for the avoidance of confusion in future, perhaps you might use the word moksha, or Kevala Jnana, or ushta instead? — karl stone
Also, the term 'enlightenment' from the 'age of enlightenment' is borrowed from the spiritual teachings found in the ancient scriptures. Back then, they thought that a scientific revolution would bring about that beatific society often alluded to in scriptures. Compared to now, obviously they were wrong, or it is yet to happen. — BrianW
Sorry old chap. I don’t like to result to insult but you are being a bit of an ass. Could you please cut out the assness. Just a little. — Dan84
Or perhaps you might accept that, like nearly every other English word in existence, "enlightenment" has several meanings, all of which are clearly understood (from context) by the vast majority of English speakers? Here's one link, but there are many others. The Eastern meaning of "enlightenment" is listed as a known meaning of this word. Must we only use words in the way that you, personally, use them? Piffle! — Pattern-chaser
Or perhaps you might accept that, like nearly every other English word in existence, "enlightenment" has several meanings, all of which are clearly understood (from context) by the vast majority of English speakers? Here's one link, but there are many others. The Eastern meaning of "enlightenment" is listed as a known meaning of this word. Must we only use words in the way that you, personally, use them? Piffle! — Pattern-chaser
I have to agree here Karl. I’m open to your reasoning and you are certainty intelligent, certainly, more so than myself for sure. But you are at risk of being closed.
Karl id like to start a personal dialogue with you discussing mainly these matters but others, related. Would you mind?
I’m no expert on debate but I feel like you are so maybe you can educate me in the process.
Let me know. — Dan84
What Krishna taught, the teachings of yoga, had nothing to do with religion. They were based on principles of the activities of our lives and apply to all occupations. Similar teachings were given by Buddha as dharma and had nothing to do with religion. They were just as much based on principles of the activities of our lives and apply to all occupations. — BrianW
I don't know the religious system from which you derive enlightment but, it is obvious you do not know the Bhagavad Gita or even the teachings of Buddha. None of those teachings have anything to do with mysticism. Their teachings were and have been practised by many including those whose occupations are in the fields of science, politics, religion, philosophy, etc. — BrianW
Also, the numerous machines and tools invented long before the 'science' revolution or 'the age of enlightenment' is a testament to the fact that analytical methods of investigation and the empirical value derived therefrom have been in existence for a very long time. Rationale was a part of humans long before the term science was coined. — BrianW
I don't know whether your scientific inclination allows you to use unfounded premises in your accusations but, I can assure you the valid teachings on enlightenment, eastern or otherwise, are not based on superstition. They are products of well reasoned out practices. — BrianW
Satisfy the Divine with your sacrificial deeds — and It will satisfy you! By acting for Its sake, you will achieve the highest good.
For the Divine satisfied with your sacrificial deeds will grant you whatever you need in life. The one who receives gifts and gives no gifts in return, is verily a thief!
The righteous who live on the remains of their sacrificial gifts to God are liberated from sins. But those who are anxious only about their own food — they feed on sin!
Thanks to the food, the bodies of creatures grow. The food arises from rain. The rain arises from Sacrifice. (I.e., as a result of right behavior of people.) Sacrifice is performance of right action.
- Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 3; 11-14. — BrianW
Ha no it’s not got anything to do with Buddhism it’s about having a conversation that could be interesting without having to put up with interruptions that dilute the content. — Dan84
From the POV of the western person seeking some spiritual dogma to follow because they cannot think for themselves, and must therefore borrow from others to lend their own personality a little depth - your dogma is entirely interchangeable with any religious dogma, and the claim it's not a religion - it's a philosophy, is a distinction without a difference. It's slightly different in its native context. There, it's an inter-generational religious practice - ideas ingrained into children before the age at which they're capable of rational judgement. — karl stone
I can think for myself, and think reality quite astonishing enough without needing to gussy it up with tawdry decoration. If you have anything as ineffable in your philosophy as wondering what the universe is expanding into, for example - then sign me up! If you have built any glittery thing to your god that's as magnificent as the starry sky, anything as beautiful as the sunrise, anything as profoundly excruciating as individual mortality against hope for the future of our children - then sign me up. Otherwise, I'll simply look reality in the eye and be humbled by its fearful majesty. — karl stone
Here's a real thing most people don't see. Ask yourself - do you know more today than yesterday? Do you know more, and better today than when you were five years old? Clearly, knowledge has a direction - from less and worse knowledge, to more and better knowledge over time - and yet you parade the ancientness of your philosophy as a claim to superiority. — karl stone
I'm sure you think so. But how could you say otherwise? To my mind, your philosophy is quite easily categorized alongside religious dogma - and it's a pretense you don't have have gods when you revere as gods claimants of a psychological state described as: "state of unity, harmony and freedom as a conscious being within an absolute reality." If this isn't a religion - but a philosophy, if it isn't incompatible with science, presumably you can explain in terms of cause and effect how... rain arises from sacrifice. What this seems like to me, is a primitive terror that the crops will fail because the rains did not come - written into religious practice. What does this sacrifice entail? I imagine goods deeds and giving money to the church. It's no different to Catholicism - behavioral control by the clergy. i.e. the antithesis of Enlightenment. — karl stone
Here, sacrifice refers to nature. Nature is a prescribed system of activity which, as far as is known, unfolds ultimate utility for reality.The rain arises from Sacrifice. Sacrifice is performance of right action.
I'm quite sure, if asked, most people would understand the term enlightenment to refer to some eastern spiritual nonsense, and very few would know anything about the 18th century rationalist philosophical movement. What does that tell you? — karl stone
What does that tell you? That science, while surrounding us with miracles of technology - and providing real knowledge of the world, is nonetheless held in contempt. — karl stone
I seek to address that - because truth is important, particularly as we face global scale existential threats. No amount of limb bending and chanting at the beyond is going to solve climate change. We need to complete the Enlightenment project. — karl stone
↪BrianW
Wouldn’t philosophy be dull if it was just science.
Imagine. — Dan84
Sorry old chap. I don’t like to result to insult but you are being a bit of an ass. Could you please cut out the assness. Just a little. — Dan84
I did try. I asked him to let it go, but he persisted. So I tried asking nicely - but I'm meeting with that infuriating denial of genuine human emotion Buddhists affect - as a pretense of spirituality. — karl stone
Here the irony rests: to reach enlightenment, a soul must act selflessly. Selfless action is required to be released from the karma cycle, but the action will never be entirely sacrificial because the motivation behind altruistic action is personal gain. As a result, enlightenment is unreachable because selfish intent can never be separated from altruistic action. — gnat
the motivation behind altruistic action is personal gain.
Although I don’t think there is reincarnation, and I think heaven is a state of consciousness not a place, one should try to be beneficial or at least harmless for its own sake. — Noah Te Stroete
, and I think heaven is a state of consciousness not a place
, one should try to be beneficial or at least harmless for its own sake.
This topic was created to discuss spirituality, enlightenment in particular. The persistence is yours. The derail is yours. The unfriendliness, that's yours too. Time to stop now. — Pattern-chaser
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.