Could We Ever Reach Enlightenment?
When religion is discussed on the forum, it’s generally in reference to Christianity. This dialogue is valuable, but limited to the confines of Christianity. This discussion will focus on the karma cycle as described in the Hindu text, the Bhagavad Gita. When reading through the literature, I wondered if selfishness was inherent in karma yoga. I will explain my thinking and would love your thoughts as well.
1. If selfishness exists, a person cannot reach enlightenment.
2. Selfishness is inescapable.
3. Therefore, enlightenment is unreachable. (MP 1,2)
Karma yoga is defined as “the path of selfless, God-dedicated action” (45) in the Bhagavad Gita. Hinduism frames enlightenment as the purpose of existing, which is achieved through the release from the karma cycle. Here the irony rests: to reach enlightenment, a soul must act selflessly. Selfless action is required to be released from the karma cycle, but the action will never be entirely sacrificial because the motivation behind altruistic action is personal gain. As a result, enlightenment is unreachable because selfish intent can never be separated from altruistic action.
A potential objection arises when considering the difference between intention and action. In its definition, karma yoga specifies selfless action, not intention. If release from the karma cycle only requires selfless action and permits selfish intention, then selfishness is no longer a threat to enlightenment because selflessness is preserved. As a result, enlightenment becomes a realistic option in the karma cycle. However, if intention is considered an action, then selflessness action is tainted by selfish intention and enlightenment is unattainable. A specification of definition is required to further develop this conversation. In regards to religions other than Hinduism that recommends that its believers act altruistically, similar logic applies. Should we be concerned if a believer acts selflessly out of ultimately selfish motive? In other words, does selfish intention taint altruistic action?
1. If selfishness exists, a person cannot reach enlightenment.
2. Selfishness is inescapable.
3. Therefore, enlightenment is unreachable. (MP 1,2)
Karma yoga is defined as “the path of selfless, God-dedicated action” (45) in the Bhagavad Gita. Hinduism frames enlightenment as the purpose of existing, which is achieved through the release from the karma cycle. Here the irony rests: to reach enlightenment, a soul must act selflessly. Selfless action is required to be released from the karma cycle, but the action will never be entirely sacrificial because the motivation behind altruistic action is personal gain. As a result, enlightenment is unreachable because selfish intent can never be separated from altruistic action.
A potential objection arises when considering the difference between intention and action. In its definition, karma yoga specifies selfless action, not intention. If release from the karma cycle only requires selfless action and permits selfish intention, then selfishness is no longer a threat to enlightenment because selflessness is preserved. As a result, enlightenment becomes a realistic option in the karma cycle. However, if intention is considered an action, then selflessness action is tainted by selfish intention and enlightenment is unattainable. A specification of definition is required to further develop this conversation. In regards to religions other than Hinduism that recommends that its believers act altruistically, similar logic applies. Should we be concerned if a believer acts selflessly out of ultimately selfish motive? In other words, does selfish intention taint altruistic action?
Comments (95)
I am also having trouble with accepting as a premise that "intention is considered an action." As a matter of parts of speech, intention qualifies an action. I am willing to hear other ways of listening to the idea but I don't know what it means to assume it.
If a person is motivated by the needs of others, how can that be considered selfish?
- Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 3; 4-5.
- Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 3; 8-9.
- Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 3; 11-14.
As you can see God-dedicated action means acting for the sake of the collective whole. It means understanding yourself as an individual (a self or atman) who is part of a collective of individuals (other selves or atma) and, therefore, realising that what is good for everyone is the utmost good for the individual as well because every part of life is connected and dependent on the rest.
Selfishness means acting for oneself against others. In the Bhagavad Gita, Karma Yoga teaches against that. It teaches us to act for ourselves and for others as part of a unified and harmonic collective in God. Hence Karma Yoga requires one to possess the appropriate discernment and, consequently, the next chapter after that on Karma Yoga is called 'The Yoga of Wisdom'.
Yes. A charitable reading of the Gita makes room for "selfish" actions. Acting to one's own detriment for the sake of "selflessness" might even be categorized as a sort of delusion by Krishna (see Chapter 1 where Arjuna is moved by compassion toward his enemy and refuses to fight).
As Brian points out, the Gita doesn't prohibit selfish actions. It merely advises one against attachment to the fruits of one's actions. In principle, it is possible to perform an action whose goal is to benefit oneself and also be satisfied if such a benefit is not attained.
Yes, white, male, Christian, Western techno-capitalist is quite a few ruts to be in, all at the same time! :wink: :smile:
Quoting gnat...
Quoting gnat
This seems problematic to me. For a start, are "selflessness" and "selfishness" synonymous here, for you
seem to be conflating the two? :chin:
Quoting karl stone
Really? Then you are not using the term "enlightenment" as it is commonly (exclusively?) used to describe this Eastern religio-philosophical concept, are you? Enlightenment has little or nothing to do with politics, science, rationality, or even reality (in the scientific sense), as I understand it. :chin:
Aren't you familiar with https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment?
I wouldn't agree with that premise, by the way. And I would assume that Hinduism doesn't assert that selfishness isn't inescapable if it asserts that enlightenment isn't possible without selfless action. (Of course, maybe Hinduism doesn't assert that enlightenment isn't possible without selfless action, as others suggest above.)
Yes, of course. But "enlightenment" in the context of Eastern philosophy, has only one meaning. Didn't you know that? I'm sure you did.... :wink:
Then I'm sorry to have disturbed your obvious calm!
Sure, but he said that when he read the thread title, he thought it was going to be about the Enlightenment. Apparently he's far more interested in that, so he decided to comment from that perspective.
He probably just wasn't as interested in the content of the initial post as he was in what he thought the thread was going to be about based on his interpretation of the title.
The progressive ‘left’ currently believe that their campaign of social justice are the actions of an enlightened mind and that Trump is a terrible mistake.
I believe that the progressive ‘left’ are largely naive and dangerous. I believe Trump is objecticticely just a repetition of history. I think my view is more enlightened.
In terms of the kind of Bhagavid Gita sort of enlightenment then yes it’s possible to achieve but if it’s anything other than a form of stoicism and self love; I don’t know.
In answer Yes it is possible to achieve. But what that means.. I don’t know.
...which is what the OP asked us to consider...? :chin: So why add alternative interpretations of "enlightenment" to muddy the original poster's topic?
Noble deeds reward the Noble soul. The Nobel soul if acting selflessly is rewarded then there is no taint. If the Nobel soul acts with self gain in mind, even if only in the furthest and most silent corners of the mind, then yes, the nobility of the action is tainted.
There are plenty of holes in the above. But I think from a rationalist perspective that’s enough to settle ones mind.
I’ve read the BG and couldn’t help but think this selflessness sounds a hell of a lot like being selfish lol. But one needn’t handle the bread oneseld In order to feed the masses.
Another idea is detatchment. We are destructive beings, to lesser and greater extents, by being enlightened we become more detached and pose less of a threat. That’s pretty selfless. Foregoing material gain in order to live a life of integrity that involves taking as little from the collective availability as possible.
When Krishna expounds on yoga in the Bhagavad Gita, the teachings are based on the principles of absolute unity. Yoga means absolute unity in spiritual teachings. Absolute unity means unity with everything or with the whole of reality. The different types of yoga are different paths to attaining such unity. Karma Yoga are teachings on how to attain unity through appropriate activity whether political, scientific, rational, social, etc, etc. Because those teachings are based on principles, they apply to all the various channels of our life-interactions.
The enlightenment taught in the Bhagavad Gita is a comprehensive enlightenment, the only problem for most people is the spiritual language used. However, I think it is possible to translate it into political, scientific, rational, social, etc, fields of association.
The idea of Karma Yoga is to act for the sake of everyone and everything (our selves included).
I was quite content to have misunderstood - and for the word enlightenment to have been used in an entirely different sense here, to that which I had in mind. Because I'm a scientist and a rationalist, if you discuss this further, I shall be forced to adopt a critical position relative to your philosophy - and I have no desire to do so. Let us shake metaphorical hands and retreat to our separate realms, and for the avoidance of confusion in future, perhaps you might use the word moksha, or Kevala Jnana, or ushta instead. i.e. "Can we ever reach moksha?"
This argument is strangely reminiscent of Calvinism, for whom any really altruistic motivation is impossible, due to the ‘total depravity of the will’ arising from the fall of man, the only remedy to which is complete and unquestioning faith in Christ.
But such arguments really don’t hold water in respect of Hinduism. In Indian spirituality, the impediment is more cognitive than volitional; it can’t be understood solely in terms of corruption of the will (although that is a factor), as the fundamental impediment is avidya. This is usually translated as ‘ignorance’ but I think a better translation would be ‘un-wisdom’. And that in turn arises from the ‘illusion of otherness’, which is inherent in the condition of having been born an individual.
Actually that brings to mind a quote from another, wildly different source:
[quote=Albert Einstein]A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe", a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish the delusion but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind. 1 [/quote]
It might sound trite spelled out in such perfunctory form, but the actual task of ‘freeing oneself’ is one of great magnitude - as eloquently illustrated in the Bhagavad Gita.
What enlightenment did you have in mind?
The Enlightenment in European history was a period in which absolutist religious authority and religious reasoning were cast off, and rationality and science were embraced. Clearly, this was never fully realized - but separation of church and state, and other secular values are attributable to the era. Thus, I took the question to mean - can we complete the enlightenment project by accepting that science truthfully describes reality, and conducting our political and economic affairs accordingly. It is, to my mind - necessary to secure a sustainable future.
Clearly, you use the term enlightenment to refer to something else entirely, something inconsistent with a scientific rationale that demands empirical proof of reliably reproducible phenomena. I cannot help but consider this conflation of terms an unfortunate and unnecessary appropriation of a well established term with a specific and important meaning.
The English speaking world managed to understand and incorporate words like karma - such that continuing to colonize over the idea of enlightenment seems somewhat calculating on your part; a deliberate attempt to undermine an alternate and opposed system of thought. And if you are successful - I rather suspect the entire human species likely to achieve the nirvana of non-existence!!
Not quite so.
Enlightenment, from the Bhagavad Gita, refers to a state of unity, harmony and freedom as a conscious being within an absolute reality. I have utmost confidence that every part of its teachings are consistent with rationale, scientific or otherwise. Also, every principle or law stated in the teachings are observable in their action through phenomena thus making empiricism evident.
Wouldn’t philosophy be dull if it was just science.
Imagine.
Yeah. And what would it mean for logic or analytical thinking if it began with the advent of modern science? Because last I checked science was initially called natural philosophy. It's weird when people speak as if logical thinking didn't exist before science.
The actual Enlightenment refers to something real, that actually occurred, and is rationally comprehensible - a political movement in European history that rejected absolutist religious authority in favor of science and rationality.
A "state of unity, harmony and freedom as a conscious being within an absolute reality" is at best, a subjective psychological state - and at worst, a string of words that signify nothing. Either way, it's not consistent with empiricism - which requires proof of reliably reproducible phenomena.
Given that the Bhagavad Gita has names for this supposed psychological state - please use those. This is beyond cultural appropriation. It's cultural vandalism to claim Enlightenment can be achieved by sitting cross legged in one's pajamas, eyes closed and believing really, really hard! The Enlightenment is the very antithesis of that kind of nonsense.
This is not taught in the Bhagavad Gita. Actually, it states quite the contrary.
Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 5; 2
(Sannyasi refers to the way of life which implies renouncing the earthly and living solely meditatively.)
Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 6; 1
(Krishna teaches that we have duties to ourselves and the communities of our fellow men and, therefore, it is against true yoga teachings to abandon such.)
These are just a few of the teachings in the Bhagavad Gita. As you can see, they harbour no delusions about what entails the path to enlightenment. Krishna himself was a king and taught the value of appropriate real life living.
Also, the term 'enlightenment' from the 'age of enlightenment' is borrowed from the spiritual teachings found in the ancient scriptures. Back then, they thought that a scientific revolution would bring about that beatific society often alluded to in scriptures. Compared to now, obviously they were wrong, or it is yet to happen.
I bet old Karl is real fun at a dinner party.
Sorry old chap. I don’t like to result to insult but you are being a bit of an ass. Could you please cut out the assness. Just a little.
Or perhaps you might accept that, like nearly every other English word in existence, "enlightenment" has several meanings, all of which are clearly understood (from context) by the vast majority of English speakers? Here's one link, but there are many others. The Eastern meaning of "enlightenment" is listed as a known meaning of this word. Must we only use words in the way that you, personally, use them? Piffle! :joke:
Your point is trivial - because until the the Enlightenment, religious systems of thought, and the language used to describe them were all that were available. Using the term enlightenment to describe the light of rational knowledge was a step forward. Science surrounds us with miracles that we can see and experience in the real world, and if science has not reached its full potential, it's because the Enlightenment project was resisted by people like you. Appropriating the term to describe your eastern mysticism is a step back into the shadows of religious ignorance. But if you're okay with it - be aware, there are innumerable gerera of intestinal parasite yet to be classified, so prepare yourself for the karma tapeworm Giardiasis Gita!
I did try. I asked him to let it go, but he persisted. So I tried asking nicely - but I'm meeting with that infuriating denial of genuine human emotion Buddhists affect - as a pretense of spirituality.
I'm quite sure, if asked, most people would understand the term enlightenment to refer to some eastern spiritual nonsense, and very few would know anything about the 18th century rationalist philosophical movement. What does that tell you? That science, while surrounding us with miracles of technology - and providing real knowledge of the world, is nonetheless held in contempt. I seek to address that - because truth is important, particularly as we face global scale existential threats. No amount of limb bending and chanting at the beyond is going to solve climate change. We need to complete the Enlightenment project.
I have to agree here Karl. I’m open to your reasoning and you are certainty intelligent, certainly, more so than myself for sure. But you are at risk of being closed.
Karl id like to start a personal dialogue with you discussing mainly these matters but others, related. Would you mind?
I’m no expert on debate but I feel like you are so maybe you can educate me in the process.
Let me know.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/37/The_Dialectics_of_Faith_and_Enlightenment
My own approach to the issue is simply to recognize the value of both approaches. Science-directed philosophy offers a kind of hygiene or discipline. On the other hand, quasi-religious philosophy more directly addresses the whole of our situation. Science-directed philosophy can err by closing itself off from realms of experience. Quasi-religious philosophy can err by refusing to use science-directed philosophy to sharpen itself and avoid dogmatism.
What Krishna taught, the teachings of yoga, had nothing to do with religion. They were based on principles of the activities of our lives and apply to all occupations.
Similar teachings were given by Buddha as dharma and had nothing to do with religion. They were just as much based on principles of the activities of our lives and apply to all occupations.
I don't know the religious system from which you derive enlightment but, it is obvious you do not know the Bhagavad Gita or even the teachings of Buddha. None of those teachings have anything to do with mysticism. Their teachings were and have been practised by many including those whose occupations are in the fields of science, politics, religion, philosophy, etc.
Also, the numerous machines and tools invented long before the 'science' revolution or 'the age of enlightenment' is a testament to the fact that analytical methods of investigation and the empirical value derived therefrom have been in existence for a very long time. Rationale was a part of humans long before the term science was coined.
I don't know whether your scientific inclination allows you to use unfounded premises in your accusations but, I can assure you the valid teachings on enlightenment, eastern or otherwise, are not based on superstition. They are products of well reasoned out practices.
Would you judge a reasonable person by the actions of the insane? I hope not. I don't know why you would judge the teachings on enlightenment given by such distinguished minds as Krishna's by the actions of those who clearly do not adhere to his teachings. Those actions of the religious nuts which necessitated a social revolution through a 'scientific' mode of progress cannot define the refined teachings given by people such as Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, etc, just as the misguided actions of political leaders like Hitler do not define the entire field of politics.
I'm not saying scientific efforts are not admirable. But, contrary to your belief, Krishna's yoga teachings about enlightenment are not antagonistic to science or any other field of knowledge or occupation. In fact, they complement them.
I cannot imagine there's anything you can't say here. Afterall, this is a thread about yoga, and I'm discussing science and survival. If this is the Buddhist way of telling me to knock it off - just tell me to knock it off. It's okay to want things!
From the POV of the western person seeking some spiritual dogma to follow because they cannot think for themselves, and must therefore borrow from others to lend their own personality a little depth - your dogma is entirely interchangeable with any religious dogma, and the claim it's not a religion - it's a philosophy, is a distinction without a difference. It's slightly different in its native context. There, it's an inter-generational religious practice - ideas ingrained into children before the age at which they're capable of rational judgement.
Quoting BrianW
I can think for myself, and think reality quite astonishing enough without needing to gussy it up with tawdry decoration. If you have anything as ineffable in your philosophy as wondering what the universe is expanding into, for example - then sign me up! If you have built any glittery thing to your god that's as magnificent as the starry sky, anything as beautiful as the sunrise, anything as profoundly excruciating as individual mortality against hope for the future of our children - then sign me up. Otherwise, I'll simply look reality in the eye and be humbled by its fearful majesty.
Quoting BrianW
Here's a real thing most people don't see. Ask yourself - do you know more today than yesterday? Do you know more, and better today than when you were five years old? Clearly, knowledge has a direction - from less and worse knowledge, to more and better knowledge over time - and yet you parade the ancientness of your philosophy as a claim to superiority.
Quoting BrianW
I'm sure you think so. But how could you say otherwise? To my mind, your philosophy is quite easily categorized alongside religious dogma - and it's a pretense you don't have gods when you revere as gods claimants of a psychological state described as: "a state of unity, harmony and freedom as a conscious being within an absolute reality." If this isn't a religion - but a philosophy, if it isn't incompatible with science, presumably you can explain in terms of cause and effect how...
Quoting BrianW
....rain arises from sacrifice. What this seems like to me, is a primitive terror that the crops will fail because the rains did not come - written into religious practice. What does this sacrifice entail? I imagine goods deeds and giving money to the church. It's no different to Catholicism - behavioral control by the clergy. i.e. the antithesis of Enlightenment.
Feel free to send a PM - and I'll respond or I won't.
Yeah, it's the POV of someone ignorant. My point exactly.
Quoting karl stone
Does this mean you don't acquaint with information from others because you can think for yourself? Don't you also depend on what others have thought prior to you? Don't you depend on other's knowledge acquired prior to you?
I can think for myself too, yet, I supplement it with more knowledge and wisdom from other valid sources.
Quoting karl stone
No matter how much knowledge we add, there will be principles that remain constant. That is the value of understanding the laws/principles in operation through nature and in reality. For example, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed. No matter how much knowledge we acquire, that principle remains the same. The same with the principles taught in the Bhagavad Gita.
Quoting karl stone
Simple. Selfishness is not sustainable. Or, how can individuals build a collective without unified or harmonious activity? If nature is unified and harmonious in its working through the many aspects of reality, why can't humans learn from that?
The flowery language is called symbolism and was the primary mode of expression in those ancient times. There's a difference between literal and practical, to understand there's need to be practical. Also, symbolism allows a larger content of applicable information to be coded in simpler form.
Here, sacrifice refers to nature. Nature is a prescribed system of activity which, as far as is known, unfolds ultimate utility for reality.
Fool
Not much. I see your assertion, and I disagree with it. I think that the two meanings of "enlightenment" that you describe are (roughly) equally well known. And I wonder why you need to be rude about a concept you disagree with? Is it that you think (Eastern) enlightenment somehow contradicts your scientific outlook? [ I don't think it does.]
Quoting karl stone
There is an opposite perspective, that focusses more on the application of science where it is not the appropriate tool. Sadly, the best example I can think of is philosophy forums like this one, which are populated with Sciencists* eager to promote their Vulcan** philosophy over and above all other ways of thinking. Logic uber alles, as you might say.
So I would conclude that we should strive to use science where it is appropriate and useful, something we do not always do. But at the same time, and for the same reasons, we should strive never to use science where it is inappropriate and not useful, which is also something we do too often. :up:
Quoting karl stone
I submit that no amount of science is going to solve these problems either. The problem isn't science, it's people. And there are no scientific ways of dealing with people. Before it became too late, we should have been able to moderate our consumption and our population, and generally trodden less heavily upon the Earth. But our greed proved insuperable, and now our species has reached its end. Sadly, even completion of the Enlightenment Project won't change this.
* - not all contributors to philosophy forums are sciencists, of course. But they are very much in evidence; we've all seen and heard them. Thankfully, there are many non-sciencists, here and elsewhere, and one can find them if one looks carefully.... :up: :smile:
** - Vulcan as in Star Trek and Mr Spock, not the Roman God of Fire. Vulcan philosophy begins and ends with logic, Jim.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :up:
This topic was created to discuss spirituality, enlightenment in particular. The persistence is yours. The derail is yours. The unfriendliness, that's yours too. Time to stop now. :up:
Let me re-quote part of that:
For you now, maybe. What makes you think that has to be so for everyone, always? Obviously if it's for personal gain, it isn't altruism.
This enlightenment goal-orientedness is misguided. You'll be done (with life and need) when you're done. What's the hurry? What do you have against thousands of more lifetimes?
After a very great many lifetimes you'll be life-completed and lifestyle-perfected, and done. It's pointless to worry about what that would be like, or how it will be achieved. When it arrives it arrives.
Selfishly-motivated "altruism" isn't altruism. But what's wrong with being a beneficial, or at least harmless, person just for its own sake? Benefit to other living things is benefit to you, because they're like you. Overall what-is, is good. If you're grateful, then you don't need an ulterior-motive to be considerate of your fellow living-things.
Michael Ossipoff
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
The matter regarding reincarnation is a matter of what metaphysics one subscribes to. By Materialism there's no reincarnation. By Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism, reincarnation is what plausibly follows.
Of course it isn't necessary to agree about reincarnation. Of course none of us will ever know, because, by the time we reach a next life, or the increasingly-deep sleep at the end of lives (after this life if there's no reincarnation), there won't be any knowledge about this life anyway, and so there'll be no knowledge about how we got to where we then are, (...just as, in this life, we have no knowledge of how we got here, what happened, how or why this life started.)
On the reincarnation matter, I just ask, "If there's a reason why we're in a life, and if that reason remains at the end of this life, then what does that suggest?"
In the ever-deepening sleep at the end-of-lives (arriving at the end of this life if there isn't reincarnation) there's no such thing as places, space, time, events or identity, or any knowledge that there could have been such things, or any reason to miss them.
Given that that's the final state-of-affairs, and is timeless, it can be said that sleep is the natural, normal, usual and rightful state of affairs.
As Barbara Ehrenreich put it, death doesn't interrupt life--life (...whether with one lifetime or many) briefly interrupts sleep.
Yes, and that's the natural way to live, given the way things are for us.
Michael Ossipoff
Yes. Admittedly, I am unfriendly toward hocus pocus. I don't like Christianity, or Buddhism, or Islam or Judaism. So at least I'm consistent. This is not discriminatory unfriendliness - but an epistemic distinction, between scientifically valid knowledge, and emotionally grabby unfounded assertions - generally made by unscrupulous people to defraud the gullible. It's scam that thrives on friendliness - upon fake sympathy, but is ultimately more cruel, more controlling, more possessive and demanding than the unvarnished truth.
So, I've defined my view of the term enlightenment - but what's yours? A claim to superior understanding and authority that has no practical means of demonstration? And meanwhile, an actually Enlightened body of knowledge - that surrounds with practical miracles, has no authority at all? Instead, it's subject to the religious, political and economic complex - under the rubric of which, all manner of tawdry new age philosophies multiply.
Homeopathy, witches, living on light, healing crystals, guiding angels, mediums, druids, ghost hunters, tarot cards, ouji boards etc, etc - such that if I'm unfriendly, it's that they cynically play on friendliness - on the fact that people are too kind to be as brutally honest as science has to be to be true.
Imho, unity is the reality, and that what is being discussed are various techniques for overcoming the perception of division.
Exactly. I couldn't have said it better. :ok:
Scientific American: Zen Gamma
The cost associated with Olympic level meditation is probably comparable to that of a disciplined scientific education across a life time. Probably both are possible, unless the brain state of ceaseless gamma waves interferes the ability to think as a scientist does. Apparently the opposite is true, gamma synchrony is associated with clear thinking and focus.
Someone invent a gamma wave feedback app for me. I'm willing to spend $5000 on it.
Pali Buddhism defines a number of distinct stages of deliverance, culminating in Nibb?na, which is the release from any and all forms of suffering (see here.) Mah?y?na Buddhism greatly elaborated this idea. to encompass the ‘ten Bhumis’ (or ‘stations of realisation’) which unfold over lifetimes.
But ‘bodhi’ is not really a synonym for Nibb?na (Nirv??a in Sanskrit) - it’s more like an essential attribute of the Buddha which is what gives rise to Nirv??a. In the Mah?y?na, the central figure becomes the bodhisattva, literally ‘wisdom-being’. And I don’t know if there is a direct equivalent in English or the Western philosophical lexicon for ‘bodhi’. Perhaps ‘sapience’ which is ‘wisdom’ (and our species name!) but it’s a rather arcane word and not pleasing to the ear.
No point in like describing things like has been done tell million times, making them seem different. Like drawing someone a picture of something they've never seen before. You get ten different people to do that, given to ten different people, and they may find it hard to agree that all of their drawings are the same.
The beauty of the message in the video is that those often thought as 'primitive' meditators adhering to mystic religious edicts are actually achieving quantifiable objectives. The only difference between now and when the art of meditation was introduced into those eastern cultures is that, now, the effects can be objectively observed. It's not about science vs culture, it's science in culture. And this is an increasingly growing trend in scientific observations.
‘That Which Is' - an eternal awareness - the only thing that exists.
To feel what it’s like not be that, it pretends to be 'that which is not', which is everything we appear to see hear/touch/smell/taste. This ‘pretending’ involves forgetting what it really is until it remembers and wakes up.
'We' don't actually exist, we are, and are in, an illusion. To quote Roger Ebert just before he died, "This is all an elaborate hoax"
So all science vs theism vs philosophy is just over non existent complex detail in an attempt to somehow find a simple neat equation to explain the truth. Good luck with that.
Call me crazy if you like, I don't mind
Personally I'm in an absurd position in my life. I owe my current job (income) to Yogananda Paramanhansa's dogma indirectly by charitable benefactors but don't believe in his metaphysics and have a cynical view about it akin to what Karl has expressed. Every now and then there is some admission that fundamentally appeals to me like "Yogi's aren't interested in phenomena" amidst vast tracks of dubious speculation about the "truth" underlying phenomenal world based on special privately experienced phenomena. Meditation is fine, and even good in light of evidence, but the dogma feels like a waste of time.
It makes it seem as if Yogananda's lies are a means to an end. Meditation is the greatest good in his eyes so it's ok to seduce folks into it by lying. If the structure for persuasion isn't there, no one will come. Or he is not intentionally lying at all from his point of view but is just a product of his lineage (an inherited metaphysics from his guru).
The instances of folks using sleight of hand to charm and beguile their adherents into believing dogma makes me very angry. Yogananda is very likely guilty of doing this. It conveys bad faith, that there is an ulterior motive going on.
I don't think Yogananda lied to his followers, it's just that he did not account for the difference in culture. Back in his native India, if people left their homes and occupations and went to live a life of contemplation, nobody would think it strange. In the western world, it begs the question, However, the answer was given a while back (ironically by his teacher in one of his previous incarnations - he thought he was Arjuna) by Krishna when he said,
The path to enlightenment doesn't need anyone to stand out from others or take any special considerations contrary to what many believe.
I have come to find that the biggest point of conflict between eastern teachings on spirituality and the western (now modern) understanding is, primarily, the difference in cultural practices. Even rational teachings seem weird because they're presented in the unaccustomed way. The way of eastern teachings was through symbolism while the western world prefers direct expression.
Quoting Nils Loc
Another problem with eastern teachings is that of the corruption of the teachings by those who do not fully understand. Just as, currently, in the modern world, there are lots of wanna be celebrities who are inclined to 'fake it till they make it', so also the bane of the ancient eastern world of spirituality is that there were a lot of wanna be teachers of exemplary ineptitude whose effects on spiritual teachings have been worse for their meddling. However, if taught by a capable teacher, most of what seems outrageous becomes commonsense if not quite intelligent.
Personally, to gain some understanding of the teachings on spirituality, I've had to filter out most of the relative conditioning accompanying the teachings. Sometimes it's culture, language or just plain personal preference. Often, I've found the core teachings to be exceedingly rational.
See, that is another reason I get crap, because I used eastern techniques, like yoga a lot, and people think that makes it evil. Never planned it, or thought much about it, but I actually think that not cursing is making a big difference. Reading about it suggests precisely this, that irreverent, vulgar, or disrespectful speaking disaligns the throat.
Quoting BrianW
I'd bet we can say it better, so perhaps we could try together.
What is the source of the illusion of division?
If we answer that the source of the illusion of division is incorrect thoughts, then the door is opened to many different competing religions and philosophies etc all attempting to uncover and articulate the correct thoughts. This process has been going on for thousands of years with rather limited constructive result, and at the price of considerable social division and conflict both rhetorical and real. It's debatable whether this process has actually solved more problems than it has caused.
If we answer instead that the source of the illusion of division is the medium of thought itself, then all of the above can be swept away in a single movement. After all, what would be the point of arguing about competing philosophies for thousands of years if the illusion we are trying to cure arises from that which all philosophies are made of?
If the source of the illusion of division is the medium of thought itself, then a never ending search for the perfect philosophy can be replaced by simple mechanical methods of managing the medium of thought. And so, a solution of sorts becomes far more accessible to very many more people, because the remedy no longer involves sophisticated esoteric concepts and all of that.
In this way of looking at the problem, thought is just another mechanical function of the body which requires ongoing management to remain healthy, just like all our other biological processes. We have to eat, but not too much. We have to sleep, but not too much. We have to think, but not too much. Simple. Obvious. Common sense.
A price tag of this perspective is that we have to let go of the dream of a perfect permanent solution, ie. "enlightenment". If the illusion of division arises from thought itself, and we have to think to survive, then some degree of illusion and thus suffering will always be with us.
Luckily, nature provides a solution here, we'll all be dead so much sooner than we realize. Help is on the way, just hang in there a bit longer! :smile:
But, uh oh, here comes an obstacle to simple solutions. If the problem and solution is basically simple the "clerical class", by which I mean all teachers, gurus, priests, philosophers and shamans etc, are no longer needed. And so the authority generating machine of all religions and philosophies works to make sure the subject remains complicated, elusive, in need of experts.
The clerical class is largely made up of people just like us, articulate people who like complications. And they typically have an added skill, the ability to generate authority. Put all this together, and the result is thousands of years of unnecessary complexity and conflict, all in the name of peace.
The illusion of division which so afflicts us arises directly from the medium of thought we are made of psychologically. That's why suffering is a universal property of the human condition, whatever the time and place, culture, philosophy, or religion etc.
I think it is confounding the absolute with the relative. When we think that all there is to us is the relative (or limited) life, we fail to recognise the fundamental on which everything is based - Reality. The absolute is that part of reality which remains constant, while the relative is that part which undergoes change or manifests as activity.
The relative is often regarded as the illusory part of life because it has no permanence due to its limitations and therefore it does not fully reflect the whole of reality. So, to find the absolute, we must first find the part of us which is tethered to reality. And because reality is absolute, it means everything is tethered to it. This tether must be constant for as long as we are a 'something' within reality. This means that, no matter our changing thoughts, emotions, physical body, etc, there is an unyielding connection to reality. This, I believe, is what is designated as 'self' (or atman in the Bhagavad Gita) and is the distinct connection with reality. Having realised this 'self' it becomes possible to know reality. Using the 'self' one learns about reality and, the greater the understanding of the absolute gained, the less the persistence in separation (relativity). Eventually, being fully in the state of realisation of absoluteness, one may be said to be enlightened in comparison to those in the relative state.
I think enlightenment is where the consciousness is fixed in the state of absoluteness because in that state one is all and all is one.
Allow me to share my two cents about meditation.
From my perspective meditation is the deliberate application of mind.* Instead of letting the mind wander, one directs it with a specific intent. In spirituality, meditation is used to 'quiet' or 'still' the mind. This means directing the focus of consciousness away from the objects/subjects of the mind and observing the mind as a whole as though from an external perspective, where one observes it as one 'thing' instead of the many objects/subjects within the mind.
From the point of view of spiritual teachings, consciousness is an aspect of 'self' (see explanation in previous post) and is derived from reality and, therefore, it can be integrated (inserted) or disintegrated (withdrawn) from the mind. But, if you hold to the idea that consciousness arises in the mind, then withdrawal means unconsciousness and it becomes impossible to deliberately 'still' the mind. Most conflict arises at this point because not much has been investigated about consciousness and, therefore, it is a matter of personal endeavour to determine which school of thought you align with.
* [A much, much later correction - It is more appropriate to suggest that meditation is the deliberate and focused application of awareness e.g., upon the mind.]
What if we were to just sweep all these ideas away and focus on the EXPERIENCE of unity?
Typically, we try to use some collection of ideas as a tool which is supposed to move us towards the experience of unity. Assembling the correct collection of ideas is seen as important, so we spend a LOT of time on that, studying various religions and philosophies etc.
What if we just skipped over all the ideas?
When we're physically hungry we don't turn it in to some sophisticated philosophical issue requiring experts etc, we are practical and direct, and just go get something to eat.
Why not approach psychic hunger in the same manner? Why not cut out the middleman of ideas and just stop doing so much of that which is creating the illusion of division?
I've been dwelling on a different concept-celebrating notion of enlightenment based on self-consciousness through concept (basically a stew of Hegel and others I'm reading.) We can just as easily celebrate the concept in its systematic and immersed-in-the-sensual-and-emotional (enfleshed and enworlded) movement toward its own darkness, the always-failing always-striving self-articulation as pure opportunity. (Or, if we just want to put it in simple words, philosophy is already heaven. Philosophy is is a prayer and praise directed at philosophy.) I associate these ideas with Hegel, whose theology (and therefore god as seed) celebrates concept as philosophy's possibility. 'God' waits in the future, a future that is the life of theology-philosophy as well as its continual death (a death attached to it, as a dog to a tail.) Man would be a futile passion if he could not mock himself as a futile passion?
Here's a little defense of the grand language and quasi-religious feel. 'Philosophy shouldn't talk about god.' Why not? Philosophy is after truth. Philosophy is atheistic. And what is this truth? Why this truth? Philosophy must already be telling the truth about itself, have truth, be truth in order to decide itself for truth, a truth it must already talk about. Is the secret of eternal truth just an ideal community to be? in the self-making? And directed always others and one's own to-be? Does the decision (that philosophy is after truth, for instance) ever see itself? Or does it lose its fixity with its appearance for itself? 'I didn't know I believed that. Do I believe that?' Philosophy is doubt. Why? Doubt is good. An intention blind to itself in its movement. A basic structure of affirmation, if only the affirmation that affirmation can be 'sin' (not done among nice people.) Doubt is good. The atheistic or agnostic question is 'God,' incarnate in the strict atheist, an example toward the founding of an ideal community-to-be --and that which exists for this community is the real. The world exists 'for' a passionate subject, and yet this 'subject' is passionate about its own boundary, the to-be-seen world-with-the-others, becoming more and more a 'we' as opposed to an 'I.'. The 'subject' is a movement toward substance in its highest sense, a sense that includes ideal (necessarily translucently veiled) community, 'god', 'truth.' And substance is a something that determines what this same something (itself) is. The word 'god' stores the non-technical motive of even the most mechanical and deworlded of philosophies. What does it mean to want to be taken seriously?
This to me is the thought of the pure, eternal present -- the 'pure witness.' This 'I am' at its most general, the 'I am' that anyone (and therefore no one as one ?) can say. Or maybe this 'witness' is too self-conscious. You might be pointing at being itself, or the possibility of being, the space for beings.
Do we abstract this present as an ideal object from a language that can only live in time and incident? It occurs to me that the possibility of the creation of the pure present (as fiction) can be thought of as constantly present. The pure present is truly universal, maximally social. Is this its value? And, or, or in other words that it doesn't die? Why is it good (do we tend to find it good) to recognize as reality that which remains constant? Or the unchanging space of and for changing things?
Very beautifully put. Spirit has to lick its wings clean to know itself as spirit.
Quoting BrianW
I like this as a line that brings everything down to earth. Instead of viewing enlightenment as some static state (perfectly present in silence stillness), I think it makes more sense to think in terms of a generally better sense of life. We can talk in less suspicious terms as a more pleasurable way of thinking and feeling about our situation. The vulnerable individual is still down here. He or she is just in touch with a valuable mode of being, intermittently and yet with a poetry that overhears and edits itself. (Scientism thinks it denies itself this pleasure, but lives to sing its own praises in the same way.)
But only in the doing of it, perhaps. To think the other of division is to divide. Division's other is a product of division (while maybe division is simultaneously a product of its other.)
Quoting Jake
This is beautiful and gets to the heart of the issue. For me the tricky part is that the best gurus are always anti-gurus. The anti-guru or anti-try position has to be remember and imposed against 'positive' positions to be heard. It has to posit its own negativity (be 'positive' and exist in division.) And it wants to speak itself, at least sometimes. The 'real' shaman is, in other words, the anti-shaman who remains necessary in the context of a tendency toward mystification and distance. The overcoming of mystification and distance is itself (in some sense) a last form of such mystification and distance, inasmuch as it exists still as a goal, a to-be-had. And if one falls in love with this project then one is only at the beginning of its implementation. The self becomes a darkness to be explored for unseen mystification and distance.
Excellent point. And if our speaking is directed outward in order to change (initially) the imperfectly mutually experienced conceptual and emotional realm, this structure of persuasion might always be there in some sense, so that we can think of different manifestations of the same-enough good-enough 'truth' directed at a particular audience.
Those who seek the guru will only listen to the anti-guru to the degree that he is recognizable in the guru role. It occurs to me that seeking the guru for answers already answers the question to be asked in some sense. What's the truth about truth? What is the real science? Who I bring these questions to already answers them in some sense, yet not completely or I wouldn't ask. And if I think I already kinda know, then I still want to talk about it, and I still [s]need the right[/s] want better and better words. So into the darkness of the future as gloriously unsaid....
Those are a couple of my favorite ideas. The goal is a mode of existing. 'Virtue is its own reward.' The desired mode is fundamentally giving and friendly. What I like about this is (among other things) the proximity of 'heaven' and the 'divine.' It's something we are always already doing, at least intermittently. One vision of philosophy (among so many others) is that of the kind of thinking that gets us to better or more frequent versions of this mode.
Perhaps it helps to compare altruism to selfishness.
Yes, altruism eventually serves the self. You feel better or become famous or whatever. But, the point is, there's benefit to others too.
Selfishness, on the other hand, serves no one but the self.
Altruism=self+others
Selfishness=self only
The ''others'' is critical I guess.
Quoting BrianW
What is it that divides reality in to the "absolute" and the "relative"?
Quoting BrianW
How does one remain fixed in a "state of absoluteness where all is one" using a medium that operates by a process of division?
I don't think any claims have been made. The topic here is enlightenment in the sense that Eastern philosophy uses it. You have chosen to derail it by focussing on a valid alternative meaning that was not and is not the subject of THIS topic. Enough, I think. :up:
This in my interpretation, and it's way better than anybody else's interpretation, so there!
Quoting sign
I don't know. These, I believe, are some of the great unanswered questions. If reality is in unity, harmony and ultimate freedom, why should there be a need for any transition from a state of relativity to absoluteness, or from any state to another? Can't everything be ok just the way it is?
As far as I can tell, the answer is humans. For whatever reason, humans want to change. We want more of somethings and less of somethings. We want inspirations such as enlightenment, heaven, peace, etc and we want to avoid deterrents such as ignorance, hell, death, etc.
Is all of it an illusion? Perhaps.
But, how would it be if we denied it? Suppose we chose not to change in any way, would that be possible?
The valid teachings on the path to enlightenment say that while at any part of the journey, it is impossible to see the whole path. The idea is that, as one moves forward, one becomes able to perceive the next few steps ahead. Thus gradually, one is able to see more of the path the further one progresses. And, as one becomes familiarised with the path, one is able to realise more choices and, consequently, greater freedom in one's actions.
Does this make sense? Possibly. Is it something one is willing to accept? Choices, it all depends on choice.
Another factor about eastern teachings on spirituality, unlike the western (modern), is their insistence on personal endeavour. The teachings on enlightenment (e.g. by Krishna or Buddha) are given by teachers who've attained it for themselves. And, they give the methodology by which anyone can attain the same degree as them, but only if one is willing to put in the necessary efforts. Western (modern) teachings allow people to wait for scholars to discover things for them. This has a tendency to make people lazy and complacent. It's why we find so many people who're willing to regard spiritual teachings as nonsense without having taken the time to venture into them for the sake of better understanding.
All I can say is, there is a natural tendency, a flow, in nature whereby it seeks to be better realised. This is understood predominantly as the impulse to evolution. The reason or purpose behind it, I'm afraid, still escapes my understanding. But, I recognise it as a part of nature, both internal and external, as a part of me and others, and choose to direct my efforts into venturing further into fields of knowledge in search of whatever truths that may lie within. And, as it turns out, in more ways than one, we're all doing the same, each to their own capability.
Quoting Jake
I think, first, one transcends the relative. That is achieved by directing the consciousness to that which is constant. After that, one endeavours to remain or return to that state of absoluteness (unity) as much as possible because one is more inclined to better perform actions which one is more accustomed to. It's like practice makes perfect.
I think the difficult part of this is whether one understands the consciousness to be an aspect derived from reality (the absolute) or an aspect which has its rise in the mind (which is relative). If the latter, then I don't see how one can realise unity.
So thought conceptually divides reality in to the "relative" and the "constant". And then, having created the division, thought cooks up the goal of moving from the relative towards the constant in order to heal the division.
Put another way, thought conceptually divides reality in to "me" and "everything else", a process which generates fear and suffering, so then thought cooks up the goal of somehow reuniting "me" with "everything else" to escape the suffering.
Why not just take a break from thinking?
What's the point of including all the complex esoteric concepts middlemen? Why not just skip all of that?
To me, it all seems to boil down to where one thinks the illusion of division is being generated.
GURU: If one sees the source of the illusion being incorrect thought content, that suggests a process of philosophy etc to replace the incorrect thoughts with correct thoughts, a very elaborate process which has been going on for thousands of years.
ANTI-GURU: If one sees the source of the illusion being the medium of thought, then the subject becomes radically simpler. Take a break from thinking.
What the guru approach has going for it is that it promises a perfect permanent solution.
What the anti-guru approach has going for it is that the guru approach can't deliver on it's promise.
Does the reader see the philosophies as a means to an end? Or are they an end in themselves?
As example, imagine that it could be proven that the only path to enlightenment was to play golf, and that everything else was a waste of time. Would the reader then immediately drop the philosophies and buy some golf clubs? Or would the reader decline golf and remain a philosopher?
What is the real goal? What is the bottom line for the reader?
I don't know about this. I understand consciousness to be different from thought. Consciousness allows us to recognise thoughts but it can also transcend thoughts by going beyond the relativity of the mind.
Quoting BrianW
I think this makes sense. We can describe this as the journey of potential freedom toward finding itself as actual freedom. Let's say that enlightenment is something like recognizing mind as the source of divisions and distinctions. We still have the journey of the mind toward such a realization. And the very concept of mind would have to be generated by mind upon this journey. The concepts that point at conceptualization (as the potentially self-alienating source of division) have to be generated by this conceptualization before they can point to it. So even if enlightenment is timeless in the sense of a repeatable act of meaning (a grabbing one's self from out of the 'illusion' and pain), it still has its source in confusion and time.
Quoting BrianW
I really like this. Hegel basically makes the same point in his preface. He sketches out the journey of consciousness toward its own truth in a self-consciously exoteric way. The reader cannot just take some 'X is Y' proposition and call it a day. Both X and Y (signs in the discourse) change their meaning on the path. Experience is a shifting of meaning, one might say. Heidegger also speaks of a fundamental attunement. An 'eros' directs us toward 'enlightenment. The philosopher or man as metaphysician or seeker responds to a vague call. Philosophy, love of wisdom. 'Philosophy is love.' And real love is manifest in the struggle to get what is love right, to liberate wisdom from confusion.
I remember a phase where I rejected spiritual teachings as nonsense. Eventually I realized that this accusation of nonsense was something that I had got from a spiritual teaching that understood itself mistakenly as the opposite of a spiritual teaching. My rejection of the spiritual was spirituality, its iconoclastic aspect. IMV, the basic conceptual pieces of spirituality tend to be understood. The hater of the spiritual is (without realizing) hating the same idolatry that these spiritual traditions are founded against not on. But idolatrous thinking of one variety can only understand another discourse idolatrously. For instance, the modern thought of the ahistorical isolated subject is almost nakedly a thought of god in heaven, eternal and apart from everything worldly. The problem of an external world is a desiccated thought of incarnation. How can 'God' (the skull-bound ego) know anything but itself? Everything is an illusion or an approximation of the absent real. So this anti-theological skeptical and isolated ego ends up justifying calling everything familiar an illusion in the name of its own nature as...isolated ego. And anti-spiritual discourse is still directed outward at an ideal community, the scientists as saints to be, godlike when assembled in their recognition of one and the same pure reason.
I like this too. Again I find something like this in Hegel and Heidegger. Phenomenology can be a primal science that doesn't still the flow of life because life is a hermeneutical voyage already on the way to its vivification. This makes sense of 'authenticity' and man as a 'futural' being. I am 'properly' human as I move into my own darkness as a torch that would light it up. Man 'is' enlightenment. Enlightenment eventually lights up this movement you speak of which can be retrospectively projected on the wandering and wondering that preceded it. The oak tree understands what hides in the acorn. But the oak tree can only understand this by remembering the path of its own self-consciousness toward a certain kind of completion (as enlightenment or the torch in the darkness.)
I agree, and this for me threatens the distinction of guru and anti-guru. Quoting Jake
I some experience them as means to an end. But for me philosophy eventually exists to keep its own flame and praise itself with an infinity of self-descriptions. Their is an ecstasy in enlightenment talk. We have the image of light. I think of a torch. Olympians carry a torch.
What if thinking is a flame that wants to grow? To think bigger and brighter? The anti-guru approach might be summed up as a pointing at the seeking as the very thing it seeks and yet flees. But the seeking is really only potentially the thing sought. The seeking has to somehow recognize itself as the sought, and I think we see this kind of thing in Hegel (and apparently in much earlier traditions.)
But does anyone really need all this grand talk? I wouldn't say so. Some love it and relate to it. Others seem to do well without it, perhaps simply because they have good relationships and a user-friendly situation in the world.
Well, ok, yes, I have no objection to someone enjoying the talk. Just trying to help clarify what our relationship with that is. If we're talking the talk because it's fun, and we know that's what we're doing, I have no complaints. To the degree I have a complaint, it is with the illusion that the talking will lead to anything other than more talking.
Quoting sign
I'm not opposed to seeking, just trying to make such efforts more realistic. If we are seeking to be a bit saner, sounds good to me. If we are seeking for some permanent perfect solution, sounds like a self delusional becoming trip. And I'm not even against that, but, you know, this is a philosophy forum, so...
Me thinks we see eye to eye. :eyes: :victory: :eyes:
Wouldn’t philosophy be dull if it was just science."
Not if one prefers truth to fantasy.
I'm liking it. It's great sharing in something beautiful. If I had to pick a fundamental philosophical motive, I'd say it's a journey toward sharing something beautiful, a ideal sociality.
Thanks for your reply. I like this. We can think of someone embracing there not being some hidden outside and just learning to enjoy the play of a search for better as opposed to final talk.
Quoting Jake
I think we are more or less on the same page. To me this is something like a death wish concealed in the quest for a perfect, permanent solution. Life is dynamic, on-the-way, imperfect, vulnerable. It makes sense that life seeks stability (a happy household, routines, etc.), but there is a kind of morbid 'infinite' version of this that can lead to a kind of torment. I guess I read it in terms of self-obsession that is closed off to the beauty and fascination of the world, especially in other people. To be in love with life is just not to have certain problems (and yet to still have others.)