Enlightenment and Rationality

[Sphere70]

Hi,

I just wanted to express some views about the idea of enlightenment, which interest me a lot, and how I see it connected to the process of reason.
From my viewpoint, the state of enlightenment – if we should call it that– is the same for whoever has ended up permanently abiding there.
That is to say that I believe the people who cut through and into that which is at our foundation share the same ”experience” of the reality of the natural state – even though they came into it from different directions. So, to name a few (big ones, -), Buddah, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Jesus, Meister Eckhart, Lao Tzu, Ramana Maharshi, UG Krishnamurti, Anandamayi, Ramakrishna (add whomever you like) inhabits the same space – that is to say the space underlying the faculties of the mind – the thoughts and emotions (which I see as two sides of the same mechanism). So to follow I would then label (even though this is a trap in itself) the state of the Tao/Natural State/Enlightenment/The Absoulte/Nothingness /God (you get the point, -) as a ”feeling” - in the opposite sense of the ”feelings” attributed to the mechanism of the mind and which follows or dictates a though/thoughts. I would therefore rather put it in the descriptive family of a ’taste’, a ’mood’ or, why not, a ’state’ which escapes the blueprints of the explanatory mind just for the fact that this dualism necessary for that process doesn’t seem to function in the same way – that is to say in the non-dualistic experience.
And this is also where the paradox comes in because it seems like the memory is still very much active during the processes of remaining in this non-dualistic state –and when they are speaking they are then naturally speaking the concepts of thoughts learned from before entering into this state (or maybe altered after - which of course is the same – second hand symbols striking chords with what is a purely subjective experience) and they will naturally speak that certain, colored, language. Hence the difference of “teachings” from UG to Anandamayi, from Lao Tzu to Eckhart. But again they all are in the same state which is beyond the different faculties of thought and emotions that by outward stimulation (a question from somebody for example) seems to still make the respond and address the “experience” of this state, which means that a paradoxical state of recording is still operating which later lends to them a way to address this non-dualism in various manners, most successfully maybe in the not-this not-this teachings.

So to tie it to rationality which is very much a process possible and made important in the experience of the empirical world in the dualistic sense – it may very well lead to that state, just as Ramana entered into the Tao in a very different way quite separated from the processes of rationality. That is to say it will never exist a “way” or a system to reach the natural state (thought I acknowledge that reach is a wrong word to use) – but I certainly believe in the process of logic to be the natural way for me to exist in my day to day living and to see things as I think is clear and sane – but I have no hopes that it will lead me to the State which will most certainly be beyond these processes, but then again it just might, as the same way that if I for the sake of some absurd curiosity tried some ancient sauna mediation or if I just tired of everything in a deep state of depression went to a 99cent Store for distraction, might enter into this state. I truly believe it is that unpredictable – the state of affairs leading one beyond what one know into being that which doesn’t separate.

I don’t know, just felt like writing because I feel that this is a very interesting forum, which I enjoy reading from and it is always of great interest entering into discussions in these topics. And I have more to say but I felt that it best comes out when a discussion has started and the ball playing is in full motion.

All the best,

Chris

[Diebert van Rhijn]

So to follow I would then label the state of the Tao/Natural State/Enlightenment/The Absoulte/Nothingness /God (you get the point, -) as a ”feeling” - in the opposite sense of the ”feelings” attributed to the mechanism of the mind and which follows or dictates a though/thoughts. I would therefore rather put it in the descriptive family of a ’taste’, a ’mood’ or, why not, a ’state’ which escapes the blueprints of the explanatory mind just for the fact that this dualism necessary for that process doesn’t seem to function in the same way – that is to say in the non-dualistic experience.

Hi Chris, welcome to the forum. It's a bit quiet lately here but your thoughts about this subject are appreciated and it shows you've been at it for a while now. That's why I guess you must already realize that even 'sublime' versions of a mood, taste, state, feeling or experience have still the problem of being caught in the same object-subject relation, since they are created in that very dynamic. It remains ultimately subjectively and incidental, although I will not deny the rarity, power or effect of the experiences. Better not to look for too much rhyme or reason in them, least of all in those of others.

As you already wrote, some have tried to describe the way by attaching "no" before everything: no-state, no-thought, no-mind. Others have ended up with "every" and as such "everyone", everything" and "all-state", a totality.

But even these insights will not change fate: the depth of reasoning, the range of insight and clarity of awareness caused to happen by inexplicable, bound to be misunderstood processes. Not that I will call them random but sometimes it's better to think that way!

[jupiviv]

From my viewpoint, the state of enlightenment – if we should call it that– is the same for whoever has ended up permanently abiding there.

Right there is the problem in your idea. What kind of state is this where we can "permanently abide"? Is it bliss, torment, love, boredom, thoughtlessness, thoughtfulness....? None of those states are permanent. If you search for a "permanent state" like that, or think that you have achieved it, you'll end up nowhere. Do not try to become enlightened, either hoping for it in the form of a miracle or by understanding some philosophical ideas and concepts. Instead, turn back on yourself and try to understand what you yourself mean by "enlightenment". When you understand that, and apply that understanding to the rest of your thinking, you'll be home free.

[uncledote]

From my viewpoint, the state of enlightenment – if we should call it that– is the same for whoever has ended up permanently abiding there.

Right there is the problem in your idea. What kind of state is this where we can "permanently abide"? Is it bliss, torment, love, boredom, thoughtlessness, thoughtfulness....? None of those states are permanent. If you search for a "permanent state" like that, or think that you have achieved it, you'll end up nowhere. Do not try to become enlightened, either hoping for it in the form of a miracle or by understanding some philosophical ideas and concepts. Instead, turn back on yourself and try to understand what you yourself mean by "enlightenment". When you understand that, and apply that understanding to the rest of your thinking, you'll be home free.

How can we experience thoughtlessness? You might as well try to stop breathing, or listening. It can't be done. Years of meditation might make you good at slowing down the thoughts but is this even an admirable state to pursue? Why go against nature and the body so vehemently?

[Sphere70]

Thanks a lot for the replies. I appreciate it.

Yes, I certainly agree with you about the subject-object problem of the specific non-dualistic (absolute) state, which I quite grossly related to a ’taste’ or ’mood’.
But the problem seems only to be a problem when thought tries to capture the state for the sake of communication. That is to say – thought is itself the problem. Not – as Uncledote objected – falsely seen as a strict enemy, which should be annihilated (after all it is thought itself absurdly whishes for its own death) but should be recognized as an automatic system that has extended its use into a self-perpetuating mechanism, which obstructs the silence beneath (though the word beneath is used very loosely here, and also the silence ,-). With thought I also include the swoon-like emotional states, which companies thoughts in every case. That is – no thought, no feeling, and the opposite. I also want to make clear that I define apathy, calmness and boredom as feelings just as much as sadness, lust and anger. I put no hierarchy to the emotions and to the thoughts reasoning about the emotions. If one emotion is reasoned as an intruder of the “path” then the attachment to the non-attachment of, let’s say, desire will be another obstruction of the “path” – and so on. The desire for non-desire will not create ‘No Desire’.
This silence though (or whatever name works best, I might prefer Gravity or something similar), that I believe (and by experience, which of course can be questioned and which I surely question constantly) is not what I call enlightenment, but is where one needs to retract into for further investigations. That is we sink into ourselves, the basic experience of something sitting at this computer right now writing these words by itself it seems, without getting to involved in the images the words contain and the emotional load within. This seems to me a sane and important entry point, – and you are all right saying that this is indeed not enlightenment but it seems like the way there if it is a there. That is to say it make life more interesting, because you recognize the absolute intense subjectivity that is the relative state of being awake (non-metaphorically that is) and you willingly sink into it unrestrictedly, as one do not try to resist gravity by hanging and climbing a rope (though this carries its own joys occasionally). And from this point reasoning seems so much more reasonable =). Abstracted images contained as words are seen from a new closeness, a different angle, and the emotions is not absurdly individual.

Kind Regards

Chris

[jufa]

Who can tell another whether they are enlightened or not? Even the the Christian Bible, or Vedas, Uopanishads, Puranas, Sutras, Bhagavad Gita, and Koran, to whom it appears many have placed their well being and anticipated rapture, has not given any indication that the literal following of such teaching has enlightened anyone, but the few, who has understood what enlightenedment truly is.

What is enlightenment? This knowledge belongs only to the individuals who has transcended themselves. This the soul has been purged of dualism and dissolved to what it was before it became a living soul, and have returned to that "Light that lightest every man that cometh into the world." Even in this individual transcension, it cannot be relayed to another because each individual must receive this purging by revelation, which comes not by intellectual comprehension.

It is one things to have the good, best, and earnest intention to do that which will cause and individual "to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with their God." But listen, and listen intensively, because one can desire to do the above, but if the above is not done - according to the Principled Substance and Patterned Essence of God consumingly in the bosom of "The law of the Spirit of life," and by the continuous governing hand of "Christ in them the hope of glory," no amount of reading, duplicating and following the laws, and by-law of any religion, or preacher, guru, or master will bring enlightenment unto the mind dressed in the form of flesh, by fleshly words. Reception just comes, and even the receiver knows not from where, or why they are the beneficials of it.

Enlightenment to this individual writing these words is being able to live one's life totally upon the Word of Grace. Grace means there is nothing to overcome. "IT IS FINISHED."

Man is man regardless of what. "Every thing after its kind." No man who has ever lived in their interval of time, space, distance and matter is not having a wonderful experience outside of his own culture of thinking. Man is always becoming aware of a reflection of what he is aware of. If this was not true, no man could become aware of that which he has no knowledge of. That which is not in a man cannot be outside of his awareness.

All apply idealism to daily living, even you the reader, and I the writer of these words. So what are you saying jufa? Sacred to this writer has nothing to do with what a book, church, organization, community, country, or nation project. If such projection and ideas were the truth of what is sacred and holy, then the tumults which has constituted wars and financial upheaval in the world today could not exist. What is sacred is what brings peace and harmony to an individuals life, and that harmony is absorbed by all who come into contact with such a being, and practice that harmony with the knowledge that such practice has changed the world around them for the better. This is enlightment and rationality.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Blair]

Who can tell another whether they are enlightened or not?

I can. Anyone who is enlightened can.

You aren't.

[Scorched Soul]

Who can tell another whether they are enlightened or not?

I can. Anyone who is enlightened can.

You aren't.

Actually, you aren't, I am though and so is he.

[Scorched Soul]

Enlightenment is not being clouded by nonsense, it's seeing the truth, what is really important and more importantly, what isn't.

To be enlightened is to transcend your emotional needs, which are the source of all your misery and also most of your ignorance (not just you, most people, including me)

You experience just being, it sounds wonderful to me but may never be possible in the truest sense, it can take a lifetime to acheive and a lot of dedication and real courage because you may become a complete outcast as you try to get rid of what most people cherish. No one on this forum is enlightened, but I think some people know what it is. People may have their own concept of enlightenment, I'm not completely sure what it means on Genius Forum - I think it's the ability free yourself form emotion but perhaps not just that as there seems to be more to it, not sure what yet.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

People may have their own concept of enlightenment

There are many different concepts of enlightenment, but at the very least, each concept either implicitly or explicitly contains a concept of maturity. Unfortunately that term is almost as difficult to universally define with complete precision.

[Bob Michael]

Enlightenment is not being clouded by nonsense, it's seeing the truth.....

The epitome of enlightenment is to be a fully living embodiment of the truth.

"The perfect man is pure spirit." (Lao Tzu)