To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

One of the most cutting critiques one can make of 'enlightenment', is that it looks like an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem.

The same thing of course can be said about most if not all religions, and about the monotheist idea of “salvation”, heaven, so on and so forth.

Imaginary solutions to imaginary problems. The problems are “imaginary” because they are caused by fictions that we humans adopted, some time in the past, to cope with life on a planet that confused and frightened us, and to cope with the sometimes horrific side effects of biology and an apparently neutral and uncaring universe.

So, one of the problems we end up looking at, is, to what extent is it true past ideas of enlightenment were 'an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem', and what does this mean for how we look at enlightenment today?

it might seem odd for a “lover of enlightenment and seeking” like myself to ask a difficult question like this. But, thats one of the effects of “enlightenment experiences” - it changes the structure of the mind, allowing one to face and enjoy questions that previously would have been left unquestioned.

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

And that is exactly the (only) use I see in enlightenment I see!
To question, whatever comes in your mind.
To question, not only someone else's things, or action in the world.
To question, not only the ways and whys of nature.
But to more importantly ponder the why and how, of your mind, your thoughts, your idea's and most important. Your assumptions!

No question is ever finitely answered!


That does make me wonder however, what imaginary question does enlightenment (often) provides and imaginary answer for?

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

Well, at this point I have to insert my legendary disclaimer, which is that the word “enlightenment” is a modern placeholder word with no real meaning.

The western civilizations have no real equivalent to the ideas that modern translators used the word “enlightenment” to represent. That is to say, there is no “enlightenment” in the western world, in judaism, christianity, islam, or the many hundreds of lost or repressed western religions and esoteric traditions.

The east, or to be more accurate, the India subcontinent, invented the idea of “enlightenment”, for which they primarily used the words moksha, samadhi, and nibbana/nirvana (and a cluster of other words like bod, cit, ananda, etc).

And the imaginary problem that moksha, one of the oldest of the words, solved, was the problem of endless rebirth on this yucky old planet.

Endless rebirth. So the question then is, is endless rebirth a real problem? Is it perhaps a metaphor for a real problem, which we could restate in modern terms, “life sucks, and then you die.”.

Or perhaps a metaphor for something else?

Or perhaps endless rebirth is really happening? How could we know wether or not this was true?

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

Now, there is a real problem, or what sure looks like a real problem, that 'enlightenment” may help deal with. Or cope with. Or something.

And that is the existential crisis of the awareness of oncoming death.

Not that “enlightenment” keeps you from dying - but it's one possible response to the anxiety.

And there are a whole host of things related to enlightenment that are useful and beautiful in and of themselves.

I think it might be a bit like chemistry. Chemistry started with the search for apparently fictional items like the philosophers stone and the universal medicine - but ended up spawning some of the most useful discoveries humans ever made.

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

Bill:

An interesting set of questions.  I personally do not feel the term “enlightenment” in and of itself is useful; it is, as you say, a placeholder for many different conceptualizations.  But the process of finding “enlightenment” is what is useful.

I do not think it is the expectation of endless rebirth that causes us to look for answers to finiteness well into the concept of the infinite; it is the expectation of endless death which gives the impetus to the search and the resulting aspects of safe harbour to many religions, beliefs and story lines from the beginnings of our first whiffs of consciousness right up through the present day.

I think the basis for the cunumdrum springs from our almost sole reliance on our physical beings and physical minds to both ask and answer our questions.  Physically, we are energy; mass, constant attraction, constant repulsion with a resulting constant evolution.  We are very good with these things, very good at measuring them, very good at predicting them, very good at extrapolating the measurements of the actions and reactions of their smallest innards to explain how we came to be, where we are in relation to the universe, and how we will end.

But there is more.  Frederik, what is dark matter, dark energy?  Why can they only be measured by the absence of their actions?  Why is the universe so uncaring and hostile?  It is our determination to separate ourselves from the universe, our physical need to identify particular sections or frequencies of energy as separate individuals that share individual (a human as oppossed to a duck or an asteroid) common physical characteristics.  Energy is the strong force which defines us, which is constantly in our collective face, through which we act and react to our environment.  Consciousness, although the weaker “force”, surrounds us, envelopes us, occupies the spaces between our very atoms, is the ether through which our energies interact and exist.

But it is consciousness which contains energy; it is the letting go of the power in energy that enables “enlightenment”.  It is the realization that we are not separate from the universe that is the surprise at the end of the rainbow.

I guess this is where I should put in my “disclaimer”.  I am expressing beliefs which I have arrived at through my own searching, and which are hardly unique or “new”.  (Each time I feel I have come to a unique conclusion, I always find later that many someones have been there before me.)  I am not foolish enough to suggest that my understandings of things constitute “the way”, so I do not assume to the need to either convince or convert anyone.  At one time or another, we all search for the answers; why do we die, why do we suffer, why is peace so difficult to maintain, love so hard to contain, joy so fleeting and elusive?  At some point or another, we all either defer to beliefs already determined (religions, philosophies, schisms, etc.) or come to answers off the beaten track.

Please excuse me for prattling on so.  I haven't the opportunity to get online very often anymore, so I guess I try to overcompensate with volume.  Bad habit of mine, but, as my wife always reminds me, “I am only a man”.

Blessings and Peace.

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

Dark matter, is called dark matter. Because it is an explanation for a gravitational pull (matter) that cannot be viewed with (normal) optical telescopes. (dark).
about 4 percent of the Universe mass is said to be visible, about 22 percent dark matter, and the remaining dark energy. (not massed energy)
Dark matter hardly interacts with its surroundings, and is basicly 'filling' it consist for instance (a little) of neutrino's. But for all we know, it is just a strong higgs field, making known particles heavy and more stable. We don't know. But it is rather much present. Just not so much around where we live.
The universe is hostile to us, because we evolved on a friendly, planet, with friendly surroundings, or else we wouldn't be here. The universe is hostile, because we are docile.
Consciousness isn't an ether of anything alike. It is though what makes changes happen at all. It doesn't hold energy at all. It is more like a causality, that has been given way too much physical power. Do not underestimate it, but don't glorify it with energy that it doesn't have. Science deals with consciousness more then you might think.
Might I suggest you read:
Delayed choice experiment

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

Andrew>>> I do not think it is the expectation of endless rebirth that causes usto look for answers to finiteness well into the concept of theinfinite; it is the expectation of endless death

Interestingly, that's pretty much the east/west dichotomy in a nutshell.

The ancient eastern story was about samsara, the endless wheel of death and rebirth, and it's solution, moksha, or liberation from rebirth.

While the (less) ancient western story was about the hope for an afterlife, which could only be guaranteed by affiliance with the right god, and if you affiliated with the wrong god, you risked being relegated to a shadowy after death world, a nasty lowrent place populated by bad guys.

—

And I agree, the modern human certainly doesn't start looking about for “enlightenment” because s/he is worried about spending the next million years in a pointless perpetual rebirth.

(The modern western human is more likely to think, uplon learning the doctrine of reincarnation, “You mean I get to live a milion years in different bodies? Jackpot! My worries are over!”.)

We moderns have forgotten that part of the original storylines.

Mostly, we just want an end of suffering. With “understanding what it all means” coming in (a close?) second as a motivation.

It's a curious accident of language that old Gotama's Dhukka - “All is suffering.”, and Nirodha “There can be an end to suffering.”, and the modern desire for an end to personal unhappiness, seem to be the related, when they are very different.

Not that a fool like me can convince any modern of such things.

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

I like this topic! Thanks Bill and thanks to the others that have responded; very interesting.
Ah yes… The science of Quantum Psychics does shed “light” on this”matter”. In my limited experience, an important aspect of this science is that ifwe want to understand these matters, it is essential to change our wayof understanding.
I question if the term enlightenment was invented in the subcontinentIndia, but find this not so relevant as to how I experience and use theconcept of enlightenment in my daily life.
I so often experience how my mind wants to adopt and adept to the wholeenlightenment concept, if I keep on questioning this, I see and feelthat beyond the desire to become enlightened is a deep deep longing forTruth.
It is not so much enlightenment as my deep longing for Truth and theprocess of questioning everything, that makes it useful and relevant, iteven goes beyond usefulness and relevance.
2 observations about the scientific aspect of consciousness: the fact that it doesn't containmatter, could possibly indicate that it is the source of all matter?
2: If a non-energy source without containing matter exists, can we callit emptiness ? If this is true, we arrive at an essential aspect ofBuddhism?

What do you ponder? :-)

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

1. No, consciousness cannot be the source of matter. There would still be energy and momentum laws, that would suddenly be broken. And we would have noticed by now. The power of the consciousness is just that it doesn't need any energy (or at least very little) to do what it is supposed to do.
There are lots of non-energy sources. But there isn't quite as much nothing. Most parts do hold particles. IF any at least neutrino's. Even if you were possible to find something like that. It could still contain degenerate light. I do not think that we can make an overlooking confined area empty. But if you question what is in between the spacing of molecules. Well, nothing really.

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

yeah but god could be the source of matter, not that anyone knows what god is if 'it' exists……….

state experiences are real enough, drawing definite conclusions about reality from the many state experiences is probably not the wisest thing to do though, imo……….

but yeah again, there's probably as many fallacies in the enlightenment communities as there are in the salvation camps………….

i have a conspiracy theory as to why that might be:)

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

Fascinating to speculate, this notion of enlightenment. I believe (there's that belief conundrum again)  this article offers a clue towards possible dialogue on the topic of origins of enlightenment.

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/links/Guth's%20Grand%20Guess.htm 

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

Looked like relatively conventional physics, as cosmology goes, Dave - what were you thinking of as the clue?

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

A
portion of your question stated:
“So,
one of the problems we end up looking at, is, to what extent is it true past
ideas of enlightenment were 'an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem',
and what does this mean for how we look at enlightenment today? It might seem
odd for a “lover of enlightenment and seeking” like myself to ask a difficult
question like this. But, that’s one of the effects of “enlightenment
experiences” - it changes the structure of the mind, allowing one to face and
enjoy questions that previously would have been left unquestioned.”
“Looked
like relatively conventional physics, as cosmology goes, Dave - what were you
thinking of as the clue?”
 
This
effect you speak of, “enlightenment experiences”, is of course your first
person experience that you alone can vouch for. I will never know your
experience … ‘the changed structure of the mind’ … at least not your version as
I can only know my version and speculate about yours.
For
me Enlightenment is a vague term. A term used by Western and Eastern
philosophies alike to encompass notions of awareness, wisdom, knowledge,
illumination, understanding, and freedom from cycles of rebirth (another set of
vagueness). Note how all of these terms (including enlightenment) require a
body to  experience. As you may
have deduced by now my own path seeks Enlightenment in the flesh.
I’m
not a physicist and I’ve already mentioned my belief conundrum. I’m not sure if
the article I posted is conventional cosmology or not. However, it appears that
‘a clue’ to solutions, imaginary or not, might be approached in a dialogue
where these arenas of seemingly different domains converge.  
“To the average person it might seem obvious
that nothing can happen in nothing. But to a quantum physicist, nothing is, in
fact, something. Quantum theory holds that probability, not absolutes, rules
any physical system. It is impossible, even in principle, to predict the
behavior of any single atom; all physicists can do is predict the average
properties of a large collection of atoms. Quantum theory also holds that a
vacuum, like atoms, is subject to quantum uncertainties. This means that things
can materialize out of the vacuum, although they tend to vanish back into it
quickly. While this phenomenon has never been observed directly, measurements
of the electron's magnetic strength strongly imply that it is real and
happening in the vacuum of space even now.”
 
From Guths Grand
Guess article
 
I find this entire article and such implications, enlightening.

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

Dave >>> Note how all of these terms (including enlightenment) require a
body to  experience. As you may have deduced by now my own path seeks Enlightenment in the flesh.

Yes - requires a body to experience. A living body and brain. This is one of the most reliable of the baselines for all this stuff. (I've written about this in a few places, and one of the most consistent elements in my presentation of this stuff is the continuing emphasis on the body, and especially the brain.)

Enlightenment in the flesh, you say? Please, present your models. Sounds cool. Seriously.

—

Generally, I try not to argue from my experiences, and when I mention them I try to do it in the form of, “yes, this kind of experience happens, and thats likely where such and such idea comes from, so in order to understand the “idea words” you have to keep in mind that it entered the language stream because of such and such a class of experiences.”.

It's a bit of a paradox - so much of this material is based reports of these roughly replicable but completely solipsistic experiences. Talking about the material without acknowledging the experiences and experiencers that invented it is kinda silly, yet the experiences themselves are locked in inaccessibility.

Hey, whenever the time comes that everybody agrees to dump the whole business, I'll be the first to say heave-ho. Ahhhh, but we humans can't, for now. It's built into the memetic structure of our minds, and possibly the genetic structure of our brains as well.

—

I'm still not quite getting what you are pointing to with the mention of the quantum nothingness.

I agree the study of physics is mind-altering.

I also figure that one of the things anybody seeking enlightenment should do is get a good scientific education, especially in biology and physics.

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

Hence, I am now a quantum physicist :P
Anyways,
Quantum nothingness:
not really nothing. Fact remains that if a particle and an anti-particle becomes created, it cannot come out of nothing. It just takes a little experimental High energy physics and a little Bog-spaces math to figure that out.
It creates from say in most cases a photon, or light. It splits in a quark and anti-quark. It can decay, or maybe not. If it happens near the event horizon of a black whole, one gets sucked in and the other wont! meaning Hawking Radiation. Anyways. Particle amount isn't conserved, and no deterministic law for positions and momenta is valid. But energy is conserved! Always.
It is a common mistake by deterministic thinkers to see 'something' mentioned by an Copenhagen interpretationist as 'a particle' but it naturally isn't. ;) Changes of energy can come from practically nothing. And my previous statement of 'things' was probably too fast.
Sorry for that.

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

Bill…Yes, indeed. Thank
you for your cordial invite for dialogue and speculation. I recently listened to a physicist suggest that life, (‘biology’)
eventually evolved to interpret and use light energy and is further evolving
(read human consciousness) to potentially interpret and use quantum signals/particles.
Again I find this ‘imagining’ enlightenment.
I don’t necessarily
subscribe to the notion that I need a model for Enlightenment in the flesh. As
I experience it, Enlightenment is flesh! The body is the territory and the map.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map-territory_relation“The
other day I was listening to The Beatles’ spellbinding song Across the
Universe. When I heard John Lennon singing Nothing’s gonna change my world I
suddenly realised that his words might have a different meaning than I had
always thought they had. I used to think that Lennon was saying that there was
not a thing that would be able to change his world – in other words: that everything
would remain the same. But maybe Lennon was saying that there is something that
was going to change his world, and that that something is nothing.
Nothing
certainly has the capacity to change and shape worlds. It is in fact the only
thing that is shaping and changing the world. Mystics and modern scientists
agree that everything (every thing) emerges from a field of “nothingness,” of
pure potential. Call it Tao, Chi, Brahmand, God, Love, Zero Point Field or
Quantum Field… Everything we strive for in our lives emerges from this field of
promising potential. Everything we see, touch, hear or smell is a material
manifestation of nothing. We use these manifestations to provide us with the
experience of nothing (or everything). We don’t buy cars and houses because we
want them per se, but because of the experiences they provide: mobility,
freedom, shelter, security, protection…
So,
if it is experiences that we are after, why not make life a lot easier and more
fulfilling (and a lot simpler) by tuning directly into the experience of
nothing/everything? Why wait for nothing/ everything to turn into something in
order to have the experience of nothing/everything? Why not be fulfilled,
complete and everything right now? It’s easy, all you need to do is surrender
to nothing.”
posted
by Tijn Touber
As the
Guff article suggests (in the false vacuum sort of way) something comes from
nothing. For me that’s enlightenment.
“A living body and brain.” …body
is brain. I
Suppose in a solipsistic sort of way, what I’m pointing to is Nothing.

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

Dave >>> Suppose in a solipsistic sort of way, what I’m pointing to is Nothing.

A little of the old taoism, eh? It's dang pretty stuff.

Nothing to do, and nothing to be done. Nothing happened, nothing happens, nothing will happen.

The body scurries about, then becomes nothing.

And so we scurry. scurry scurry. scurry.

Such an ficticious appearance of seperation from nothing. Oh well, time to breath, time to drink and eat, time to have intercourse with this or that body, time to pay the bills and the taxes.

Scurry - waiting for nothing - scurry.

Oh look! Babies!

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

andrew >>> i have a conspiracy theory as to why that might be:)

do tell.

andrew >>> but god could be the source of matter

That's the thing about strings of words - you can construct verbal logics to support almost anything.

Leaving one in the position of having to shrug.

“The sentient computer at the end of time is the source of all matter.”.

“Evolutionary cosmology is the source of all matter.”.

“I, with my power to perceive, observe, and measure, am the source of all matter.”.

“God is the source of all matter.”.

“Not your god, my god, is the source of all matter.”.

“I KEEL you!”. “No, I KILL you!”. “My god will strike you dead!”, “Still alive.”. “My god works in mysterious ways.”. “Burn in hell.”. “No, you burn in hell!”.

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

Deepak >>> I question if the term enlightenment was invented in the subcontinentIndia

No, that term wasn't, the term enlightenment was imposed on us by western translators and commentators in the 18th and 19th century's. It's a PURELY western term, and isn't even a good translation of the ancient and specific eastern words, of which there are several dozen, the most common being moksha, bod, cit, samadhi and its related terms, and nibbana/nirvana and it's related terms.

It's the IDEA of “enlightenment” that was invented in the Indian subcontinent, starting with the vedas and moksha, and pervading the region and eventually all of eastern asia in many forms.

But now, here, in the modern world, the word “enlightenment” has become a catchall phrase that means whatever it's user wants it to mean.

—

The word 'consciousness' has a related problem, meaning different things to different people. To someone based in the modern dominant scientific models, 'consciousness' is something only observed in animals with nervous systems, and which we humans experience with our brains.

Someone based in mysticism models is trained to think of consciousness as an overarching continuous and pervading field - because, simply enough, its easy to generate experience states in which one “feels” just such a field.

I figure the scientific model is more sound, and has to be taken as a baseline - and that the mysticism model is ripe for further research and investigation.

Leading us to one of the greatest questions of our time. What do the 'experiences' mean? I can teach someone how to experience the “universal field on consciousness” with relative ease. Piece of cake, in fact. However, deciphering what the experience is about, and wether there REALLY IS a unversal field of consciousness, is a major league tough problem.

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

Might I suggest you read this.
By Nobel prize winner Quantum physicist Eugene Paul Wigner? It digs into the subject.

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

who is “I”? or, in other words, who am “I”? and yet again, who are “you”? and yet still, who are “we”?

are we the one that perceives (the body), or are we the one that gives life (the unnameable essence) to the one that perceives?

We cannot be both, one continues, and one ceases.

If we are that which ceases (the body), then any discussion of enlightenment in terms of tapping into a universal field is meaningless. If we are that which continues, then any discussion of enlightenment in terms of the body is meaningless.

One is real and always will be. One seems to exist for a period of time and then returns to dust.

Of course, this entire dialogue is from “my” opinion, so really, this entire dialogue is merely a perspective. Just as is the perspective that is your opinion. And ultimately, these words are entirely meaningless. So I guess we'll have to find out for ourselves…

See ya on the inside…

~love ya~

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

Michael >>> See ya on the inside…

In'shallah!

That bhakti technology is some hot sweet stuff. Satisfaction guaranteed.

A bit vulnerable to false premise problems, but hey, what ain't?

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

Bill,

Thank You for the in-sight…really

~much Luv~

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

sure bill, there is a heck of a lot of contradictory strife within religion, i get it! but theism isn't inherently irrational, it is possible if not plausible, and i've come to like the idea of spiritual hypothesis, although the word hypothesis is used loosely…….

i've been musing lately over the buddhist idea of the end of suffering that the bodhisattva's teach and i'll give it my best shot on why i think it's fallacy. let's suppose that humanity got to the point where we all made outstanding choices, we were able to co-create a world of fairness, equability, truth, justice, etc. ah, but the one thing we would have no control over is death and dying, so we would have to have hearts made of stone not to suffer when our loved ones died; especially say, our siblings before us. therefore the only way suffering could truly end is to end death, and now we get into the realms of christian theology. but the point being again, the end of suffering as promoted by buddhism is a fallacy, not to mention the possible fact of an asteroid hit five minutes after we all became enlightened. 

c.t. ? hey man, come up with your own!lol

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

andrew >>> i've been musing lately over the buddhist idea of the end of suffering that the bodhisattva's teach and i'll give it my best shot on why i think it's fallacy.

Well, to the first part of your argument, most buddhists would respond much as follows: (note, I'm not saying I would respond as such, I'm simply presneting the 'party line' as it's commonly delivered.)

“You've misunderstood, as the west commonly does, personal suffering in one lifetime, for what “Dhukka” really means, which is the endless suffering of eternal rebirth.”.

Remember, in old gotamas time, people believed that life had been going on exactly as it was then for millions and millions of years.

Not the ten thousand years, give or take, that there had actually been an agricultural civilization there in the subcontinent.

andrew >>> the end of suffering as promoted by buddhism is a fallacy, not to mention the possible fact of an asteroid hit five minutes after we all became enlightened.

Hmmm, not quite sure what a planet-killer has to do with it?

However, one of my personal big chuckles, and something I think is one of the most severe criticisms of buddhist theory, is about “Nirodha”, commonly translated as, “There can be an end to suffering.”.

You got your “4 Noble Truths”, supposedly delivered in gotama's first sermon.

Dhukka - All is suffering.
Samudaya - Suffering is caused by attachment.
Nirodha - There can be an end to suffering.
Magga - The noble eighfold path.

Look at these four statements. Which is the most like political rhetoric, like a promise or an offer or a sales pitch to sell a product.

Bingo - Nirodha - there can be an end to suffering. An unsupported statement with no logical argument attached. It's a religious promise, the rough equivalent of “Only thru jesus can you enter heaven!”.

It's the Great Flaw of Buddhism.

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

Andrew>>>”the one thing we would have no control over is death and dying, so we would have to have hearts made of stone not to suffer when our loved ones died”

what is death? and why does it presuppose that suffering is involved?

Maybe from a certain perspective, but who can say that that perspective is actually accurate?

Perhaps our experience of suffering is entirely engulfed in the view point we see “reality” from, and then it is only a perspective, how can we be certain it is accurate?

Maybe we're already enlightened, we just haven't realized it yet…who knows…

~love to you~

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

Michael said…”Perhaps our experience of suffering is entirely engulfed in the view point we see “reality” from, and then it is only a perspective, how can we be certain it is accurate?”  Quite so.

Things begin, things continue, things end.  We do pretty good with the beginning part and the continuing part; it is the ending which throws us into the shadows of suffering.  Death is a sharp curve in the reality road that we cannot  see around, so we turn to the billboards of religion and spirituality to give names (afterall, if you know the name of something, you then have control over it) to the blank spots on the map.  Birth is easy; any pain or suffering from it connected to the one being born is generally well forgotten by the time we are old enough to consider the physical concept of birth, and so all is good, all continues; until we, individually, end.  If we did not die, we would not have to experience “rebirth”.

To consider life as being; in effect; suffering, is to consider that death is something only for the unwell, the unlucky, the unfortunate or the unwellconnected.  If we did not get sick, why would we need the knowledge of pharmacy?  Suffering is whatever brings us closer to death; whatever causes us to be unwell, unlucky, unfortunate or unconnected.

Life is a direction we take for a while on our journey.  If we suffer the whole while we go in that direction, then why do we wish to continue in that way for as long as we can?

If we were, for some SCIFI channel reason, suddenly cast out into space, it would indeed be a hostile and unsympathetic environment that we would get to know only very briefly.  We were created on this planet at a point when we could evolve into the beings we find ourselves being.  We are; whether by direction or circumstance; fitted into the way this planet conducts its life whether we appreciate it or not.  If we are unhappy here, I contend it is more the point that we cannot have complete control over every aspect of the planet than it is we have to suffer our unfortunate existance here.  We cannot prevent the continents from shifting, we cannot alter the course of the Mississippi with finality, we cannot calm the tornado the cyclone or hurricane, we cannot build a house at ground level on the beach and have any definite certainty that our great grand children (or even grand children) will be able to inherit it intact.  And that bugs the crap out of us.

We and our predicessors have been millenia evolving with this planet and whoever or whatever follows us will do so in the same manner; evolving as the environment we get to live in allows us to.  Have a good read in “The Book Of The Hopi”.  If we would rather be the tail which wags the dog, we can always go to Mars; it is available and I have it on the up and up that there have been no improvements made there in quite a good while.

Consciousness contains energy; energy evolves from consciousness in the manner in which we evolved from the ancient protozoa.  Consciousness is the infinite; energy is segments of finiteness flitting and flaming via causality.  The process of “enlightenment” is the consideration of the infinite.  If you strive to accept to know only that which can be measured via finiteness, then you are enslaved by that finiteness, and the consideration of Consciousness will be confined for you to only the plumbing of the energy contents of cell memory.

Energy is a box.  It is a box within a box within a box within a box within a box, and so on and so forth and so on.  When we get down to the tinniest box, right in the middle of it is the emptiness we cannot measure, causing us to expand outside that box and outside the next box and outside the next box and outside the next box and so on and so forth and so on.  If all there is is energy, then why do we seek to climb; let alone think; outside of its box?  Only to find more energy?  What are the odds?  Are we saying that only somethings can be probable and not others?  Are we saying we know what all the probabilities are?

Blessings and Peace. 

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

what is death? and why does it presuppose that suffering is involved?



even if we say that death is a very very natural part of the life cycle, the fact remains that even the most evolved among us feels pain when one of our beloved dies. are you suggesting that a highly evolved society would be non-feeling? no, i think my illustration can stand scrutiny because it it's basically correct, that part of the buddhist doctrine is fallacy, and like dennis suggests, nature we have little control over. yes, we are a part of her, but she can be quite mercurial at times and if that doesn't change we will always fall prey to suffering when she decides to kick our butts………………..so not only would death as we know it have to end, but nature as we know it would have to end to make that part of buddhist doctrine come true…………..myth, myth, myth….lol


in other words, on this planet suffering is built into the equation……..

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

Andrew>>>”the one thing we would have no control over is death and dying, so we would have to have hearts made of stone not to suffer when our loved ones died”

Micheal >>> what is death? and why does it presuppose that suffering is involved?

Oh cmon Mike, you're dancing away from his point.

It's not about death itself, it's about the pain felt by those who haven't died.

Sure, death itself is bliss and peace, nothing to worry about. But that's not from whence the 'suffering' arises.

Okay, and maybe, let's say one is dying from cancer in pain so terrible that one is screaming and writhing for months as the errant cells flay ones nervous system and flood the brain with endless, inextinguishable pain signals. That part of dying might not be so blissful, despite what follows.

Relatively simple verbal arguments like “what is death” will get you a well-deserved punch in the face from the family of a person they have to watch die like that. That's where bhakti fails.

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

you hit the ball out of the ballpark as far as getting my point bill:)

i do believe though that even buddhism has a saviour figure: maitraiya. so, i'm not saying it isn't possible to see the assertion of nirodha fulfilled. at that point though, buddhism starts to look very similar to christianity which claims that nature and death as we know it will end……

i do try to keep an open mind as much as possible about these faith assertions while still trying to keep the old gray matter where it belongs; between my ears and not spilled all over the floor……….

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

andrew >>> i do try to keep an open mind as much as possible about these faith assertions

I've wondered to myself what might have happened if, instead of the flat religious assertion, old gotama had said for noble truth 3, “I think I found a way to end this suffering that I'm talking about, and here's how I did it…”.

They probably would have beat him to death with sticks.

Religious technology is really funny and strong stuff.

i figure it's impossible to understand buddhism without keeping in mind that it was a reaction against the excesses of vedism, in much the same way that protestant christianity was a reaction against the excesses of catholicism.

So, even tho it tries to be the 'most rational' of religions, bhuddism is still basically religious technology - and especially all the later iterations are religious technology. And all religious technology feels like bullshit and has obvious flaws - if you aren't one of it's believers.

—

So, to get back to the 4 noble truths. Lets say that “all is suffering” is hyperbole. Is it really ALL suffereing, or is that just a florid religious way of saying “life sucks and then you die”, a kind of existential truism that we mostly all intuitively get?

I figure the latter is an acceptable interpretation, altho, frankly, I can see at least some merit in an absolutist “all is suffering” too. If you place your point of view at the perspective of say, a million years of overview, then it looks like life exists by eating life, and the suffering of life as it eats itself alive, over and over again, a trillion trillion trillion times, looks pretty absolute.

I figure it's the second noble truth, “suffering is caused by (desire) attachment” thats the most interesting of the 4. It kinda looks like a simple statement of a 'scientific theorm', a testable hypothesis.

But, it leaves a gaping hole. If you say “suffering is caused by desire/attachment” - yeah, okay, then what causes attachment? What's this 'attachment' all about?

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

Craving is different than desire. Desire is natural. I desire a pizza. I go to the pizza store to get some pizza.
The pizza store is closed.
Then the craving mechanism comes into play.
I keep banging on the door, “Give me some Pizza!” “Why aren't you open?”
Or, i go down the street to the burrito joint, which is open.

The zen teacher I studied with, Sasaki Roshi, once said this:
 'Enlightenment can be quite boring, but I wouldn't have any students if I told you that.' There isn't any goal called “enlightenment”. And Buddhism isn't a religion, because there are no beliefs necessary. It is all based upon self examination. Buddha also said, “Let reality be your teacher.”

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

forrest >>> The zen teacher I studied with, Sasaki Roshi, once said this:
 'Enlightenment can be quite boring, but I wouldn't have any students if I told you that.'

What a fascinating and curious statement. (And very true, I might add, from my perspective.)

I wonder why he craved students? Did you ask?

>>> And Buddhism isn't a religion, because there are no beliefs necessary.

Yes, one hears that said. How curious that such a saying exists.

It would be wonderful to see a demonstration!

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

 figure it's impossible to understand buddhism without keeping in mind that it was a reaction against the excesses of vedism, in much the same way that protestant christianity was a reaction against the excesses of catholicism.


i'm also willing to consider the historical personages of the buddha and jesus, although there are some decent arguments that say those 2 guys never existed!
let's assume they did exist and taught what the records show; the buddha taught non-theism with a rather in depth system or methodology to come to that realization, while jesus taught personal theism with virtually no methodology- simple faith seemed to be the recipe….so, what are we to make of these seemingly vast incongruities? again, assuming that they both existed and were who they said they were, what is anyone to make of this? were these 2 guys just confused? or was one of them lying? are there different levels of existence where it could turn out that both of them were right? were they both agents of disinformation ala david icke and the conspiracy theorists?


one thing they both had in common though was the ethos of shunning non-ownership, so  does anybody really get to talk for these 2 guys within the cozy confines of the most materialistic societies ever to exist on this planet? if so, who?
the brahmins and rabbi's and lama's and pastors and imams who don't seem to be going short of any material desire? can we trust what they teach under those conditions given the example set by the masters……..


or perhaps the donald has it right and it's he who dies with the most toys wins………………

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

andrew >>> so, what are we to make of these seemingly vast incongruities?

That them two fellas was talking about two different types of 'yoga'?

Raja yoga and bhakti yoga, repectively - that is, the yoga of special practices versus the yoga of devotion.

Not confused, I'd say, just talking about very different things.

The goal and the result, as well as the method, of the two yogas is different.

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

Dennis>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you strive to accept to know only that which can be measured via finiteness, then you are enslaved by that finiteness <<<<<<<<<<<<

:)

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

andrew>>>the fact remains that even the most evolved among us feels pain when one of our beloved dies…

is that a fact or an assumption?

“are you suggesting that a highly evolved society would be non-feeling?” no, not at all…

what is death? is it an actual end to who we actually are?

the physical body may cease, but is that who we are?

And therein lies the fundamental distinction of suffering involved with death. Who/what are you? Who/what am I? Who/what are we?

It is easy to assume that we are merely physical bodies. Yet, we are only aware of the body through the perceptions we perceive, and still, that is only a perception of the body that does the perceiving. How can we fundamentally say that those perceptions are absolute fact?

And still, there is an “energy” of some sort that allows this whole cosmic game to play itself out. And apparently, that energy is neither created nor destroyed, but merely transitions from form to form.

So if the cosmic energy doesn't die, then what is death?

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

I think to feel pain is normal for us.  It is part of our physical construction, which must have a reaction to each action.  To be evolved is not to be absent of emotions, but just to realize what they are.  Emotions, pain, suffering; all are part of our energy existance, all are energy perspectives of that existance.  I think the ego, rather than being some mysterious jealous other self deep inside us which rules us with a sometimes iron like hand, is simply our connection to the energy of which we and the physical world are made of.  The more we focus on energy, the more we try to ignore consciousness, the stronger the ego is and the more we feel we must rely upon energy to get through our lives.

I think even the idea of having a balanced existance is an energy related action and reaction.  To be balanced, you have just as many 0's on one side as you have 1's on the other.  The negative and positive must cancel each other out.  Our perspectives and understandings determine what constitutes a positive and what others constitute a negative.  Having balance, however, does have benefits, if you do not have to expend all of yourself in staying balanced.

Michael>>>>”It is easy to assume that we are merely physical bodies. Yet, we are only aware of the body through the perceptions we perceive, and still, that is only a perception of the body that does the perceiving. How can we fundamentally say that those perceptions are absolute fact?”

We are physical bodies, yes.  But our physicality exists within consciousness, and that which we understand as the soul (again, this is my understanding and not something which I feel must be everyone else's understanding) is that consciousness seeping in and over and through the electrons that constitute our form. 

Because our minds tend to think in the form of energy, a good many of our perspectives are in reality consciousness interpreted into energy based thoughts so that we can grapple with and understand them through our physical perceptions.  We, in fact, know a great deal about our bodies, but our perceptions are limited to that whci we are able to interpret.  Energy is real, and so our perceptions (disregarding day dreams and fantasies, or course) of energy is real.  Every time I step on the scales, I see more evidence of that reality.

I think the best example of how we interpret consciousness into enrgy based thoughts is love.  Although it is easy to consider separateness and individuality within an energy existance, I struggled long and hard to realize a manner through which that idea of individuality could be traced back to a form of individuality within consciousness.  Love, I had always felt, was an individual emotion expressed from the soul so, there must be something within consciousness which allows that individuality.

But love is not limited to certain people, nor even to certain species upon our planet.  “Love” is our sense of consciousness within each other which we perceive through our energy based thought processes.  I love my wife, but feel I could get on quite nicely the rest of my life without having to be near my sister-in-law; yet her husband loves her.  There are some people who profess love for everyone, and there are some people who never seem to find anyone to love.  There is an old saying which goes “you can't choose who your parents are (although the reverse is no longer true) and you can't choose who you love.

I think my wife and I recognize the consciousness within each other and are able to jointly interpret that recognition into the various emotions and attractions of what we call love.  Although physically (thank God) we are separate individuals, somehow we are able to “feel” the oneness of consciousness in each other, and this allows us to share that physicality and that (interpreted) emotion with each other.

I think death is a wearing out of the physical existance.  In my own personal situation, I am fairly sure that my act of aging is the result of my electrons losing their charges and growing farther and farther apart (as attested to by my ever expanding waistline) until such a point as they begin to cease to be closely connected, and organs and processes begin to fail.  I do find it odd, though, that a regular exposure to Rush Limbaugh will cause the same results.  Oh well.

Blessings and Peace.

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

“its not about death itself, it's about the pain felt by those who haven't died?”

Precisely, what is death? and why does it presuppose that suffering is involved?

From a perspective death seems to be associated with loss. And yet, what is it that is actually lost?

If something can be “lost” it really had no “permanent” footing in existence in the first place, so yeah, its gonna fade away anyway, why be attached to it? In that attachment to it IS the suffering.

And yet, that attachment is a personal choice made by the one operating conscious awareness, i.e. You, me, or whoever perceives the “death” of a loved one.

And if it is a simple verbal argument, why would it get a well-deserved punch in the face? And Perhaps the argument is not merely verbal?

Then again, perhaps a punch in the face is what is appropriate…  and if it is, i'd gladly accept it… cuz it doesn't really matter.

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

Michael >>> Then again, perhaps a punch in the face is what is appropriate…  and if it is, i'd gladly accept it… cuz it doesn't really matter.

Ain't that the freekin truth!

As long as you stay some reasonable distance away from folks who got someone with no permanent existence dying, you should be able to avoid the fisticuffs.

If such is your fate.

What is the point of that with no existence yakking it up anyway? All a waste of effort. There is no-one to speak, and no-one to hear.

Now that's a question, since this death business is settled.

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

The beginning of this discussion….”What is enlightenment?”
If i say i know the answer, I must not know.
The one who is saying these words, who is he?

And are there enlightenment experiences? That exist in time?
Can i be enlightened yesterday, but not today?

What is enlightenment?

'”The life force [prana] and the mind are operating [of their own accord], but the mind will tempt you to believe that it is “you”. Therefore understand always that you are the timeless spaceless witness. And even if the mind tells you that you are the one who is acting, don't believe the mind. […] The apparatus [mind, body] which is functioning has come upon your original essense, but you are not that apparatus.”

-nisargadatta

Re: To what extent is "enlightenment" useful and relevant today?

I dunno, quoting from authority seems awfully reminiscent of religion. I'm just sayin', you gotta respect the duck…

Nice poetry from you, tho.