The Vanity of Enlightenment

reply to post by BlueMule

You asked for proof but what you should have asked for is evidence. I gave you some, and you seem to have brushed it off. But hey it's cool. Everything is as it should be.

You just said evidence is not proof. So why should I take it into consideration?

By the way, this:

But it can be shown that something is probably going on.

This barely constitutes as evidence. There's activity, and there's activity with a meaning. Where's the meaning? You obviously don't know. Just that "something is probably going on".

reply to post by AfterInfinity

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And thus we loop back round to where we started today. ∞ GOTO 10

The emoticon in the first post is a friendly tour guide and consider who the questions are really directed to in light of the part quoted. Here's the dirty secret... It's not LesMisanthrope.

The second post... read the first paragraph (and the rest too honestly) not as an accusation... but a statement of "method" and see if it comes off differently this time.

Thank you for going on this walk with me!

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I suppose you expect proof of enlightenment in a test-tube? Or in a mathematical formula? Or in a particle accelerator?

Science is too limited, too clumsy, too blunt an instrument to give definitive "proof" of enlightement.

Enlightenment is a contemplative claim, not a scientific claim.

"But the problem with a contemplative claim of this sort is that you can't borrow someone else's contemplative tools to test it. The problem is that to test such a claim—indeed, to even appreciate how distracted we tend to be in the first place, we have to build our own contemplative tools. Imagine where astronomy would be if everyone had to build his own telescope before he could even begin to see if astronomy was a legitimate enterprise. It wouldn't make the sky any less worthy of investigation, but it would make it immensely more difficult for us to establish astronomy as a science.

To judge the empirical claims of contemplatives, you have to build your own telescope."

-Sam Harris

reply to post by BlueMule


Very good post.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by BlueMule

 

Very good post.

I concur.

Thanks. If I say something wise then Divine Wisdom speaks through me and deserves the credit. If I say or do something foolish or vain, then it's my own ego-self getting in the way.

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

Again, nobody here claims they are enlightened, so none of the OP's original post applies at this stage in the discussion.

You might be surprised. None of us can necessarily hide from what is called our "past."

You are correct in that I have yet to see someone claim enlightenment in this specific thread, but there are some who definitely have done so in no vague terms. You know who you are

I wouldnt mind an explanation as to such claims though! I am genuinely curious.

Tony Parsons tells of liberation in this interview.
youtu.be...

It is beyond anything the mind can imagine.

Originally posted by InTheLight

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Very good post.

I concur.

+1 more.

And the bonus is there are blueprints for telescopes scattered all over this thread.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Tony Parsons tells of liberation in this interview.
youtu.be...

It is beyond anything the mind can imagine.

Liberation is only relevant to those who choose to see something as a prison.

Originally posted by Serdgiam

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Tony Parsons tells of liberation in this interview.
youtu.be...

It is beyond anything the mind can imagine.

Liberation is only relevant to those who choose to see something as a prison.

It is realization that there is no one who can choose.

Originally posted by Serdgiam
I wouldnt mind an explanation as to such claims though! I am genuinely curious.

I'm not going to claim to be "enlightened" in any way that is more important or "worthy" than my enlightenment over the hot dogs in yogurt experiences. So with that said... I'll do my best to put what all the hooha is about into terms. The kicker is it doesn't matter how many times someone says it or someone reads it... most won't believe it until they experience it and then once they experience it they'll never doubt it again.

Now directed to the "general you":

You... Are... Everything.

The "problem" is "you" carry false beliefs about what exactly *you* and *everything* are.

The enlightenment being referred to in a pop culture way is about the tangible experience a person can have (no different than the tangible experience of eating and pooping) that They and Everything are one and the same.

Again... intellectually someone can hear that and intellectually say "Of course". But that's not what is being talked about. What's being talked about is a *real* experience as real as any other emotion or sensation or feeling you've had.

This is why the quote from Sam Harris is so perfect because the words will never do it... someone can't "make" it happen... it just "happens". I can't even claim to know whether it happens more to people who seek it than those that don't. I don't think it does... the only difference is those consciously seeking it wind up with a vocabulary that allows them to understand what the experience is and share it with others who have felt it.

Just like we need a vocabulary to discuss "anger" despite none of us ever being able to verify that what "anger" feels like to me is the same as it is to you. But we are able to talk "around" it via metaphors. Every single word we say and write is a metaphor.

reply to post by BlueMule

I became enlightened one way, someone else became enlightened another way. So what?

Not only have people claimed enlightenment...it turns out you were one of them. In all actuality, it would appear that LesMisanthrope was addressing you in particular.

And I can see a lot of what her points exemplified in your posts. The telescope analogy was a good one, but it does not change the fact that you are a prime example of her premise.

reply to post by ErgoTheConclusion


I still havent tried that hot dog thing.. kind of forgot about it actually!

Thank you for painting a bit better picture for me. Even if it only applies to you and your perspective. If enough I's(eyes) get together, we start to see a better picture that extends beyond our own innate limitations in what we are perceiving.

What is it that you dont think I have experienced? I have my doubts about a single moment of time which we experience enlightenment, my doubts about one moment that is more special than others. In your experience, what is it that I am missing? I feel that I am whole, and always have been. How am I wrong in your perspective?

reply to post by Itisnowagain


If there is no choice is there any responsibility?

reply to post by Serdgiam

I have no idea what you have or haven't experienced and won't make any claim as such. (edit: Have edited my unintended claims as such )

I think you are trying to paint me with a brush that doesn't apply. I'm not claiming there is a "the" enlightenment. Nor am I claiming that the experience described is "the" enlightenment.

But it is an experience in a moment no different than anger is an experience in a moment. It's not more "special" and if you re-read my post you replied to you'll see I called attention to that. But it is a DIFFERENT experience than others. Definitely different from just feeling "whole" in "yourself". It's in fact pretty much the exact opposite of that while still being a feeling of "wholeness"

I and others can only metaphor around the experience and others can interpret the metaphors their own way. Sometimes the metaphors line up and an appearance of understanding happens... such as our collective agreement over what "anger" generally is. We refer to it as if it were a "thing" but we all know anger is no different than a color spectrum.

So too with "enlightenment" as has been pointed out many times in this thread. However there is a tangible experience that is often referred to as "enlightenment" and it is absolutely life transforming once it has happened.

Once it has happened... a person is only left with their cultural toolkit to describe it and try to understand it. Which is why sometimes people steeped in Christianity run off and start proclaiming they are Literally Jesus. Because that's literally what it feels like. Or God. Or The Universe. Or Tao or whatever terms the person has at their disposal to describe the same underlying utterly real experience.

And if someone hasn't been given any tools to understand what that sensation is or means... they are very liable to run off and cause quite a ruckus.

But that's ok too.

Originally posted by Serdgiam
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

If there is no choice is there any responsibility?

Who would be responsible for what?

reply to post by ErgoTheConclusion


Have you ever noticed that as our finite perspective learns and grows, it oscillates back and forth in many ways? Almost from one polar opposite to the other, just with a deeper understand because more pieces of the puzzle have been collected. For a finite system contained in the infinite, it is inherently a continuous experience.

Is there any chance that a system at one end of the oscillation will perceive someone at the other end of the spectrum only through their own previous bias? I.E. "Well, they are thinking what I thought at "X" stage, so they must be at "X" stage."

What happens when our perspective contains this oscillation process as a whole part of the whole? What would happen to the "specialness" of any one stage or moment?

reply to post by Serdgiam

Of course. Do you believe anything I've written disagrees?

reply to post by ErgoTheConclusion


Please read edit I seem to do that with every post. I guess it may be wise to wait a bit before responding