Well, that's certainly not the intent of compassion. I often conflate compassion with empathy; but, it seems to me that there is a sincere desire to share with others in their toil and suffering. Hence, I view anyone as saying "I am enlightened" to be full of himself or herself. — Posty McPostface

I would extend that also to anyone acting as though they are enlightened, even if they don't come right out and say they are. I guess I just don't like the morally restrictive, in the kind of puritanical sense, side of Buddhism or any other religion. I don't think it's possible to generalize and say things like 'homosexuality is no good' or 'it's not right to eat meat' or 'it's not right to take drugs'. I mean , I never liked the whole 'Right Livelihood' and 'Right Thinking' aspects of Buddhism: as though there are certain livelihoods or ways of thinking that are just not right for anyone. Now I am only referring here to livelihoods and thinkings that do no intentional harm to others; obviously ethics is more subtle and nuances than the moral precepts of Buddhism would allow.

Hence, the need to isolate from the problems of the world? I don't know how the Dali Lama get's up every morning and dismisses the negativity of the world. Should I meditate more? — Posty McPostface

As Ashleigh Brilliant says (paraphrased): My biggest problem is what to do about all the things I cannot do anything about

As Ashleigh Brilliant says (paraphrased): My biggest problem is what to do about all the things I cannot do anything about — Janus

Hence, Stoicism? I've always preferred Stoicism over Buddhism due to its modern appeal. The Enchiridion is a fantastic book, that I often think about.

I have long been drawn to Stoicism after reading Meditations. I haven't read much else though, so I'll investigate.

I haven't read much else though, so I'll investigate. — Janus

http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html

Thanks Posty! :smile:

I am extremely doubtful about the veracity or even coherence of the common notion of enlightenment as some kind of esoteric, higher, objective knowledge. — Janus

That doesn't amount to saying anything beyond what you believe, but as you make that point clear every time such an idea comes up, there's plainly no further use in discussing it, so I will refrain in future.

Well, what do you expect me to think if, as is apparently the case, no coherent account of higher esoteric objective knowledge can be found?

I have searched extensively and never been able to find any such account. If you genuinely wished to discuss it you could present an account (even if it were merely tentative) and it could be examined In order to see if it is self-consistent and consistent with general experience. Otherwise we will just be whistling in the wind or pouring from the empty into the void.

I mean nothing anybody says really amounts to saying anything beyond what they believe; but if they want others to be convinced it is incumbent upon them to give good rationally or evidentially justified reasons. Once they have presented what they believe to be such reasons for their position, as I believe I have done (or at least attempted to do), then those purportedly good reasons can be critiqued. I don't see that you have even attempted to provide rational justification for your position, and you don't attempt to directly engage and critique what I present either; instead you claim that is I who am being dismissive, when ironically it is really you.

I think it means being fully accepting of what and who you are, though; 'being comfortable in your own skin'. so to speak; and that may take a lot of work. — Janus

Or maybe not?

What is the mechanism of "not accepting"? What is "not accepting" literally made of? Thought. To the degree we turn down the volume of thought the "not accepting" goes away.

Yes, a temporary solution. But then all of life is a temporary solution. Eating, sleeping, digesting, sex, breathing, all temporary solutions requiring ongoing management. So why do we demand anything more from another mechanical operation of the body, thinking?

Maybe there's a bit more than a temporary solution? As example, if one has reliable access to food, one still has to eat, but one is not worried about it too much. If one has a reliable temporary solution to over thinking and not accepting etc, then these things still happen, but one doesn't worry it about so much, doesn't get all wrapped up in the drama to the same degree.

What typically happens in conversations on these topics is the focus is often on "enlightenment" some form of permanent solution, because that's what's glamorous and exciting etc. Ok, maybe that's possible, I wouldn't know. But why not nail down a realistic doable temporary solution strategy first, before concerning oneself with what may not even be possible?

I am extremely doubtful about the veracity or even coherence of the common notion of enlightenment as some kind of esoteric, higher, objective knowledge. — Janus

I would agree that "enlightenment" is certainly not common, and that there is often considerable self delusion involved in those who explore such things, but that doesn't automatically equal such "esoteric, higher, objective knowledge" being non-existent.

My guess is that there are considerable translation obstacles involved, like trying to explain color to a blind man. What seems to typically happen is that an end of the bell curve person has some rare experience or insight, and when they try to share it with others the message is quickly turned in to a word circus, which is then memorized and repeated, losing fidelity with every re-telling. You know, like when you copy music from one cassette tape to another 34 times. By the end of that process the primary thing remaining is static.

I know this has probably been posted but I want couldn't find it and I wanted to repost it as I respond to it.

"I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organize a belief. A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organize it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others. This is what everyone throughout the world is attempting to do. Truth is narrowed down and made a plaything for those who are weak, for those who are only momentarily discontented. Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley. If you would attain to the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices." (https://www.jkrishnamurti.org/about-dissolution-speech)

I've bolded what I thought was key here from the expanded quote. I think we can see here that there is hyperbole here. As he clearly shows us the "path" to Truth; ascendance through the valley (unafraid) perseverance through the fear.

pathless land means:
There is a land with no paths.
So the truth is land itself. Truth isn't moving anywhere in is just there. In the land.

What is the mechanism of "not accepting"? What is "not accepting" literally made of? Thought. To the degree we turn down the volume of thought the "not accepting" goes away. — Jake

I agree that 'not accepting' is driven by thoughts, but it consists in a feeling; which can be shown by the fact that the same thoughts about the self might occur without the feelings of non-acceptance.

I also agree that there are initially only only temporary solutions and that the relinquishing of attachment to the kinds of thoughts that cause tension and preoccupation must be sustained by constant attention at first, but may subsequently be established by habit. but then no "permament' solution would seem to be possible since my situation is constantly changing, even if only in subtle ways. We can get better at it just as can with say playing music; but there will always be room for improvement.

The kind of radical shift away from any preoccupation with self at all may be possible in rare cases; but as i have argued this is really a shift in affect, and is not comprised by any "higher esoteric objective knowledge" that has been attained.

but that doesn't automatically equal such "esoteric, higher, objective knowledge" being non-existent.

My guess is that there are considerable translation obstacles involved, like trying to explain color to a blind man. — Jake

I haven't been arguing that there are no so-called 'higher states' (although I would prefer to call them 'altered states' since 'higher' carries the connotation that they are given from some transcendent realm rather than that they are inherent possibilities of the organism itself). I have merely been contending that that they are affective states, not states of determinate knowledge. In other words being in such a state, no matter how exalted, tells us nothing definite about what is true metaphysically speaking.

Such states cannot guarantee that there is an afterlife, whether resurrection or reincarnation, or that karma is true, or that a loving God exists, for example. I have no argument with people being convinced about such things by their own experiences, though, since that is a matter for them. But it is unjustifiable that people should interpret their own experiences in such a way that they believe they provide good reasons that others should believe anything in particular about afterlife, God or karma and so on.

My frustration stems from the fact that I have tried to explain that this is what I am saying to @Wayfarer so many times and he always misinterprets what I am saying, takes it as a personal attack, and dismisses what I am saying without engaging it in discussion, by (ironically) claiming that it is I who am being dismissive.

All I am asking for is a good reason to believe that the altered states of one could provide any reasons, beyond subjective feelings about it, to influence another's beliefs. I have never found any such reason, and that is why I reject the Guru phenomenon (although I don't want to deny anyone's right to follow a guru if they want to want to; I just think that intellectual honesty should lead them to admit that their decision is affectively, not rationally, driven).

pathless land means:
There is a land with no paths.
So the truth is land itself. Truth isn't moving anywhere in is just there. In the land. — One here

Truth is in landfill?

I don’t have the discipline to not do this. I’m kicking myself in the buttocks already.

First off I never read anything by this guy, but I’ve heard of one of em’ poetic sayin’s that I find more aesthetically pleasing. Here paraphrased from imperfect memory: Reality is a mountain whose material is composed of multiple paths of truth amid our deceptions and self-deceptions, and holds as its zenith Truth, a state of being where all these paths of truth converge into the same thing. So I disagree with this pathlessness interpretation and approach people have been speaking about here … this at an emotive level.

Also:

[...]I do know that those claiming that they are awakened are most likely not. — Posty McPostface

What about those who claim to be sleeping? If a person tells us that they’re asleep, should we trust that they are in fact sleepwalking? I think not.

(For the record, I agree with you, Posty. Just thinking that what I just said is funny. :joke: )

Yes truth is in landfill.
You are right.
Most people have phyilosophy for wierds like you and me.

I agree that 'not accepting' is driven by thoughts, but it consists in a feeling; which can be shown by the fact that the same thoughts about the self might occur without the feelings of non-acceptance. — Janus

Not by "thoughts", but by thought. Not the contents of the medium, the medium itself.

Option 1: If we diagnose the source of the non-acceptance as thoughts, that suggests a psychological process where we examine all the thoughts, try to keep the good ones, dump the bad ones etc. You know, some people spends literally decades in therapy trying to dig through the endless pile of thoughts.

Option 2: If on the other hand we diagnose the source of non-acceptance as thought itself, that suggests a far more direct and efficient remedy, lower the volume of thought through simple mechanical methods.

I also agree that there are initially only only temporary solutions and that the relinquishing of attachment to the kinds of thoughts that cause tension and preoccupation must be sustained by constant attention at first, but may subsequently be established by habit. but then no "permament' solution would seem to be possible since my situation is constantly changing, even if only in subtle ways. We can get better at it just as can with say playing music; but there will always be room for improvement. — Janus

Right, no permanent solution is possible, except perhaps for uniquely talented people too rare to be relevant. I would ask, why do we expect a permanent solution to be available, why do we go looking for such a thing? What other process of the body can be permanently put in order? Why do we calmly accept that every other process of the body requires ongoing maintenance, but then expect to find some permanent perfect solution to the negative by-products of the thinking apparatus?

In the rest of your post you seem to be arguing that enhanced experiences can not deliver reliable data, that all explanations of such experiences are suspect.

That's fine with me, but why worry about it? Why not embrace the experiences for themselves, and simply discard any explanations of them, whether our own or somebody else's? If thought is the primary barrier to such experiences, isn't ANY explanation basically a step backward?

Not by "thoughts", but by thought. Not the contents of the medium, the medium itself. — Jake

Obviously, though some thoughts are more joyous than others. If you are thinking 'I am no good', 'I am unworthy' 'I am useless' and so on then attachment to such thoughts will lead to non-acceptance of self. If on the other hand you think 'I can do this', 'I have the ability to be creative', 'My ideas are valuable' and so on, these thoughts embody acceptance of self. If you become excessively attached to them, though, you may become a megalomaniac or a narcissist. So it is all a subtle balancing act.

Option 1: If we diagnose the source of the non-acceptance as thoughts, that suggests a psychological process where we examine all the thoughts, try to keep the good ones, dump the bad ones etc. You know, some people spends literally decades in therapy trying to dig through the endless pile of thoughts. — Jake

As I said I think non-acceptance is a feeling and it may be driven by thoughts. It's possible to learn to recognize the thoughts that cause feelings of non-acceptance and let them go. i would say generally that thoughts or thought is not the problem, but rather attachment to thoughts, or indeed attachment to thinking, is the problem.

I don't see that "lowering the volume of thought" is the answer. It may be an answer, but it will not be for everyone, since everyone is different. certainly lowering the degree of attachment to thought, whatever the volume, would seem to be a good strategy, though.

In the rest of your post you seem to be arguing that enhanced experiences can not deliver reliable data, that all explanations of such experiences are suspect.

That's fine with me, but why worry about it? Why not embrace the experiences for themselves, and simply discard any explanations of them, whether our own or somebody else's? If thought is the primary barrier to such experiences, isn't ANY explanation basically a step backward? — Jake

Yes, I do think that 'enhanced experiences can not deliver reliable data, but I do think they can deliver enhanced feelings, and that is their value. So, I am not at all worrying about their inability to deliver reliable data, and I have been arguing precisely for "discarding (or at least disregarding in the sense of not taking too seriously) any explanations of them". And again, I don't believe thought is "the primary barrier to such experiences" although it may be if one is too attached to the thoughts. I think explanations can themselves be interesting, inspiring and even practically useful, provided one is not too attached to them, and entertains them only a provisional basis.

I am extremely doubtful about the veracity or even coherence of the common notion of enlightenment as some kind of esoteric, higher, objective knowledge. — Janus

There are surely many obstacles on the path to enlightenment. But, whatever enlightenment actually is, I am confident that it isn't "objective". :chin:

No more wearing masks can be a challenge in this parade called "life". — Wallows

:up: :smile: Yes, ask an autist, for whom 'masking' has a special meaning. :wink: For us, no masking means being outcast, but let's not get sidetracked by the challenges autists face. :wink:

:up: :smile: Yes, ask an autist, for whom 'masking' has a special meaning. :wink: For us, no masking means being outcast, but let's not get sidetracked by the challenges autists face. :wink: — Pattern-chaser

My best friend is an autist. I don't have many friends because I value honesty and the quality of 'not putting on masks' above all else.

:up:

A mask is like a coat you put on. The coat of a professional contains all those little mannerisms and speech patterns that go with being a professional.

The maskless is no one and everyone, I think.

A mask is like a coat you put on. — frank

I had a dream that I was walking naked and nobody was paying attention to me. Felt pretty good.

I had that once while I was awake, except I wasn't naked. I had just had a really harrowing night. I walked around feeling like a ghost. Somebody looked at me and it shocked me that they could see me. I carry that experience with me. It does feel good.

I had that once while I was awake, except I wasn't naked. I had just had a really harrowing night. I walked around feeling like a ghost. Somebody looked at me and it shocked me that they could see me. I carry that experience with me. It does feel good. — frank

Sorry that you felt like a ghost. Only in dreams, I suppose.

:death:

The question is really whether so-called higher states of consciousness can yield genuine metaphysical knowledge; objective truths (as opposed to subjective feelings and beliefs) about the nature of reality and the 'meaning' of human life.

There is a sense in which I think such experiences are not merely subjective because of their reliable commonality, but that is true of subjective experiences and states in general (being in love for example).

Very interesting point worthy of starting a topic. How have you been able to resolve the issue?

Thanks, Posty. I'm a bit time poor at the moment to start a thread. Of course you could start one on the topic if you like, and I would try to contribute as much as limited time allows.

I don't think I have 'resolved the issue'; to be honest I can't imagine what a resolution would look like beyond giving a negative answer to the question I posed in the first paragraph of my previous post, given that there does not seem to be any rationally or evidentially supportable positive answer to be found. :smile: