Originally posted by Mister Meaner"Words are flying out like
...what is the point of enlightenment? ... just a product of your culture/upbringing/experience... perhaps Wittengenstein had a point about the function of words in these kind of debates.
endless rain into a paper cup
They slither while they pass
They slip away across the universe
Pools of sorrow waves of joy
are drifting thorough my open mind
Possessing and caressing me
Jai guru deva ...om" John Lennon
Words are doors for thoughts.
Sometimes open, sometimes closed.
Depending on how I/you/we see and interpret them.
Meister Eckhart said:
"The eye with which you see God
is the same with which God sees you."
Pools of sorrow and waves of joy
are drifting thorough your open mind
Possessing and caressing you...
This is enlightenment 😀 - a state of perpetual orgasmic grace.
Originally posted by MetamorphosisToo many high-faluting words though, talk about the curving of space due to the action of a gauge field and you'll have something that can be worked out with mathematical precision.
Yes, the essential Zen experience points toward two "things" -- 1. the lack of inherent existence of any objective phenomena, and 2. the lack of inherent existence of the self. Seen together, the result is a "luminous emptiness" (*shunyata* in Sanskrit). In Zen, this is usually called "satori", or the breakthrough into enlightenment. A satori in and of ...[text shortened]... appearance of a divided and disconnected universe out there.
oh btw Splash
What I have never really understood is that given we know Life is as it is, and all the rest that we bring to the present moment is "just thinking" what is the point of enlightenment?
A good question. I'll put it to you straight -- I spent three decades chasing enlightenment across two oceans, three continents, in Hindu ashrams and Buddhist monasteries, and in the "end", discovered it is nothing.
But that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. By calling it "nothing" I mean that it's nothing other than the direct experience of what is, now. It is absolutely ordinary, and yet at the same time, is almost always missed for what it is.
The "secret" is simple. The secret is in seeing that the self, the "I", has no existence beyond being an assumption, a collection of ideas. Of all the cherished fantasies we uphold, that is the greatest, and most illusory, of all. When it goes, everything false goes with it.
The individual person does not truly exist as distinct and separate from anything else. That lies at the core of what all "enlightened ones" taught, or struggled to communicate. And yet oddly, this realization is so simple, and so ordinary, that the Tibetans (for one) referred to enlightenment as simply "resting in the Natural State." They rightly call it the natural state because it is our native condition, when freed of the delusion that we exist as a separate somebody.
Does the sense of a separate self disappear all at once? In my experience, no. Awakenings can be sudden but the overall process is usually gradual, like the wearing away of a rock down into a grain of sand.
As to the "point" of enlightenment, it might be better to turn that question around and inquire, "what is the point of asking about the point of enlightenment?" In other words, inquire into the motive behind your question. You may discover some interesting assumptions, or belief-systems.
Technically, enlightenment itself has no point, because it is not an experience. It's simply our native condition, when not obscured by confused thinking.
It is so easy to say well of course that x is just a product of your culture/upbringing/experience/ and not the real blueness of the sky - that enlightenment itself seems to become merely another philosophical outlook, or rationalisation of existence. It seems difficult to "have faith" that enlightenment may exist, and perhaps Wittengenstein had a point about the function of words in these kind of debates.
Words are just pointers, of course, as in the Zen parable of the fingers pointing toward the Moon. But most people need words. Even the Rinzai Zen school, which emphasized practice over words, still used words as the main tool to breakthrough the lazy, hazy mind (as in the Zen koans).
Bottom line is, the crucial ingrediant is intent. All depends on what we want. There's a key expression in Buddhism -- "one does not seek for a way out of a prison until one has become disappointed with the prison". The problem is, most people are so attached to the prison that they almost never get disappointed with it -- and it's a prison!
So we first need to exhaust our romance with the world, and its endless temptations and promises of fulfilment. As we see, deeper and deeper that the world truly offers nothing, then we turn our attention to the way out almost by default. We get dragged "kicking and screaming" into enlightenment. And this is true because even most sincere seekers of enlightenment enounter enormous resistance from their minds.
The conventional mind itself has no interest in enlightenment and finds the whole thing vaguely threatening, because it senses that its world-view is going to be uprooted. And its essential world-view is this -- "there really is an objective, solid world out there, totally separate from my distinct and separate inner self in here. And if you question that, you must be crazy."
Originally posted by frogstompCan you measure the curvature of your consciousness, Grasshopper? 😲
Too many high-faluting words though, talk about the curving of space due to the action of a gauge field and you'll have something that can be worked out with mathematical precision.
oh btw Splash
i]Originally posted by Metamorphosis[/i]
Bottom line is, the crucial ingrediant is intent. All depends on what we want. There's a key expression in Buddhism -- "one does not seek for a way out of a prison until one has become disappointed with the prison".
OK... So how does that square with the Buddha's "noble truth" that desire leads to suffering (even desire/want about enlightenment)?
Surely intent/desire/want brings exactly the kind of shadow chasing that "enlightenment" is supposed to avoid.
Originally posted by Mister MeanerThe "desire" ( or "craving" ) that Buddha refered to was desire for fulfillment from phenomena, as perceived via our senses. He said that consciousness entangled with sensory input leads to the delusion that there is an objective world separate from us, and from which we are mostly disconnected. If we assume we are disconnected from it, we therefore assume we need energy from it, which leads to endless cravings to obtain such energy (or, "addictions", in modern lingo). All of that reinforces the subject/object split, and subsequent suffering.
OK... So how does that square with the Buddha's "noble truth" that desire leads to suffering (even desire/want about enlightenment)?
Surely intent/desire/want brings exactly the kind of shadow chasing that "enlightenment" is supposed to avoid.
The desire for enlightenment is something else entirely, and in Sanskrit is given a specific term -- mumukshutva, what can be loosely translated as the "self-transcending impulse"; or, put more simply, "the pull toward Truth".
In other words, a simple desire for enlightenment is not just okay, but necessary, otherwise we will lack the strength of conviction to even begin on the path, let alone stay on it.
Of course, once embarked on such a journey, it's possible to become neurotic about the journey itself, for example, by using it to escape the world or one's fears about being responsible. But these issues can't even be faced until one at least begins.
Originally posted by MetamorphosisSo nice to have your lightning asessment! 😉
Have another drink, slushface. 😵
...once embarked on such a journey, it's possible to become neurotic about the journey itself, for example, by using it to escape the world or one's fears about being responsible. But these issues can't even be faced until one at least begins.
And I just thought it was raining champagne! 😵 Be responsible! Be here now!!!
Originally posted by MetamorphosisBut is there really a path?
In other words, a simple desire for enlightenment is not just okay, but necessary, otherwise we will lack the strength of conviction to even begin on the path, let alone stay on it.
Is realising enlightenment a merely spiritual diversion when facing what needs to be done in life. Does the mere deletion of internal commentary "allowing compassionate action to arise of itself" in some egoless state "with no-one doing" make any such action undertaken more enlightened that a similarly compassionate or skillful action undertaken simply because the thinking mind sees it needs to be done? And who decides the difference anyway? Is a meal I give to a hungry man because I am a devout Christian, Buddhist or humanist any different except by the Christian, Buddhist or Humanist baggage I bring to the action, and does it really matter if I am aware of my outbreath as I hand over the plate or am aware of the discomfort of a stone in my shoe, as I bring it over or of the blueness of the sky behind his head? And if I don't tell you would you ever know the difference?
Originally posted by Mister MeanerBut is there really a path?
But is there really a path?
Is realising enlightenment a merely spiritual diversion when facing what needs to be done in life. Does the mere deletion of internal commentary "allowing compassionate action to arise of itself" in some egoless state "with no-one doing" make any such action undertaken more enlightened that a similarly compassionate or skil ...[text shortened]... ss of the sky behind his head? And if I don't tell you would you ever know the difference?
"Path" is a convention, a useful notion. Ultimately the only "spiritual path" is life itself. But all the same, the idea of a "spiritual path" can be very useful for defining our intention -- the "self-transcending impulse" I mentioned above -- and giving it a particular form. This is usually needed because actually attempting study one's mind -- which is really the heart of Buddhism, whether Zen or any other denomination -- can meet with stubborn resistance from the mind itself.
Is realising enlightenment a merely spiritual diversion when facing what needs to be done in life.
If the interest in enlightenment is merely a diversion, than it is founded on immature seeking (escapism, basically). A "ripe" seeker of truth is generally one who hasn't avoided life, and has some life-experience under their belt. Although on occasion, genuinely sincere seekers do emerge even amongst the very young.
Does the mere deletion of internal commentary
Nothing is "deleted", as that would imply a forced situation.
"allowing compassionate action to arise of itself" in some egoless state "with no-one doing" make any such action undertaken more enlightened that a similarly compassionate or skillful action undertaken simply because the thinking mind sees it needs to be done?
As judged by others probably not, because they are only seeing the actions. And a compassionate action, whether done by Buddha or Jack the Ripper, is still a compassionate action.
And who decides the difference anyway?
You decide the difference, if it is you we are talking about. We are always the arbiter of our own experience, one way or the other. So only you will know whether your actions are deriving from whatever mental state or motivation you have.
Is a meal I give to a hungry man because I am a devout Christian, Buddhist or humanist any different except by the Christian, Buddhist or Humanist baggage I bring to the action, and does it really matter if I am aware of my outbreath as I hand over the plate or am aware of the discomfort of a stone in my shoe, as I bring it over or of the blueness of the sky behind his head? And if I don't tell you would you ever know the difference?
You're conflating a whole lot of elements there.
First of all, I wouldn't comment on Christians or humanists in this context, because I wasn't talking about them. I was explaining Buddhist philosophy/practice.
Secondly, practices like "mindfulness of your breath", or the metaphysical analogy of the blue sky, have nothing to do with giving some food to a hungry man. Anyone might give food to a hungry man, including a drug dealer. Giving food to a hungry man is not related to spiritual practice -- unless one feels the intention to give food to a hungry man.
The fundamental question you seem to be asking underneath all of your questions, is "why should I bother with working on my mind, or studying spirituality, or being on a spiritual path?", etc.
To which I'd answer, it's entirely up to you. If you see or sense value in it, you'll be motivated to proceed, inquire, study, etc. If not, you won't. It's very simple.
Originally posted by frogstompEither way, I'd recommend Buddhism for you. Not just because Buddhism is almost purely rational at heart and not really a religion (it's more a study of the mind), but also because of your namesake, Basho's frog. 😏
tetering on making a quantum leap to a more spiritual orbit. maybe
or possibly decaying inward toward my own singularity.
Originally posted by MetamorphosisI didn't think I was asking that? I thought I was really asking something along the lines of "What is the real difference between the first and the tenth Ox herding Picture" and how can we tell the difference without falling into some trap relating to selfishness or judgement if we are looking at someone-else (a potential guide, perhaps)
[b]But is there really a path?
The fundamental question you seem to be asking underneath all of your questions, is "why should I bother with working on my mind, or studying spirituality, or being on a spiritual path?", etc.
In the URL that starts this thread we see Seung Shan's thoughts about this and how he thinks Enlightenment may affect us. Zen's attraction (to me at least) apart from the witty one liners, is that the philosophy aims at utter simplicity in direct contrast to some of the Indian thinking (The seven stages of A, followed by the 14 even subtler stages of A1, A2 and so on in their endless categorisations).
The disappointment has been the ceremonial (cultural??) aspects, altar worship and so on, of which the orthodox church might be justly proud. You may guess I distrust ritual magic.
In a general sense Spirituality must be about nourishing/uplifting the human spirit. I don't mean ghostlike entity - I don't believe in such things, I mean how we "feel in ourselves". Perhaps similar to how we can be uplifted if our cricket team wins, or we achieve something like a running a marathon, or winning a chess match against a much stronger player. In many ways I am not certain that Zen need have much to do with Buddhism (particularly for westerners) because in a sense Buddhism seems to me to bring extra layers of thinking that the Zen Masters seem to be encouraging us to dispense with, as in the URL above.