What is Enlightenment?

What is Enlightenment?
the logos
Newbie
Avatar

Usergroup: Deactivated By Request
Joined: Oct 28, 2005
Location: Findlay, IL

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 8
#81 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 3, 2008 - 1:50 PM:

Look at what you write:

Escapist wrote:
You don't have a special control over your mind that other people don't have.

Most people don't ignore the negative aspects of life, otherwise their independent existence would be impossible. There isn't another special kind of negativity that you know about and others don't.

You are not capable of making + entities submit to your will in a way other people are not.

You have no special knowledge, abilities or accomplishments. Your claims are bogus.


It's bogus.

------------------------------------

Do you realize this is all you've done. Okay, so it's bogus...why? You've given no reasons whatsoever why you think my ideas bogus. Just because I talk about enlightenment doesn't mean I am enlightened. If I was I wouldn't be feeling these somewhat aggressive feelings in reaction to your aggressive bellicose post. But then again, how would you know if I did have special abilities? So your foundation is nonexistent. I may be the Buddha incarnate. How did this become a competition on whether or not my negative approach was equal to or better than anyone else's? I didn't start it. Being competitive is an inferior value which I try and avoid at all costs.

Whenever you started having an aggressive/competitive/ bellicose reaction to my post, how quick were you able to merge with the nothingness that you really are (to quell your undesirable reaction)? It appears that you didn't do it at all since you went ahead and carried out your aggressive reaction. This makes me question whether you really know what you're talking about when you pretend to know what utilizing negativity is all about.


Edited by the logos on Jul 3, 2008 - 1:55 PM
slice
varelse

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 29, 2005

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 5
#82 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 3, 2008 - 2:16 PM:

the logos wrote:
Someone that is capable of utilizing/understanding negativity, or what 0 really means, admits a whole different power into their life.

Hi Logos,

I was wondering, what does 0 really mean?
ManiacJack
Unmoderated Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: Statosphere, Earth

Total Topics: 78
Total Posts: 1052
#83 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 3, 2008 - 2:19 PM:

To claim one has special mind powers requires a little more than just presenting the idea. I created this topic in aim to discuss Enlightenment, not Buddha. While it may be true that Buddha was Enlightened, the Religion associated with him is in no way the final or ultimate verdict on what Enlightenment is.

Pirisg did claim to be Enlightened, right? So was Socrates and Probably a good number of People from the Enlightenment- one could rather easily argue that Kant and Locke were Enlightened. Even Mill.

The point of this thread was to examine Enlightenment; not to say "I'm Enlightened and You are not! I'm going to live forever and you can't stop me!"

That is rather childish. To maintain any semblance of impartiality, we cannot succumb to such childish, dogmatic ideological wars. If I felt like it, I could argue how Enlightened I am and no one else is. I could bring up a ridiculous amount of information supporting such a claim; something the people promoting their own enlightenment have failed to do; I dare you to try. Thus I remain silent and dismissive- which is prudent and expectant. I am not suggesting I am enlightened, merely the absurdity in saying such a thing.

We can, however, talk about the subject of enlightenment; what it means and where it leads and the concepts associated with it. Escaping the cycle of reincarnation isn't that, though.

Enlightenment matters because it promotes furthering our knowledge base. Simple enough. It revolutionizes, potentially, our foundation of knowledge- which is a good thing. But then, I talk about it as a movement, not a trait.

Maybe I'll get back to the trait definition later, but it's rather ambiguous. Might as well try defining postmodernism.grin
the logos
Newbie
Avatar

Usergroup: Deactivated By Request
Joined: Oct 28, 2005
Location: Findlay, IL

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 8
#84 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 3, 2008 - 3:14 PM:

slice wrote:
I was wondering, what does 0 really mean?


Nothing, that which only the enlightened can use as a reference.
m.j. wrote:
Enlightenment matters because it promotes furthering our knowledge base.


This is one way of looking at it, though I tend not to see it this way. Do we suppose there are many different kinds of enlightenment?


Edited by the logos on Jul 3, 2008 - 3:51 PM
The Escapist
Unmoderated Member

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Mar 26, 2008

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 504
#85 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 3, 2008 - 3:32 PM:

If you were the Buddha incarnate you wouldn't have special abilities logos. The Buddha himself didn't have special abilities. Buddhism is a religion, the Buddha is a religious character. Some of the things he and/or his religion are supposed to be able to do must be things that are outside our actual normal experience, otherwise we wouldn't be able to tell that it was a religion.

That's how I know you don't have special abilities, because there are no special abilities of the kind you are talking about.


Whenever you started having an aggressive/competitive/ bellicose reaction to my post, how quick were you able to merge with the nothingness that you really are (to quell your undesirable reaction)?



I'm not a nothingness. If I really was a nothingness, how could I merge with nothingness, what would merge? I'm something, so are you, and you should be properly grateful. If you want to see my reaction as aggressive/competitive/bellicose than that is not undesirable to me, I'm expressing ideas, not using physical violence. Are you seriously going to tell us you think a competition of ideas is out of place on a philosophy forum?

Religious/superstitious ideas of the kind you are expressing are the opposite of enlightenment. There are one or two useful ideas in Buddhism but they are almost invisible under an immense pyramid of pretentious piffle. I am trying to save you time. All the stuff about nothingness, one hand clapping, the bliss of nirvana, karma, reincarnation, that is all just made up.

I bet if you think about it you already know which bits are rubbish. Seriously.











The Escapist
Unmoderated Member

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Mar 26, 2008

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 504
#86 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 3, 2008 - 4:15 PM:

ManiacJack wrote:
I created this topic in aim to discuss Enlightenment, not Buddha. While it may be true that Buddha was Enlightened, the Religion associated with him is in no way the final or ultimate verdict on what Enlightenment is.

Pirisg did claim to be Enlightened, right? So was Socrates and Probably a good number of People from the Enlightenment- one could rather easily argue that Kant and Locke were Enlightened. Even Mill.



If Pirsig used the term he would have meant it in the Buddhist sense (and Buddhism is to a certain extent nonsense).

If you don't mean the Buddhist sense, which sense do you mean?

slice
varelse

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 29, 2005

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 5
#87 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 3, 2008 - 5:36 PM:

the logos wrote:
[what does 0 really mean/]Nothing, that which only the enlightened can use as a reference.

Are you referring to sunyata, the Buddhist concept of emptiness?
loveyourenemy
Newbie

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 05, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3
#88 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 5, 2008 - 12:13 PM:

Hi there ,
This is my first post here , your forum looks great.

Is it a forgone conclusion among you guys of the role of the ego, and the obssesive thinking that blocks out the right side of the brain ,hence hindering the insight of the type desribed as enlightenment ?.
Surely the bedrock of enlightenment is the realisation of the immense significance of existance of any one/thing esp humans awareness of their own awareness and of bieng one with the unoiverse that ego insists is seperate,and the 'more' enlightened you are is the stronger the right side experience it is (maybe how well practiced and how supptle the experience?)smiling face and the end of suffering is a byproduct of this , or have i got the wrong end of the stick? smiling face
cckcckcc
Consciousness Incarnate
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Location: ex nihilo

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 230
#89 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 7, 2008 - 8:33 AM:

loveyourenemy,

To a certain sect, I would say that your assertion would be partially correct. Some of us do view that instinctual needs are not a necessity and thus should not be sought in order to reach a state of minimalism that is the pursuit of finding that final state where you need nothing at all to exist. However, the instincts forming the ego may be the last things we as humans are able to cast off. It is more often moral stances such as those found in the super ego that should be discarded in order to reach an enlightened state.


Edited by cckcckcc on Jul 7, 2008 - 10:09 AM
the logos
Newbie
Avatar

Usergroup: Deactivated By Request
Joined: Oct 28, 2005
Location: Findlay, IL

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 8
#90 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jul 7, 2008 - 9:22 AM:

slice wrote:
Are you referring to sunyata, the Buddhist concept of emptiness?


Yes, the concept of Sunyata ia paramount to the idea of nothingness/emptiness/voidness. The symbol 0 works in describing this concepts as well. Nothing in this life has a permanent identity due to depenent origination and momentary duration. All is in a state of flux.

Escapist wrote:
]'m not a nothingness. If I really was a nothingness, how could I merge with nothingness, what would merge? I'm something, so are you, and you should be properly grateful. If you want to see my reaction as aggressive/competitive/bellicose than that is not undesirable to me, I'm expressing ideas, not using physical violence. Are you seriously going to tell us you think a competition of ideas is out of place on a philosophy forum?


How would you even be conscious if it were not for you being nothing? The objects of your consciousness, whether it be an object of the mind (inner objects) or objects of the other senses (outer objects) are all separate from what you really are (this is why you can perceive them at all), they are all void of any real existence. Another way of thinking about it: everything with a beginning and end, is maya, or not real.

You'd merge with nothingness by shedding that which is keeping you from being what you really are, all that has a beginning and end and is essentially void. Be one with the void. As it is, it is possible for you to merge with what you already are because you're being held back from experiencing what you really are. How do you think you aren't nothing?

loveyourenemy wrote:
obssesive thinking that blocks out the right side of the brain


Excellent point. The right side of the brain has become atrophied in most people due to the reductionist scientism of the day; and a general ignorance of dreams and imagination has contributed to the atrophy, a discounting that they have any reality (which is entirely unproven). Enlightened people will use more of their right brain. The right brain puts out natural endorphins when used.


Edited by the logos on Jul 7, 2008 - 10:20 AM
locked
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.