... will to nothingness is still willing. Self for Nietzsche isnt an entity but a vector of change. — Joshs

:up:

Responding to the right person/thing at the right time, in the right place, to the right amount/degree, for the right duration. Not too much, not too less, just right. — TheMadFool

This habit is wisdom. Enlightenment, Fool, is (the shock? of) recognizing the significance of – need, beginning with oneself, for cultivating – wisdom (aka "the daughter of experience").

I think to be enlightened is the realization that there are things that you don't know that you don't know.

Everyone knows there are things they don't know. But not everyone knows there are things that they don't know they don't know. — James Riley

:fire: Thus, "the enlightened" live (more) worthwhile examined lives

I think also for some people, and I'm not thinking of anyone particular here, there's an emotional, almost visceral reaction to certain words. Before the person even considers the idea, the response is there already, dismissive and pugnacious - almost like a 'lizard brain', flight or fight response. You say Christianity, they immediately blurt out 'deception and pedophilia..'. That kind of thing. Maybe attachment can be added to the list of provocative trigger words. — Tom Storm

An initial fight or flight response is entirely appropriate to all things religious, imo, because of its power to attach.

Why should enlightenment be the same for each of us?

Why should enlightenment be the same for each of us? — Banno

Good question. I'm not sure it is meant to be the same but I have a poor understanding of the idea, hence this OP. Would there perhaps be certain themes in common?

Why should enlightenment be the same for each of us? — Banno

What if it were profoundly different for each of us? What would that suggest about the limits of intersubjective harmonization of personal viewpoints and experiences? That sounds like an awfully impoverished notion of enlightenment.

What if it were profoundly different for each of us? — Joshs

...then enlightenment is enriched by not being limited....

One can play all sorts of word games here, because there is no "intersubjective harmonization of personal viewpoints and experiences".

A sure sign that someone has not achieved enlightenment is their claim that they have achieved enlightenment. Enlightenment is attributed to someone by others. It's telling someone the colour of the beetle in their box.

Would there perhaps be certain themes in common? — Tom Storm

Or a family resemblance? Point is, there is no fact of the matter. One man's Guru is another's crackpot.

So this thread can go on indefinitely, as the various opinions of the participants vie for prominence. It's not that nothing can be decided so much as that whatever one decides will be right.

Why should enlightenment be the same for each of us? — Banno

Good question. I'm not sure it is meant to be the same but I have a poor understanding of the idea, hence this OP. Would there perhaps be certain themes in common? — Tom Storm

Why should the experience of an apple be the same for all of us. Why should the feeling of pain be the same for all of us. People have shared experiences that are worth talking about.

What if it were profoundly different for each of us?
— Joshs

...then enlightenment is enriched by not being limited.... — Banno

But for Wittgenstein it cannot be profoundly different for each of us because experience is profoundly relational. That insight was his enlightenment, showing the fly the way out of the bottle.

Thus, "the enlightened" live (more) worthwhile examined lives — 180 Proof

Yes.

When I hear the word "enlightened" I think of the Enlightenment, which then makes me wonder what distinguishes leaders of that era from everyone else of that era. When I look at everyone else of that era, I see folks who knew. They knew they were peasants, they knew they were clergy, they knew they were aristocracy; whatever. They knew. Everything was ordered and everyone had their place. That was the way things were and that was the way things should be.

Enlightenment = not knowing, but wondering. Examining. Questioning. And, like they said in the 60s, "Question Authority."

I worry about that last one though, because a lot of Trumpettes think they are doing exactly that. Hmmmm. But I think they lack curiosity, examination. They "know." They don't question authority. They they don't question. I guess one who questions authority should at least listen to the answers. After all, authority is not necessarily wrong simply by being authority. Might is not necessarily wrong just because it is mighty. Power is not absolutely corrupt simply because it is powerful, and maybe somewhat corrupt.
The state might actually be weaker if it is deep. When you lose a lawful election you should take your licks. If you want to consider yourself enlightened, then you have to argue with something besides a temper tantrum and threats. We're supposed to be adults here.

Why should the experience of an apple be the same for all of us. — T Clark

(My emphasis)

No reason.

But the apple - that can be the same for all of us.

People have shared experiences that are worth talking about. — T Clark

Sure. Don't let me stop you. As I pointed out, there is much that can be said here.

...for Wittgenstein it cannot be profoundly different for each of us because experience is profoundly relational. — Joshs

Sure, the box might be the same, but the beetle?

:100:

We're supposed to be adults here. — James Riley

Watch a few pop films. They are written for children. Problems are sorted by hitting each other.

That's the spirit of the times.

When I hear the word "enlightened" I think of the Enlightenment, — James Riley

Have a look at this post where I attempt to disambiguate the word in respect of its European and Eastern applications. (Not that it makes a lot of difference to the mob.)

...for Wittgenstein it cannot be profoundly different for each of us because experience is profoundly relational.
— Joshs

Sure, the box might be the same, but the beetle? — Banno

If the beetle is an important part of my life, then this will be because it is an important part of my social life.

party on, dude.

Have a look at this post where I attempt to disambiguate the word in respect of its European and Eastern applications. (Not that it makes a lot of difference to the mob.) — Wayfarer

:up: Good read, thanks. I'm comfortable with the Eastern notion too, and even a combination, but, other than my theory of All (which I endeavor to explain in terms a western view might entertain) I try avoid the eastern. It seems so personal to me and I hate to subject it to the slings and arrows of those who (think) the "know" better. There is room for it in my heart, though, and I think that's good enough.

Maybe instead of defaulting the period of the "Enlightenment" I should just visualize a person with a light bulb going off over their head and a smile on their face:



Another angle that might offend everyone is "woke." :grin:

That's the spirit of the times. — Banno

I know, right! Ugh!

The language used to describe enlightenment seems messy. It's hard to assess what is being described.

I'll avoid the Eastern and religious terminology and pull out some of the English words that keep coming up. Naturally, I'm assuming words fall short in describing ineffable states of awareness.

'Self-actualization'; 'self-annihilation'; 'self-realization'; 'liberation'; 'awakening'; 'cessation'.

And there are two other words which often come up which I assume refer to a higher consciousness aspect to the term - 'union' and 'perfection'.

Looking at the on-line sales pitch from folk like Sadhguru of the yoga tradition, reminds me of my own time spent with theosophists and assorted mystics in the 1980s. I'm trying not to be cynical but clearly enlightenment still requires marketing and, these days, a website...

"Enlightenment means a conscious annihilation of yourself. For most people, it will take a certain amount of time and maturing to understand that whatever you make yourself to be, in the end, it is frustrating and not enough. However wonderful you make yourself, still it is not enough. Only when you disappear, everything becomes wonderful."

Awkward language notwithstanding - Sadhuru is getting at something people haven't raised so far on this thread. The merits of enlightenment and the concomitant experience of everything becoming 'wonderful'. I wonder (sorry) what this means. It seems antithetical to self-annihilation however. Who exactly is the self experiencing the extinguished wonderfulness? Or is this what happens when mere words are used to describe the numinous?

Awkward language notwithstanding - Sadhuru is getting at something people haven't raised so far on this thread. The merits of enlightenment and the concomitant experience of everything becoming 'wonderful'. I wonder (sorry) what this means. It seems antithetical to self-annihilation however. Who exactly is the self experiencing the extinguished wonderfulness? Or is this what happens when mere words are used to describe the numinous? — Tom Storm

The merits are pleasure, because who doesn't love 'wonderfulness', and reduced anxiety, perhaps particularly existential anxiety.

Neurologically speaking, selfhood is embedded throughout the mind, I understand, though a particular network, namely the default mode network, is believed to be the problematic portion. The deactivation of this area reduces "monkey mind" and a sense of self, though there are other parts of the brain that are still aware of the environment, body, etc.

I think what Nishitami failed to grasp was that will to
nothingness is still willing. Self for Nietzsche isnt an entity but a vector of change. — Joshs

:up:

Why should enlightenment be the same for each of us? — Banno

It wouldn't be. It wasn't even for the Zen masters according to the canonical texts.

It seems antithetical to self-annihilation however. Who exactly is the self experiencing the extinguished wonderfulness? Or is this what happens when mere words are used to describe the numinous? — Tom Storm

'Self-annihilation' can't help but sound like suicide. I'm sure what is meant by it is much more like the quoted passage - absence of egotism or ego-centeredness. Which turns out not to be the abscence of anything, if there is no ego in the first place.

Who exactly is the self experiencing the extinguished wonderfulness? — Tom Storm

Ego is basically mental activity and related physiological patterns comprising 'thought thinking about itself'. It's an inevitable function of living in an individualist culture. Basically ego is everything to the majority of people. The defacto slogan of modern culture is nihil ultra ego, nothing beyond self.

In Vedanta, the ego is dissolved into Ātman, the self of all beings. Ramana Maharishi was an Advaitin sage.

Buddhism doesn't teach in terms of ātman but has in common the aim of ego-lessness.

Now that these ideas have become part of Western culture to some extent, it's become clear (at least to me) that they mirror some fundamental ideas in Christian culture, although Eastern religions don't carry the same historical baggage.

Enlightenment means a conscious annihilation of yourself. For most people, it will take a certain amount of time and maturing to understand that whatever you make yourself to be, in the end, it is frustrating and not enough. However wonderful you make yourself, still it is not enough. Only when you disappear, everything becomes wonderful." — Tom Storm

This reminds me of the phrase "beside one's self". It is a state, I think, where awareness exists, but it is not an awareness of one's self. It it actually a super-awareness of everything but one's self. One ceases to be, and all there is is now. No past, no future, no self. Just now. I find this in the hunt, I've found it at my child's birth, maybe a few moments of unbridled emotion. I can see how the examining of an examined life, or that eureka moment in the lab, or the middle of the night, or maybe a glimpse of something when meditation is mastered, might all be construed the same, both east and west. A flash of nirvana. But only a flash. A tease. Maybe the eastern effort to harness it, through some kind of practice, is the equivalent of domesticating something wild: the result becomes us and we like it, but it's a watered-down version what we wanted when we saw it. It is not enough.

"Enlightenment means a conscious annihilation of yourself. For most people, it will take a certain amount of time and maturing to understand that whatever you make yourself to be, in the end, it is frustrating and not enough. However wonderful you make yourself, still it is not enough. Only when you disappear, everything becomes wonderful."

Awkward language notwithstanding - Sadhuru is getting at something people haven't raised so far on this thread. The merits of enlightenment and the concomitant experience of everything becoming 'wonderful'. I wonder (sorry) what this means. It seems antithetical to self-annihilation however. Who exactly is the self experiencing the extinguished wonderfulness? Or is this what happens when mere words are used to describe the numinous? — Tom Storm

I see that as entirely consistent with the idea of non-attachment. Attachment to things is slavery; non-attachment is freedom. Is freedom not more wonderful than slavery?

Obviously Sadhguru would not be claiming that we literally disappear, but the idea of ourselves as separate self-contained egos who consequently suffer a terrible anxiety and loneliness which can only be compensated for by "grasping" for objects of desire and distraction, might "disappear" when we become non-attached, because that is just what non-attachment means.

Maybe the eastern effort to harness it, through some kind of practice, is the equivalent of domesticating something wild: the result becomes us and we like it, but it's a watered-down version what we wanted when we saw it. It is not enough. — James Riley

I think this is a mistake. The idea is not to harness "It", but to harness the ego that occludes "it".

I think this is a mistake. The idea is not to harness "It", but to harness the ego that occludes "it". — Janus

Six of one, half dozen of the other. Harnessing the ego in an effort to "achieve" (harness) the selfless state may be doomed to failure simply for the harnessing (or effort to achieve, if you will).

This issue has been substantially dealt with in Eastern (and some Western) spiritual practices. The "effort of non-effort" and all that. It only seems to be a problem to the dualistic Western mind set.

This is not to suggest it is easy, far from it. I don't know for sure that it is possible to completely eliminate attachment and become permanently non-attached (enlightened). But I am humble enough to realize that I don't know that it is not possible either.

I think the idea that it is about making an effort to "harness" anything is a common mistake. It is more about an effort to keep "coming back" to and allow something more primordial.

So, I shouldn't have spoken about harnessing the ego; I think it's more about moving away from it.

This issue has been substantially dealt with in Eastern (and some Western) spiritual practices. The "effort of non-effort" and all that. It only seems to be a problem to the dualistic Western mind set.

This is not to suggest it is easy, far from it. I don't know for sure that it is possible to completely eliminate attachment and become permanently non-attached (enlightened). But I am humble enough to realize that I don't know that it is not possible either.

I think the idea that it is about making an effort to "harness" anything is a common mistake. It is more about an effort to keep "coming back" to and allow something more primordial.

So, I shouldn't have spoken about harnessing the ego; I think it's more about moving away from it. — Janus

It's a word choice problem that is not a problem. I'll use any word you want for "an effort to keep "coming back" to and allow something more primordial." My point was, it may be like trying to out run your shadow. Run, turn out the light, stop trying, whatever. Trying to be eternally in the now may be futile simply for the trying or cessation of trying. I'm no guru either, but I've had glimpses of something that may not be mine to have, at least perpetually.

All the best to those who want to put in the work, eastern or otherwise. Good on them. I've got a different life to live. There will be plenty of time for nirvana when I'm dead.