Enlighenment in the sense of 'awakening' relies on qualities of mind other than the objective:
The "perennial philosophy" is...defined as a doctrine which holds [1] that as far as worth-while knowledge is concerned not all are equal, but that there is a hierarchy of persons, some of whom, through what they are, can know more than others; [2] that there is a hierarchy also of the levels of reality, some of which are more "real," because more exalted than others; and [3] that the wise of old have found a wisdom which is true, even though it has no empirical basis in observations which can be made by everyone and everybody; and that in fact there is a rare and unordinary faculty in some of us by which we can attain direct contact with actual reality--through the Prajñāpāramitā of the Buddhists, the logos of Parmenides, the Sophia of Aristotle and others, Spinoza's amor dei intellectualis, Hegel's Vernunft, and so on; and [4] that true teaching is based on an authority which legitimizes itself by the exemplary life and charismatic quality of its exponents.
— Edward Conze, Buddhist Philosophy and its European Parallels
Whereas, in secular culture, there are no criteria for such a distinction. Hence all the argument about 'how to judge the Enlightened' (which is a fair question from the secular POV.) — Wayfarer
Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment. — Immanuel Kant
Of course, secular culture does not rely on authority. — praxis
Brings to mind the only means I've so far found of making any type of reasonable sense of JC's statement that "truth shall set you free" — javra
the Eastern conception of avidya (translated in some texts as 'nescience') carries the implication that real knowledge is itself salvific. I think you find that in Platonism and ancient philosophy generally - — Wayfarer
Google Translate renders it as 'nothing more than I'. What I meant it to mean is 'nothing more than self'. It's a sarcastic reference to the outlook of liberal indivualism, that the individual ego is the sole arbiter of truth. — Wayfarer
The fact that someone can be one's guru and another's charlatan just goes to show that there is no objectively determinable fact of the matter about whether anyone is a guru or a charlatan.
— Janus
Or does it just say that determining the difference is very hard? — Tom Storm
"Is this person a genuine teacher or is he a charlatan?" is the wrong question. The right question is more along the lines of, "Whom am I looking for? A genuine teacher, or do I just want someone who will provide me with another fancy layer of denial and delusion?" — baker
"Is this person a genuine teacher or is he a charlatan?" is the wrong question. The right question is more along the lines of, "Whom am I looking for? A genuine teacher, or do I just want someone who will provide me with another fancy layer of denial and delusion?"
— baker
I don't think this helps much. I think a lot of people start with this latter question and still end up with a charlatan - but I get your point. — Tom Storm
Of course, secular culture does not rely on authority.
— praxis
'nihil ultra ego' — Wayfarer
I recently saw a 2007 interview with Dr Hubert Dreyfus, the great Heidegger scholar. He considers H to be possibly the greatest philosopher 'of all time'. Enlightened? Well if Kant is then... Yet there is the Nazi Party membership issue and Heidegger's belief in Hitler. What do we do when one of the smartest philosophers of all time (debatable, sure) buys into possibly the most evil 20th century movement? Dreyfus says he can't find the words to explain it. — Tom Storm
How do you, or Dreyfus, explain why Nazism is so evil?
If you want to set yourselves up as judges over Heidegger's enlightenment status, then surely you should have the words to explain Heidegger's involvement with Nazism. — baker
'm not sure we're on the same page here. — baker
Because [suffering] can't plausibly be denied.
That, incidentally, is the 'First Noble Truth' of Buddhism.
— Wayfarer
Suffering can't be denied! :chin: Why I wonder? What makes suffering some kind of marker for reality? Bitter truth! Sweet little lies. Hard facts, convenient fiction. Does this mean hell is realer than heaven? — Agent Smith
That question is more suited to this thread. — Wayfarer
Since I don't really accept the idea of an enlightened person in the first place, I have nothing to explain. People are flawed and support ideas and do things that cause suffering. — Tom Storm
There's a second group who are consumers of truth. From what I have seen they do ask those questions already and these are generally buried inside the question 'Is the teacher a charlatan'. When you drill down, which I have sometimes done, they generally will say things like - "I don't want to be deluded by false ideas or by a teacher who is misguided or a hypocrite who just tells me what I want to hear.'
There's always been the inherent problem that if you are not enlightened yourself, how do you, a flawed creature, have the capacity to wisely asses what path to follow in the first place? Surely it is bound to go wrong (sometimes horribly so) for most.
Why do you say that? — baker
problems typically occur when someone tries to take on more than they can carry, tries to make a bigger step than they have the capacity to make. For example, when a person feels enormous pressure to decide about whether a particular religion is the right one and to resolve the matter within a month. — baker
What I'm about to say is something so racist I never thought my soul could ever feel it. But truly I never wanna spend time with white people again (if that's what non-muslims are called). Not for one moment, for any reason. They are disgusting.
There is no enlightenment outside of daily life. — Thích Nhất Hạnh d.2022
There is no enlightenment outside of daily life. — 180 Proof
IIRC, nirvana amounts to recognizing daily that the distinction of nirvana / samsara is maya.Does that mean nirvana itself is maya? — Agent Smith
IIRC, nirvana amounts to recognizing daily that the distinction of nirvana / samsara is maya. — 180 Proof
There is no enlightenment outside of daily life.
— Thích Nhất Hạnh d.2022 — Agent Smith
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.