leather ybags of firewater on a couple of stalks have evolved so that every moment of their brief lives is a pleasure. If you like, the world is open sore. But it's less open and bleeding than it used to be. And we can and are trying to improve things every day (well some of us, sometimes.)

Platonism believed that we're a fusion of soul and body. A lot of people will say it's 'bronze age mythology'. But my view is that all of those ancient texts are symnbolically or allegorically conveying truths about the human condition, as you go on to acknowledge. — Wayfarer

Sure. One might say that the soul is no more of a fiction than the liver. In both cases we are looking a human being in terms of parts that we ourselves delineate. The individual organism might also be viewed as a kind of fictional organ of the species.

One of the things that interest me is our deeply-held tradition that each body "contains" or "manifests" or "incarnates" exactly one soul. I suspect this is related to imposing upon a body a responsibility for its actions. "The soul is the prison of the body." (Or, better, the most trainable part of the body.)

But did you meet anyone whom did not seem phony to you?

Because if not, then how can a "actual" enlightened subject ever recognize another one? — Manuel

I've 'read spiritual books' and gone to very many talks and sessions over the years. I saw Father Bede Griffiths speak in the 1980's not long before he died. He was very frail and elderly but spiritually radiant. Fr Ama Samy struck me as a very authentic teacher. He's a Zen Jesuit (which believe it or not is a sub-genre nowadays.) I probably saw a lot more speakers and teachers that I've forgotten about. I went to the first Science and Non-duality Conference in San Rafael in 2009 and it was a mixture! Some of the speakers struck me as obviously phony, while others seemed authentic.

As for 'who is enlightened', that's a very difficult question to pronounce on. But those whom I regard as genuine embody or convey a senseof authenticity. Some of them are quite ordinary people, but then, both in Christianity and Zen, there's an 'ordinary mind' of enlightenment. It's not necessarily a big deal, outwardly, not all cosmic fireworks and ecstacy. That's what drew me to Sōtō. Suzuki-roshi, who founded San Francisco Zen Centre, would say 'strictly speaking, there are no enlightened people, only enlightened activities'.

I was enormously impressed by Lama Yeshe who visited Sydney in 80's - he too didn't live long after that, he died from a congenital heart condition.



He was a very charismatic speaker, albeit with rustic English. But he seemed bubbling over with joy. That talk from him, along with the books I was reading at the time, precipitated the conversion experience I mentioned. That said, I never signed up to his school - some years later, the Vajrayana Institute which was started by his students had a rented place about half a block from me, but I didn't really warm to it. (That has now become the FPMT, Foundation for the Preservation for the Mahāyāna Tradition.) The only Buddhist group I've been part of was a kind of 'friendship group' that met monthly or bi-monthly from around 2008 to 2017 or so, aside from going to Pure Land services.

One of the things that interest me is our deeply-held tradition that each body "contains" or "manifests" or "incarnates" exactly one soul. — hanaH

Well, what is soul? Buddhists technically don't endorse any such idea (although it's complex - I did an MA thesis on that topic.) Suffice to say, I understand the soul to be simply 'the totality of the being'. The ego, which is your self-idea, is one aspect, but, in Western terms, there's the unconscious, subconscious and so on. There are also aims, drives, proclivities, destiny, past memories - I think the expression 'soul' denotes all of that. Not as if the soul is an entity or a thing of any kind - it can't be captured objectively as it's never an object of cognition. There's a lovely term in Buddhist philosophy, 'citta-santāna', which means 'mind stream'. I think of it like that.

The Platonic idea is, of course, different to that. It goes back to that ancient Greek word, translated as nous (preserved in vernacular English as uncommon common sense, 'she has nous, that one'.) It is nous which 'sees what truly is', and it is that which is associated with the immortal aspect of the being.

Thanks for sharing that.

I think there's very much something to that "authenticity" feeling. It's a bit hard to pin down in words, but one can certainly feel it when around such people. It's a bit of a shame lots of these things can't be expressed well with words.

Then again, I suppose that's what makes it a challenge and interesting too.

Because if not, then how can a "actual" enlightened subject ever recognize another one? — Manuel

For me, it's another one of those things that cannot be satisfactorily articulated. It's just known.

By an inverse analogy, in a certain profession there are those in the community who have what is called "the look." If you see it in a man's eyes, there is absolutely no doubt about it. You know. There are a lot of pretenders out there; some of them are even accomplished within the community. These poser might practice "the look." But it just doesn't work. And everyone knows it. I don't have it, I've never pretended to have it, I absolutely would not want it, and I've only seen it twice. But I knew when I saw it, and so did everyone else. Nobody fucks with those men; at least not with any quarter.

Anyway, that's just an example, if an opposite type of situation.

When one enlightened subject meets the other, there is really no need to engage because there is nothing to say, even if it could be articulated. They just know. I can count on one hand the number I've seen. Then again, I have not had the exposure that many others (Wayfarer?) have had. I've never travelled in those circles. For instance:

Your word "enlightened" sometimes says way too much. It can conjure all kinds of attributes (especially in the insecure or jealous mind) that simply are not possessed by one who has come to know something that cannot be articulated. In my case, it is simply something important to me in my perception of life; to me it is legitimate wisdom, personally revealed, truthful and authoritativeto me, providing useful and sound insight(s). (Taken from OP.) When seen in this light, there is really no need for anyone to feel insecure or jealous or to mount their steed and coming charging at me with demands for logical proof of something I never teased them with in the first place. I don't pretend to the Dali Llama or some sage or zen master. Those boys are a different animal.

And everyone knows it. I don't have it, I've never pretended to have it, I absolutely would not want it, and I've only seen it twice. But I knew when I saw it, and so did everyone else. Nobody fucks with those men; at least not with any quarter. — James Riley

Yes. Can confirm from my experience too.

When seen in this light, there is really no need for anyone to feel insecure or jealous or to mount their steed and coming charging at me with demands for logical proof of something I never teased them with in the first place. I don't pretend to the Dali Llama or some sage or zen master. Those boys are a different animal. — James Riley

I don't want to convey the impression that I'm asking for something I am missing. And I totally accept your feelings of insight, I've had them too, in very different circumstances from Eastern traditions. I mean, lots of people swear by these experiences, to the point of death.

I call these types of things "mystical", others can use "gnostic", or "spiritual", it matters little what terminology is used.

I do however also understand others who have not had this experience, ask for some articulation, and when it is not given, I understand the skepticism that comes with that. But, it is what it is. Not much too do about that.

I do however also understand others who have not had this experience, ask for some articulation, and when it is not given, I understand the skepticism that comes with that. But, it is what it is. Not much too do about that. — Manuel

I get that too. Especially if someone dangles it in front of them. That is why, at least in my limited experience, it's pretty stupid to dangle.

There may be an initial excitement and a desire to share, but it does more harm to try to say the unsayable, than to just STFU and let it ride.

But there is no harm in defending the idea of personal experience generally, and it having personal meaning to you that is on par with anything else you've picked up, whether from your fellow man in a lab coat, or teaching philosophy in a university. There are no gatekeepers on wisdom, and there is no such thing as insubordination.

.

Your word "enlightened" sometimes says way too much. It can conjure all kinds of attributes (especially in the insecure or jealous mind) that simply are not possessed by one who has come to know something that cannot be articulated. — James Riley

Insecurity and jealousy may play a role, but so does embarrassment at a lack of tact or humility. You mention the 'look' in your post. I get that. Call it charisma or comportment or whatever. It does the real work. If someone with charisma uses a grand word (enlightenment, transcendence, etc.), then one is more likely to believe, admire and perhaps envy. If one without charisma uses the grand word, it contributes to an association of grand words with those who don't even cut it in the usual way. This is where I relate to @baker and the idea that religion should be exclusive or difficult, not something a person needs you to believe. That need is evidence against the salesmen being in on something great. Need is base. Need is ordinary. Don't cast pearls before swine, right? But that cuts in every direction (bigger than spirituality). There's a time and place for laying down the intricate stuff, the slippery stuff.

When one enlightened subject meets the other, there is really no need to engage because there is nothing to say, even if it could be articulated. — James Riley

I think there's a non-fancy non-explicitly-spiritual version of this that happens all the time. Two people meet and hopefully recognize one another as cool, noble, attuned, graceful, poised, legit, whatever. If forced to do so, either can squeeze out reasons for their general approval, but the decision for all its complexity and speed is automatic. (I'd break it down into two positive categories. The easier standard is a decent person I can trust and be friendly with, not exciting but fine. The harder standard is that of the peer I can learn from, who will keep me on my toes. Very exciting. One conversation with them is worth a month of small talk. )

Some books on Gnosticism. This is one on my to-read list.

translated as nous (preserved in vernacular English as uncommon common sense, 'she has nous, that one'.) It is nous which 'sees what truly is', and it is that which is associated with the immortal aspect of the being. — Wayfarer

It's a beautiful system-myth-theory. The eternal is immaterial and intelligible. Or the intelligible is immaterial and eternal. Or the immaterial is eternal and intelligible. How do mortal beings connect to something immortal? Through some hidden immortal and immaterial part of themselves.

I think we can more concretely say that language and what it accumulates (concepts) is that which is relatively immortal. This is where human communication so far surpasses that of the other animals we invent a special non-biological organ for ourselves. If, however, this organ is immaterial and private, we really can't be rational or scientific about it. I'm not saying that mind is only brain and behavior, but it makes sense that we'd prioritize those aspects of the concept in rational-scientific investigations. Even in ordinary life, it makes sense to look at how people actually act as opposed to how they merely describe themselves.

Or the intelligible is immaterial and eternal. Or the immaterial is eternal and intelligible. How do mortal beings connect to something immortal? Through some hidden immortal and immaterial part of themselves. — hanaH

There's been a very instructive thread on the Phaedo which discusses the immortality of the soul.

If, however, this organ is immaterial and private, we really can't be rational or scientific about it. I'm not saying that mind is only brain and behavior, but it makes sense that we'd prioritize those aspects of the concept in rational-scientific investigations — hanaH

I think the key thing that must elude, or precede, any science, is meaning. It's our capacity to interpret and discern meaning that differentiates us from other animals. That's why I'm coming to appreciated C S Peirce, about whom I've learned a ton on this forum. (We have a great exponent of Peircian biosemiotics on this forum.)

don't think leather ybags of firewater on a couple of stalks have evolved so that every moment of their brief lives is a pleasure. If you like, the world is open sore. But it's less open and bleeding than it used to be. And we can and are trying to improve things every day (well some of us, sometimes.) — hanaH

WTF are ybags (I'm not America, speaking of which, I just woke up from a terrible dream; election time in America and Trump was making a big chance,,, I felt fear. Saw the end of the world...Thank you science!). Whatever they are (I searched and only saw men with silly ears, in the form of an y?). Why can't they evolve so every moment in their lives is a pleasure (I'm not expecting a scientific answer). I don't like the world be open sore, whatever you mean by that. The world is more open and bleeding than it used to be. We try to improve things every day, but it seems to get worse every day.

Absolutely.

The idea is to try to keep level headed about this stuff, otherwise anyone starts believing they have something that makes them really special over anyone else, and it goes both ways meaning mystical vs. scientist.

We do the best we can trying to be clear in our intentions, when possible.

If you did have what it takes - what is it you are meant to have? — Tom Storm

In hindsight, I think where I was most different from the religious/spiritual people is that they were authoritarian to the core, while I was not. Specifically, right-wing authoritarianism appears to be the personality trait which is of such importance that if one doesn't have enough of it, one cannot be religious/spiritual.
(Why do you think religious/spiritual people tend to affiliate themselves with right-wing political options?)

In order to be religious/spiritual, one needs to be willing and able to destroy others, in every way, psychologically, physically; one needs to see oneself as the arbiter of another's reality, one needs to be able to say, "I am the one who decides what is real for you. I define who you are."

If one isn't like that, one won't be able to keep up with the religious/spiritual people.

Just reread the conversation.

My experience was, I believed that through meditation, a state of insight would spontaneously arise which would melt away all my negative tendencies and weaknesses. — Wayfarer

I never had that. My approach to religion/spirituality was all about finding The Truth, the How Things Really Are (and at first, my quest was conceptualized as trying to answer the question "Which religion is the right one?"). I was sure that once I'd figure out what The Truth is, everything else would fall into place.

But I also wasn't very concerned about my behavior to begin with, because as someone who had no trouble not smoking, not drinking alcohol, not doing drugs, not being promiscuous etc., the things that people usually struggle with when they approach religion/spirituality didn't apply to me. (Later on, I actually had to teach myself to swear and to use lowly language because even that didn't come naturally to me.)

And I went to a Buddhist youth organisation conference around that time, and sadly realised that I thought a lot of well-intentioned Buddhists were also phony. — Wayfarer

I rarely think that anyone is phony. But then, of course, my basic assumption is that people generally act strategically.

But nobody ever told me I didn't have what it takes, I figured that out all by myself.

With most of the religions/spiritualities I looked into, I started off by reading their books, getting familiar with their doctrine. It was only if and after I had felt comfortable enough with those and hopeful enough that I went to meet "the people". That was always a "culture shock" that nothing in the books I read and the talks I heard prepared me for. Often, it was like highschool all over again, with all the popular people, the cliques, the misfits, the games. Or the social dynamics were like those between rich and poor people. I thought being either of those ways was a waste of time, but found myself alone in that opinion.

Unlike you, I was always at the bottom of the hierarchy, I never made it up to some position of any relevance. No matter how long I lasted in a group, the members there always felt comfortable to look down on me, like I'm an imbecile or a domestic animal. (I'm surprised to this day that nobody actually patronizingly patted me on the head.)

Although through all this, something inside has definitely shifted, even despite my many typical middle-class and middle-aged failings. I guess at the end of the day, I have to acknowledge that I really do have faith in the Buddha, even though the western intellectual side of me doesn't want anything to do with 'faith'.

I guess I do have faith in the Buddha as well. It kind of has a life of its own, regardless of what I do.
But unlike you, I have no Western intellectual qualms about having faith.

Because if not, then how can a "actual" enlightened subject ever recognize another one? If there is no way to tell, then everyone is only pretending to have something they in fact do not. — Manuel

In some religions/spiritualities, the standard answer to the above is "It takes one to know one".
The enlightened ones can recognize eachother. And the unelightened are a dozen a dime anyway, so it's not like anyone really cares about them.

Just reread the conversation — baker

Good to read! And, what's your impression about it?

You'll need to be more specific.

The world is more open and bleeding than it used to be. We try to improve things every day, but it seems to get worse every day. — GraveItty

The world has got much better in the last few centuries. Yeah, we still have problems, and, as evolved bags of slow-burning water stilts, there's no reason to expect some final tranquillity, some state of the world where we can no longer see room for improvement. We can, if we please, gossip about our feelings. But if we aren't just comparing feelings, we should discuss a metric for the state of the world. For example, Pinker uses various stats to argue that it is improved. One can of course object to his or any framework, criterion, or metric. It's up for endless debate and revision.

My approach to religion/spirituality was all about finding The Truth, the How Things Really Are (and at first, my quest was conceptualized as trying to answer the question "Which religion is the right one?"). I was sure that once I'd figure out what The Truth is, everything else would fall into place. — baker

I can relate to this. To me that's more a mark of the philosopher or scientist. Anyway, I was also attracted to religion as a kind of ultimate science of reality.

(Why do you think religious/spiritual people tend to affiliate themselves with right-wing political options?) — baker

The question was not for me, but a possible answer is the centrality of a prophet/sage and his texts in most religions (monarchy-patriarchy happens to be baked in to many of them.) If one opens up a religion to democratic control and individual rights, the result is something like the US Constitution. (It's as if the mainstream way of being, with its religious tolerance, is an exploded religion of little anarchists who tolerate only minimal control of their spiritual activities --each their own king and pope on a little island in archipelago, with money as the ocean that connects them.)

The 'realised being' both comprehends and exemplifies the Supreme Being. That is the culmination of the spiritual path, or 'self realisation'. — Wayfarer

There is a lot of movement in this sentence of yours, almost of - or maybe exactly of - oppositions. Maybe intentional on your part. Good on you if so! But anyway, I invite you to look back at it. For example, how can being be realized? Or the Supreme Being be exemplified, or that as "culmination" of a path, or self realized? Not a criticism, because I suspect it's all accurate and right, but I have some trouble with a sublation of it all in my own personal mind - a fancy way of saying I can't make sense of it in terms I am accustomed to.

The world has got much better in the last few centuries — hanaH

Already here we disagree. Of course scientist bring the examples of vaccines, airplanes, computers, TV's, or whatever fruits hanging on the trees of science, to the defense front, but the very fact that it has become the standard worldview on the planet (together with western democracy, a phony one because other cultures aren't allowed to live life as they see it fit for them), enforced with the power emerging from them same trees (a weapon arsenal, capable of destroying the whole surface of our precious Earth, with the god-given wonder of life on it, from which I don't get my morals, by the way) imposing it. The world is turning in one big panopticon. What a prospect!

Yeah, we still have problems, — hanaH

Still? They only grow! And I'm sure you think science has the solution to solve them all. Aaaah yes, problem-solving. How efficiently the young are trained already in this. Instead of the elders providing them with a means for a living. As far as I can see, the future is looking dim and every light at the end of the tunnel turns out to be another train coming. The economic train is loaded heavier and heavier and grows longer and longer, like the body of scientific knowledge. Seems the driver doesn't see the deep cliff ahead. But hey, people have marshmallow brains.

quote="hanaH;612260"]there's no reason to expect some final tranquillity, some state of the world where we can no longer see room for improvement.[/quote]

Why not. Covid did well! I liked it! There is always room for improvement!

We can, if we please, gossip about our feelings. But if we aren't just comparing feelings, we should discuss a metric for the state of the world. For example, Pinker uses various stats to argue that it is improved. One can of course object to his or any framework, criterion, or metric. It's up for endless debate and revision. — hanaH

Why should we gossip about our feelings? I'm not that interested in the feelings of others nor do I wish to state mine exorbitantly.
Pinker might use various stats, but according to his metrics, which are scientific. One can endlessly debate about the wonders and achievements of science but it's just one view amongst others. With no special position, such as the only culture in contact with reality. With scientific reality that is. As defined by science. But there are many more human cultures and ways of living. To deny them, call them unreal or superstitious, or to prohibit them to flourish (as it is, in practice), would be inhumane.

In some religions/spiritualities, the standard answer to the above is "It takes one to know one". — baker

So then it is evident to someone who's on the outside when a "fake" is speaking to someone who is enlightened?

Or do you need to be around such people to tell?

Why should we gossip about our feelings? I'm not that interested in the feelings of others nor do I wish to state mine exorbitantly. — GraveItty

One can endlessly debate about the wonders and achievements of science but it's just one view amongst others. — GraveItty

If it's all just opinion, then why aren't we just gossiping about preferences and hunches here? I don't think all opinions are equally accurate or useful. It's absurd to have to say so, since in practical life we constantly evaluate claims for their trustworthiness. Counting to see how many babies survive childhood or looking at how long the average human lives in time and place are not esoteric metrics. For me the scientific approach is something like refined common sense, which is to say a kind of basis we have in common. It's not some strange flower. Germ theory was inspired by a microscope, by seeing anthrax germs and hypothesizing them as a cause of disease...then testing that hypothesis. Ultimately we gained more control of nature, fending off a serious threat.

In some religions/spiritualities, the standard answer to the above is "It takes one to know one".
— baker

So then it is evident to someone who's on the outside when a "fake" is speaking to someone who is enlightened?

Or do you need to be around such people to tell? — Manuel

"It takes one to know one" means that in order to recognize an enlightened person, one must be enlightened as well. Only an arahant can recognize another arahant.

An outsider definitely cannot recognize an enlightened person.

An outsider definitely cannot recognize an enlightened person. — baker

Can an outsider spot a fraud, or do they camouflage themselves well?

Can an outsider spot a fraud, — Manuel

No.

or do they camouflage themselves well?

It's not clear it has to do with camouflage. The idea that religious/spiritual people would knowingly pose and try to present themselves as more religiously/spiritually advanced than they know they are seems implausible.

I think people just go along with what seems easiest, most comfortable, what they like (and sometimes, this means going for whatever brings them a rush of adrenaline).


I don't understand this obsession with figuring out who's a phony or a fraud, and who's genuine. I think this distinction is only relevant for those who try to operate in blind faith.

So a person claims to be a guru, a spiritual master, claims that he has found The Truth. So now what?