It is not the same form of familiarity with all objects that we encounter. Familiarity can take the form of dread, confusion , hatred or enlightenment. If we gave up living on the world we would have to give up any and all forms of familiarity , since familiarity implies world. So it’s not a question of giving up living in the world , but of how we live in it. Attaining a richly enlightened state requires utilizing all that the experience of world can provide in order to transcend the experiences of confusion, despair, chaos and hostility. — Joshs

A Buddhist monk would disagree.

Perhaps what is familiar is an entangled affair. In it, about it, one can inquire. Maybe the world is deeply grounded after all in something extraordinary, and enlightenment is an aesthetic/ethical matter, is grounded in value first, and cognition simply follows. Reason is, after all, recalling Hume, an empty vessel. God literally could appear to a person and reason wouldn't flinch. What would is a body of assumptions about the way the world is. But these never had any claim beyond mere familiarity in the first place. And really, how far does this reach into the world? Can it even touch questions like, why are we born to suffer and die?

The east west thing was big back in the 19th Century. I think most people realize now that there's nothing to the division. Mysticism is mysticism wherever it comes from and actual Asians laugh at buddhism. — frank

I strongly disagree. You see it here on the forum all the time.

Being nonreactive sounds even less alive than being non-attached. — praxis

You do understand that some reactions are liberating and others are enslaving, right? The distinction between negative reaction and positive response. It seems as though you are being deliberately obtuse. Is there any point continuing this?

I'm being obtuse?

I've agreed with you that being less attached can be good. Being less reactive can be good. As I've mentioned, 'less' and 'non' are different. It's the extreme (non) that I think is not natural (nature is balanced) or religious in nature.

There's no point in continuing. It's like arguing over the existence of God.

OK, but even though I've explained what I mean by "non", and what I think the nuanced (as opposed to the "straw" or stereotypical versions of) Buddhist views on that are as well, you keep responding as if I haven't explained those things, or at least so it seems to me. In any case I think we've worn this topic out, don't you agree?

Thanks for potentially diagnosing my situation, C. You may be right but your use of language is somewhat indirect and jargonistic to me - are you a denizen of academe perhaps?

What do you mean by - "too fixated on a propositional conclusion that requires no foundational alterations in the act of perception itself." Can you provide an example of a foundational alteration in the act of perception. And yes, I see how you referred to Wittgenstein earlier.

You are adding the word revelatory to enlightenment - can you spell out an example of such a phenomenon? Are you referring to the sudden attainment of higher consciousness?

You say 'forget about Jung' do you have reasons for dismissing him or is it just personal taste? — Tom Storm

Jung was a psychologist, notwithstanding his unorthodox claims. I want to look prior to this, logically prior, into the thought that puts the idea there in the first place. This is presupposed in anything said. I am pretty simple in this: the world is NOT a closed concept. It is in fact entirely open in every way, given that any proposition you can make about the world, loses grounding instantly on inquiry. That is, there is nothing that can be said that is not contingent. If you were to give this an illustration, there would be a person at the center, and arrows pointing outward in all directions. The caption would read: human knowledge.
This is not a contrivance, but the way the world really is, and the "is" of it cannot exceed the epistemology, putting ontology IN the observable conditions of the world. Thus, the world is, in this illustration, nothing but arrows, if you will, at the level of basic questions (obviously, prior to basic questions, there is nothing but answers everywhere).
What is enlightenment? It begins with this understanding, for contingent affairs are certainly not what we are after here. Enlightenment in the familiar sense, as in, where did the money go? Enlighten me! is not what is at issue. So here we are, arrows upon all things. Then the question is, how does this proceed beyond the abstract argument, and into Real enlightenment, and into the perceptual event itself? This IS the question. Otherwise, you are just playing with logic and language (the sign of a true analytic philosopher).
Until this is acknowledged, there is no meaningful concept of enlightenment even on the table. How to proceed from here is where it gets interesting.

I don't think we disagree to much about contingence and ontology. When I put questions to people it is not necessarily that I don't have a position or an answer already - I am interested in hearing what others think - especially if it is a different view to mine. I like to evolve my thinking - I am unsophisticated in philosophy.

My own view is that this notion of enlightenment is simply tied to various narratives people hold. I am unsure whether anything meaningful can be said about the subject, except from a historical perspective - that is, locating the idea in the context of this or that worldview.

To become enlightened was originally a quality of a few philosophers who saw that the truth about the world and ppl was diametrically opposed to what ppl generally thought or believed. It was the same thing as exiting the cave...

...but when the Enlightenment philosophers began to teach that this quality could be extended to the ppl at large it became a prejudice: was distorted and obscured.

I strongly disagree. You see it here on the forum all the time — T Clark

The east west thing? Yeah. They're old hippies.

This is not a contrivance, but the way the world really is, and the "is" of it cannot exceed the epistemology, putting ontology IN the observable conditions of the world. Thus, the world is, in this illustration, nothing but arrows, if you will, at the level of basic questions (obviously, prior to basic questions, there is nothing but answers everywhere). — Constance

As Buddhism has entered the conversation then a canonical reference would not be out of place.

There is, monks, an unborn –unbecome–unmade–unfabricated. If there were not that unborn–unbecome–unmade–unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born–become–made–fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn–unbecome–unmade–unfabricated, escape from the born–become–made–fabricated is discerned. — The Nibbāna Sutta

'The unborn' is a reference to what is not contingent and/or conditioned; it could equally be expressed as the 'unconditioned'. A natural question would be 'what is that?' or 'What is this referring to?' And my response would be that there is nothing against which to map or translate such expression in the modern philosophical lexicon. (Perhaps if you admitted the domain of philosophical theology, then there might be comparisons to be made with the 'wisdom uncreated' of the Biblical tradition, even if in other respects there are dissimilarities between the Buddhist and Christian understanding.)

Batchelor equates the unconditoned with the state of non-attachment, which makes sense to me since our reactivity is based on concepts of what should be the case, how people and relationships should be, how I should be, what I am entitled to and so on, that have been socially inculcated (conditioned). "Your original face before you were born".

So, his interpretation (which he backs up with quotations from the Pali canon) is an non-metaphysical one

To western philosophy, "enlightenment" generally means applying reason to answer questions and solve problems. In eastern philosophy, it means something different. There has been a lot of back and forth about what exactly that something different is. — T Clark

:up: (Premodern) 'Logos transposes Mythos', then (Modern) 'freethought critiques fact-free dogmas'

"Ecrasez l'infâme!" ~Voltaire

In [western] philosophy 'immanence and ecstatic habits' (i.e. reflective exercises) are more reliably(?) enlightening. — 180 Proof

So - would it be real were there no humans to be non-attached? Is it just an artefact of pyschology, do you think?

That saying 'show me your original face' is a Zen koan, I believe. As others have commented, it's easy to repeat popular Zen sayings, but it's another matter to walk the talk. Harold Stewart wrote that 'Those few who took the trouble to visit Japan and begin the practice of Zen under a recognized Zen master or who joined the monastic Order soon discovered that it was a very different matter from what the popularizing literature had led them to believe. They found that in the traditional Zen monastery zazen is never divorced from the daily routine of accessory disciplines. To attenuate and finally dissolve the illusion of the individual ego, it is always supplemented by manual work to clean the temple, maintain the garden, and grow food in the grounds; by strenuous study with attendance at discourses on the sutras and commentaries; and by periodical interviews with the roshi, to test spiritual progress. Acolytes are expected to develop indifference to the discomforts of heat and cold on a most frugal vegetarian diet and to abstain from self-indulgence in sleep and sex, intoxicating drinks and addictive drugs.' (Can't say I've emulated any of those behaviours myself, but it's useful to bear them in mind.)

My own view is that this notion of enlightenment is simply tied to various narratives people hold. — Tom Storm

How could it be otherwise?
Do you know anything that isn't somehow "tied to various narratives people hold"?

Do you know anything that isn't somehow "tied to various narratives people hold"? — baker

Exactly my point. Enlightenment is no different to other things people believe. It isn't something outside of people to be found in some particular way. It's just a story, like so many others we tell.

I watched A Hidden Life last night. Beautifully made and a beautiful (tragic though inspiring) story.

The growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs. — George Eliot

Enlightenment is no different to other things people believe. It isn't something outside of people to be found in some particular way. It's just a story, like so many others we tell. — Tom Storm

Perhaps we could say that enlightenment is our directing ourselves toward the development of more and more useful narratives.

I said in my thesis that what is being criticized as 'eternalism' is the belief that the aim of the religious life is to secure an unending series of lives - to live 'forever after' in propitious circumstances (which is somewhat similar to some popular ideas of heaven). That is not what Nirvāṇa means - it means the complete cessation of the process of rebirth. — Wayfarer

Sure. And, presumably, to really understand Nirvana one must experience it first.

But I think the difficulty tends to arise from what seems to be a multiplicity of Buddhist traditions and/or interpretations, in addition to apparent contradictions in the texts.

The English word “consciousness” may have been coined in the 17th century, but the concept of consciousness as “perception of cognitive processes” or something along those lines, certainly existed many centuries before together with words describing it, both in Europe and in India. Otherwise, it wouldn’t make sense to translate Sanskrit, Pali, or Greek words as “consciousness”.

The Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta says:

What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception... such are mental fabrications... such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance' (15)

And the Anguttara Nikaya:

Monks, in the world with its devas, Mara and Brahma, in this generation with its ascetics and brahmins, devas and humans, whatever is seen, heard, sensed and cognized, attained, searched into, pondered over by the mind—all that is fully understood by the Tathagata. That is why he is called the Tathagata (4:23)

If the Tathagata (“One who has arrived”) “understands everything that is perceived and pondered over by the mind”, “sees the disappearance of consciousness”, etc., this seems to suggest the presence of some form of consciousness or awareness that the Tathagata has.

This may not be the ordinary consciousness (viññāṇa) associated with everyday experience, as the Tathagata is said to “see the disappearance” of that. But it may still be a higher form of consciousness, otherwise we couldn’t speak of “seeing” and “understanding”. Unless, of course, it is not meant literally. But if it is not meant literally, how do we know that other statements are not to be taken literally, either?

This is where the Buddha eschews theories. Theories are dṛṣṭi, 'dogmatic viewpoints' - about consciousness or an eternal self or anything of the kind. The word 'consciousness' was only coined in the 17th century, and besides it's something you can loose. If you start to qualify it, 'ah, that's not what I mean by "consciousness"' then you're already 'tangled in thickets of views', to quote the Aggi-Vaccha sutta again.

Of course, there's a lot more that could be said, but this is a very long post already. Suffice to say that this criticism of 'objectifying' is fundamental to Buddhist philosophy, and really understanding it is to understand a 'stance' or way-of-being which is unique to Buddhism. Few do. — Wayfarer

I’m not sure the stance against the “objectification” of a higher reality is entirely unique to Buddhism. If Buddhists think, talk, and write about it, then they “objectify” it, anyway.

I think what tends to happen is that when people don’t know about something but they know (or are told) that it exists, the mind will compensate for the lack of information by imagining things and this can be equivalent to getting “tangled in theories”.

In any case, no one expects a full-blown theory. But a better explanation might help people to understand. If not, it amounts to saying that Buddhists have nothing to say on the topic, which doesn't seem to be the case.

My own view is that this notion of enlightenment is simply tied to various narratives people hold. I am unsure whether anything meaningful can be said about the subject, except from a historical perspective - that is, locating the idea in the context of this or that worldview. — Tom Storm

Well, you should know that enlightenment isn't JUST a narrative. Even narratives are not just narratives. When we understand a narrative, we can ask questions, basic questions that are no different from anything else, since everything is given to us in a narrative; this discussion with you is a narrative. But what is IN the narrative? A scientist will deliver a narrative (lecture) about star composition or plate tectonics and so on. Philosophical enlightenment is quite different because here, we think at the level of basic questions. Here is a piece of what I would call foundational enlightenment:

Understanding the world in propositions that have some truth designation, always begs the question: What is the point? Something may be true, there are many things true about what science tells us, that my cat is a finicky eater or my front porch needs sweeping, these are all true, but then, their being true is utterly without meaning in the form of being true. That is, formal truth bearing, as Hume said (not in so many words), has no value at all. The "point" of it lies with something having value. Enlightenment is concerned with truth, and therefore, to address the begged question we are forced to affirm that value is an essential part of this.

The matter then turns to value: what is it? An argument over the nature of value is THE philosophical discussion to have. Until the nature of value is revealed, talk about enlightenment is just question begging. This makes ethics/aesthetics the first order of affair. All that talk about Buddhists, theologians and Gods, rationalists and their quest for axiomatic assurance, all of these "narratives" come down to an analysis of value and its meaning.

Perhaps we could say that enlightenment is directed toward the development of more and more useful narratives. — Joshs

Begs a question, doesn't it?" What "good" is a narrative?

Begs a question, doesn't it?" What "good" is a narrative? — Constance

Good is whatever aids sense making , and sense making is anticipative. So what is good is whatever helps us anticipate events. And what’s the purpose of anticipating events? So that we will avoid being plunged into the chaos and confusion of a world which doesn’t make sense, where we do not know how to go on.

My own view is that this notion of enlightenment is simply tied to various narratives people hold. — Tom Storm

Do you know anything that isn't somehow "tied to various narratives people hold"? — baker

Perhaps we could say that enlightenment is our directing ourselves toward the development of more and more useful narratives. — Joshs

Well, you should know that enlightenment isn't JUST a narrative. Even narratives are not just narratives. When we understand a narrative, we can ask questions, basic questions that are no different from anything else, since everything is given to us in a narrative; — Constance

It has always seemed to me that enlightenment represents the end of narratives. I think that’s possible, although I Have no expectation, ambition, or even desire to reach that point.

On the other hand, as I noted in an earlier post, I am closer to enlightenment than any of you are.

That saying 'show me your original face' is a Zen koan, I believe. As others have commented, it's easy to repeat popular Zen sayings, but it's another matter to walk the talk. Harold Stewart wrote that 'Those few who took the trouble to visit Japan and begin the practice of Zen under a recognized Zen master or who joined the monastic Order soon discovered that it was a very different matter from what the popularizing literature had led them to believe. They found that in the traditional Zen monastery zazen is never divorced from the daily routine of accessory disciplines. To attenuate and finally dissolve the illusion of the individual ego, it is always supplemented by manual work to clean the temple, maintain the garden, and grow food in the grounds; by strenuous study with attendance at discourses on the sutras and commentaries; and by periodical interviews with the roshi, to test spiritual progress. Acolytes are expected to develop indifference to the discomforts of heat and cold on a most frugal vegetarian diet and to abstain from self-indulgence in sleep and sex, intoxicating drinks and addictive drugs.' — Wayfarer

I’ve always thought of Zen Buddhism as a joke. You follow all of the precepts. You complete all of the meditations and work. You become more and more frustrated.And then one day, you say screw this this is a bunch of baloney. Bingo, Enlightenment.

On the other hand, as I noted in an earlier post, I am closer to enlightenment than any of you are. — T Clark

Yes, but to be completely enlightened, you’d have to understand where the disparity between you and everyone else come from, and how to equalize it.

I like psychologist George Kelly’s notion of enlightenment:

“The universe that we presume exists has another important characteristic: it is integral. By that we mean it functions as a single unit with all its imaginable parts having an exact relationship to each other. This may, at first, seem a little implausible, since ordinarily it would appear that there is a closer relationship between the motion of my fingers and the action of the typewriter keys than there is, say, between either of them and the price of yak milk in Tibet. But we believe that, in the long run, all of these events—the motion of my fingers, the action of the keys, and the price of yak milk—are interlocked. It is only within a limited section of the universe, that part we call earth and that span of time we recognize as our present eon, that two of these necessarily seem more closely related to each other than either of them is to the third. A simple way of saying this is to state that time provides the ultimate bond in all relationships.”

“The more independent [reference] axes upon which we project an event the greater the psychological depth in which we see it, and the more meaningful it becomes to us.“ “Consider the coefficient of correlation between two variables. If that coefficient is anything but zero and if it expresses a linear relationship, then an infinite increase in the variance of one of the variables will cause the coefficient to approach unity as a limit. The magnitude of the coefficient of correlation is therefore directly proportional to the breadth of perspective in which we envision the variables whose relationship it expresses. This is basically true of all relationships within our universe.”

'The unborn' is a reference to what is not contingent and/or conditioned; it could equally be expressed as the 'unconditioned'. A natural question would be 'what is that?' or 'What is this referring to?' And my response would be that there is nothing against which to map or translate such expression in the modern philosophical lexicon. (Perhaps if you admitted the domain of philosophical theology, then there might be comparisons to be made with the 'wisdom uncreated' of the Biblical tradition, even if in other respects there are dissimilarities between the Buddhist and Christian understanding.) — Wayfarer

But then, the trick is to define, make accessible to the understanding in language and logic, what is not contingent. I think what you say is quite right, but this just puts OTHER questions before us, better questions, in analytic terms, because explanations are like what the physicists say about nature: it doesn't like vacuums, and has to "fill in" where one is exposed. Buddhist enlightenment, ot to put too fine a point on it, is. I think, exactly where all of this inquiry should be moving toward: toward the intuited apprehension of the world that yields....but then, there is the rub: SAYING what it is. It is not as if it cannot be said. Keep in mind that language as a kind of hard wired vessel that, in its pure form, has no content. Being in the world gives it its content. So then, what is the world giving out? The limitation that experiential truths are subjective and cannot spoken is simply a reflection of our inability have shared experiences. Language''s inability to "say" is grounded in the lack of experiencing the same things, as we do with everything else. Reading a preface to the Tibetan Book of the Dead, I came across the remark that it was common for monks to talk freely about their most intimate meditative experiences.

For me, the most interesting word being done is in French post modern theology/phenomenology: Michel Henri, Jean luc Marion, Jean luc Nancy and others. Why are they so interesting? Because they pursue a line of thinking that goes to the experiential "presence" itself. It is in presence qua presence of the ordinary world we live in wherein lies the clue to enlightenment.

Good is whatever aids sense making , and sense making is anticipative. So what is good is whatever helps us anticipate events. And what’s the purpose of anticipating events? So that we will avoid being plunged into the chaos and confusion of a world which doesn’t make sense, where we do not know how to go on. — Joshs

Also begs the question: Chaos and confusion are, well, bad. Why? This is the true course of philosophical inquiry, isn't it? Follow the rabbit down the hole of analysis until the questions run out. I claim this terminal point is a question: What is the value of all of this inquiry? This puts the final question to all other questions, as all contingencies press on to something that is not contingent. Wittgenstein put a do not enter sign right there. Foolish. We can build narrativesaround meta value, metaphysics, meta aesthetics, and so on. It is not as if there is nothing "there". There is the "Other". All roads lead here, and "here" is the value of value question. By my lights, the only one left.

Chaos and confusion are, well, bad. Why? — Constance

Because it is not the content of events which dictates value, but the organizational relationship between events and our construal of events. If we could see that events are nearly content-free, then all that determines value, sense and meaning is how effectively we assimilate events along dimensions of similarity and likeness with respect our our previous experience.
When we attribute ‘fat’ qualitative content to the world, then suddenly it seems that anticipatory sense making must be tied to some originating valuative content ( the goodness of God). That is , we’re stuck with the question of where value comes from. What is the genesis of quality? The answer is quality is a minimal place mark just substantive enough to distinguish one event from another but not substantial
enough to generate value, feeling , goodness or badness. These are a function of assimilatory dynamics
between construer and construed.

Becuase it is not the content of events which dictates value, but the the organizational relationship between events and a construct of events. If we could see that events are nearly content-free, then all that determines value, sense and meaning is how effectively we assimilate events along dimensions of similarity and likeness with respect our our previous experience.
When we assume ‘fat’ qualitative content to the world, the. suddenly it seems that anticipatory sense making must be tied to some originating valuative content ( the goodness of God). — Joshs

To find the originating content is not so far flung. Just observe the pain in your finger as the lighted match burns, or the love of another. Observe it, analyze it. There before the inquiring eye, there is the this originating content in the event itself. The burning sensation qua burning sensation is not a contingent "bad', for there is no way to contextualize it that would diminish its badness. No utility can touch this. In my mind, this analysis reveals the meta value that is equal to God's mighty judgment. This latter is just an anthropomorphic abstraction of this common "phenomenon" of the goodness and badness in all things. Concern, interest, appetitive wants, emotional desires, they all possess this one bottom line, if you will, of meaning that grounds the world in the "absolute".

On the other hand, as I noted in an earlier post, I am closer to enlightenment than any of you are. — T Clark

No, no. I am, heh, heh, "far closer".