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

Of course, secular culture does not rely on authority. The following has already been posted in this topic but sometimes you just can't help hitting repeat.

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

'nihil ultra ego'

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

When I studied the Gnostic texts, a book drew attention to the two statements 'He who believes in Me shall be saved' and 'you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free'. They were said to be representative of the pistic and gnostic attitudes, respectively (where 'pistic' is derived from the Greek 'pistis', belief or opinion.) Historically 'pistic' Christianity (symbolised by the fish symbol in the ancient catacombs) carried the day, triumphing over the gnostics - and history was written by the victors. The Gnostic Valentinus came with a couple of votes of being elected Pope in the early days. I often wondered how differently things might have unfolded had he won.

Conze describes the necessary basic structure of religion, a hierarchy of authority indistinguishable from a hierarchy of truth or reality. Secular culture makes a distinction and is so freed from this terrible chain of being.

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

Correct. By definition, knowledge is salvific in the sense that it saves the knower from ignorance and from the suffering resulting from it.

This is also implied in philosophy as a quest for truth, knowledge, or wisdom. At the very least, ignorance
causes uncertainty, doubt, confusion, etc. that results in mental suffering. Knowledge eradicates the root cause of suffering and the absence of suffering leads to happiness.

This is why higher states of consciousness and, in particular, self-consciousness or self-realization (i.e., awareness of one's true self) are universally associated with enhanced peace of mind and a sense of happiness.

Mythology, religion, and storytelling all have something in common, they are all trying to be informative giving some sense of orientation. Mythology as a form of storytelling being mutable to time place succeeds with its orientation. Mythology, as religion written in stone and not relative to time and place is a failed attempt at orientation. You might say that all these forms were attempts at enlightenment but religion is a failed attempt at orientation to the physical world and its nature. I suppose one could say enlightenment is successful orientation of both the individual and the individual's societal context -- an ideal, similar to Plato's Republic. Remembering a fallen self, Carl Sagan, a candle in the dark.

'nihil ultra ego' — Wayfarer

When I do a search I get this pokeman jellyfish thing and I think to myself “what could Wayfarer be trying to say” :chin:

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.

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

That is not necessarily the case, clearly. What's also clear is that in religion it is exclusively 'nothing more than the tribe of fellow believers'. That is a necessary constraint not shared (in its necessity) by enlightened secular culture. I will also point out that identity of any sort, secular or religious, is based on ego. Is an identity bound to a tribe any better than bound to one's self, or is it worse? Better to transcend all limitations, right?

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

No. It's that people so often approach the matter of enlightenment in an externalizing manner. They refuse to look at their own intentions, their own words, their own actions, and just focus on the other person. Seeking the answers out there.

"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?" Asking oneself the latter question makes the former one redundant.

"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.

True enlightenment is not the True light shining on a True reality while seeing it Truly reflected. Personally or collectively this may lead to salvation or liberation. In a broader context it may lead to slavery and tyranny, for who doesn't want their enlightenment to be a measure for all?

No, my dear brothers and sisters, true enlightenment lies in the realization that one can see reality in more than one light, and that the light reflected depends on the light used to enlighten. This realization truly sets free and truly saves. Not from ignorance and lie, but from the dark powers that are settled in the depths of human nature which can overtake us and send the world into a state of the great tyrants and their wicked ways.

So brothers and sisters, let's hold hands and pray! Let's show gra... Ah well, fuck that...

"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

I'm not sure we're on the same page here.

Can you say why "Is this person a genuine teacher or is he a charlatan?" is the wrong question?


(Aww, look at those claws!)

Of course, secular culture does not rely on authority.
— praxis

'nihil ultra ego' — Wayfarer

Because when someone calls you "braindead" and such, the most rational thing to do is to bow to that person and become their devotee. Riiight.

Religious/spiritual "authorities" have brought the disrespect that they so eagerly complain about upon themselves. People can endure being treated like shit for some time, but not indefinitely. Sure, blame the people, what else. Blame them, blame their selfishness, their stiff-neckedness, whatever suits your purpose, whatever detracts from your acknowledging that if you truly knew better (as you want others to acknowledge), you should act differently than you did.

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.

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

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. I can't speak for Dreyfus.

'm not sure we're on the same page here. — baker

Maybe we aren't. So your enhanced proposed question is:

quote="baker;638847"]do I just want someone who will provide me with another fancy layer of denial and delusion?"[/quote]

Often people end up following paths by accident or without planning to. The questions you pose (which are highly self-aware in a particular way) would make no sense since they are not locating themselves as searchers of truth. In other words, if you are not shopping, you won't have a list.

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.

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.

That question is more suited to this thread. — Wayfarer

No wonder it's a nightmare!

Don't spoil the moment with gratuitous irony. :fear:

:smile:

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

So you believe that there is suffering, but that potentially, there is no respite from it, no end to it?

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.

I think this is nowhere near the problem that it is often made out to be.

A question like "Is this a genuine teacher or a charlatan?" and seeking an answer to it conveniently externalizes the whole issue, presenting the prospective student as an innocent (!) consumer (!) of spiritual guidance. A person with such an outlook never looks at their own intentions and actions. And when something goes wrong, they blame other people. It's a question that essentially puts in place a no-fail strategy, so this is part of its allure ("if I succeed, I will take credit; if I fail, others will be blamed while I am innocent").

In a person with a normally constituted conscience, looking at one's own intentions and actions should have both a sobering and a guiding effect. Such a person will not make grave mistakes in their life.


Also, 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. They ponder and ponder, read, discuss, and debate, but get nowhere, while the pressure keeps rising. This is a clear case of trying to do something that one, at that point, is unable to do.
In such a case, the wise thing to do would be to pare things down, minimize, to the point when one arrives at the level of decisions that are actually actionable for one at the time.

What exactly those decisions and actions are will vary from person to person. I think most people are not in a position where they could meaningfully, actionably answer questions like "Which religious path should I follow?"

No wonder it's a nightmare! — Agent Smith

Why do you say that?

Why do you say that? — baker

Pain makes/keeps it real! Ever bled or broken a bone while playing a hyperviolent RPG? Come to think of it there's one who...

The question was how come you said this thread was a nightmare.

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

Being under "enormous pressure" to decide whether a particular religion is the right one "within a month", doesn't sound like a typical situation to me at all.

The vast majority of people opt for sticking with the religion they were born into. So the "problems" occur in a small minority only. And this may well be rooted in identity issues, insecurity, and other psychological factors that cannot be resolved by converting to another religion.

An interesting case is that of Irish singer Sinéad O'Connor who has been struggling with mental health issues in addition to being a heavy cannabis smoker for decades. She was born a Catholic, became a priest, and eventually converted to Islam, without this solving any of her issues.

What is particularly interesting is that it seems to have started from an attitude of rebellion against her parents and tradition in general, and ended in hatred of Christianity and white people.

In a comment on Twitter, she wrote:

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.

So we can see how something as "trivial" as rebellion against parental authority (which may itself be a manifestation of an inability to assimilate and adapt) can lead to other issues that seldom solve the original problem and can even aggravate it ....

:death: :flower:

There is no enlightenment outside of daily life. — Thích Nhất Hạnh d.2022

There is no enlightenment outside of daily life. — Thích Nhất Hạnh d.2022

:up: :chin:

Does that mean nirvana itself is maya?

There is no enlightenment outside of daily life. — 180 Proof

:up:

Having given a thumb up, one doesn't have to look far to realize daily life usually is a dark, cold, scary life which needs at least some enlightenment from the outside. Or does even daily shit got its intrinsic enlightenment?

Does that mean nirvana itself is maya? — Agent Smith

IIRC, nirvana amounts to recognizing daily that the distinction of nirvana / samsara is maya.

IIRC, nirvana amounts to recognizing daily that the distinction of nirvana / samsara is maya. — 180 Proof

:clap:

There is no enlightenment outside of daily life.
— Thích Nhất Hạnh d.2022 — Agent Smith

That doesn't mean that every mug punter is enlightened, otherwise the world would be entirely different. It means, don't go chasing after fantasy images of enlightenment, if it is to be found anywhere it is in daily life, but it's still far from evident in the lives of most of us.

This also could use some historical explication. Originally Buddhism was a strictly renunciate movement, revolving entirely around the monastic order (sangha) which was supported by the lay population as an act of meritorious spiritual conduct. The monks and nuns lived in strict seclusion and under the vinaya rules of monastic conduct, from which members could be expelled or sanctioned for infractions. The difference between wordly life and renunciate life was radical and complete.

Gradually over the succeeding centuries after the Buddha's passing, a new Buddhist ethos began to emerge, the Mahāyāna, which was based on a different kind of ideal principle, that of the bodhisattva, one who serves the enlightenment of all beings, as distinct from the solitary arhat, one who pursues their own enlightenment.

It was at this time that the radical distinction between Nirvāṇa and Saṃsāra was called into question by the nondualist Indian teachers such as Nāgārjuna. However it should be understood that in traditional Buddhist terms this is a radical understanding, and was never adopted in the Theravada Buddhist cultures which characterise most of South-Asian Buddhism (Thai, Cambodian, Sri Lankan). However it became embedded in East Asian and Tibetan Buddhism and imported into the West due to the activities of their emissary representatives in the 19th and 20th centuries.

It is these schools which taught the doctrine of the non-distinction of Nirvāṇa and Saṃsāra. Which becomes, in the internet meme age, a really easy way to rationalise a kind of 'anything goes', 'I'm already enlightened' type of attitude, which has been a considerably useful marketing tool for the absorption of Buddhism into global consumer culture. But I think it's very different from the realities of Buddhist life.