Enlightenment

[Guest gunnaknow]

To become enlightened is to become aware and comprehending of the true nature of reality. Have fun, Tinker

That's right Tinker, enlightenment is to become aware of the true nature of things. My last post addressed the fact that the actual nature of the truth that is revealed, is indiscribable to the unenlightened. To attempt to explain it would be like attempting to explain what the world looks like, to someone who has been blind all of their live. They would not be able to comprehend what you were talking about. It must be seen for one's self before one can comprehend. Therefore, the most important question one can ask isn't "what is enlightenment" but rather "how do I go about becoming enlightened" and "am I genuinely willing to do what is required."

[Guest gunnaknow]

if you mean Enlightenment with a capital E:

for me Enlightenment is to gain an objective understanding of the Universe and your place in it

Or rather, to lose "objective" understanding of the universe and your place in it. There is no separation between the observer and the observed. Just as when you wake from a dream you realise that the dreamscape was you, so to when you awake from an unenlightened state to a less unenlightened state you realise that the landscape is you. Or rather, there is no "you" because the concept of "you/me/I" implies a separateness from everything else.

Understanding this is to be less unenlightened, not because the true nature of reality has been grasped but because one has atleast grasped what reality isn't. It isn't objective. But hey, atleast you said "for me enlightenment is.....", which demonstrates humility and an understanding of relativity. Don't take my word as the truth though; that is for you to discover for youself. As the Buddha once said "You must be your own lantern".

Edited January 31, 2009 by gunnaknow

[tinker234]

There are two approaches to the use of the term 'enlightenment': the conventional Buddhist use (perhaps championed by Gunnaknow above) and the more-open and general use of the term (typically preferred by those who do not subscribe to any particular world religion). The former offers a concept the attainment of which requires you to do x, y and z. The latter allows for enlightening experiences of all kinds - I think this one's cooler and less prescriptive.

On a different point, I'd warn against using the metaphor of those born blind as being uncomprehending of what the sighted experience - this is simply not true (and unintentionally not cool).

Take it easy, Tinker

[Galahad]

Enlightenment is knowing who you are. And saying it can take many lifetimes to figure out is an understatement

[Guest gunnaknow]

There are two approaches to the use of the term 'enlightenment': the conventional Buddhist use (perhaps championed by Gunnaknow above) and the more-open and general use of the term (typically preferred by those who do not subscribe to any particular world religion). The former offers a concept the attainment of which requires you to do x, y and z. The latter allows for enlightening experiences of all kinds - I think this one's cooler and less prescriptive.

There is only one difference between what you are referring to and what buddhists are referring to. You're describing enlightening experiences, where as buddhists are referring to the result of that very same process being taken to it's logical conclusion.

On a different point, I'd warn against using the metaphor of those born blind as being uncomprehending of what the sighted experience - this is simply not true (and unintentionally not cool).

Those who were born blind cannot comprehend what it is like to see. To argue otherwise is madness. It is not derogatory to speak of the truths of nature, just because the subject chosen would be regarded as having a disibility. I treat disabled people the same way that I do other people, which is what they want. My brother has only been able to see in one eye from birth. The truth is that he cannot comprehend what it is like to see the world with the scope of two eyes. Does the fact that he's my brother suddenly make it ok to speak such a truth? If it makes you any happier I'll choose a different metaphor. A person born with sight cannot comprehend what it would be like to have never seen. Now that the metaphor has been reversed, you probably won't be so "unintentionally not cool."

[Guest gunnaknow]

The former offers a concept the attainment of which requires you to do x, y and z. The latter allows for enlightening experiences of all kinds - I think this one's cooler and less prescriptive.

Meditation techniques are nothing more than methods to make the mind more condusive to experiencing the enlightening experiences that you speak of. There are no exclusively buddhist enlightening experiences, there are just enlightening experiences. The buddhist practioner has just received guidance on how to make the mind more condusive to having these experiences.

Edited February 5, 2009 by gunnaknow

[tinker234]

There are two approaches to the use of the term 'enlightenment': the conventional Buddhist use (perhaps championed by Gunnaknow above) and the more-open and general use of the term (typically preferred by those who do not subscribe to any particular world religion). The former offers a concept the attainment of which requires you to do x, y and z. The latter allows for enlightening experiences of all kinds - I think this one's cooler and less prescriptive.

There is only one difference between what you are referring to and what buddhists are referring to. You're describing enlightening experiences, where as buddhists are referring to the result of that very same process being taken to it's logical conclusion.

On a different point, I'd warn against using the metaphor of those born blind as being uncomprehending of what the sighted experience - this is simply not true (and unintentionally not cool).

Those who were born blind cannot comprehend what it is like to see. To argue otherwise is madness. It is not derogatory to speak of the truths of nature, just because the subject chosen would be regarded as having a disibility. I treat disabled people the same way that I do other people, which is what they want. My brother has only been able to see in one eye from birth. The truth is that he cannot comprehend what it is like to see the world with the scope of two eyes. Does the fact that he's my brother suddenly make it ok to speak such a truth? If it makes you any happier I'll choose a different metaphor. A person born with sight cannot comprehend what it would be like to have never seen. Now that the metaphor has been reversed, you probably won't be so "unintentionally not cool."

Hi Gunnaknow,

Firstly, no offense meant. I take your point that in Buddhism the process of attaining, and the resulting, enlightenment would probably be seen as more than just an experience.

I probably wouldn't argue against the statement 'those who were born blind cannot comprehend what it is like to see'; in your earlier post I mistakenly took you for meaning that someone without sight could not comprehend the source of sense data generally. I understand now that it was the act of seeing itself you were referring to. Apologies for the confusion.

Cheers, Tinker

[tinker234]

The former offers a concept the attainment of which requires you to do x, y and z. The latter allows for enlightening experiences of all kinds - I think this one's cooler and less prescriptive.

Meditation techniques are nothing more than methods to make the mind more condusive to experiencing the enlightening experiences that you speak of. There are no exclusively buddhist enlightening experiences, there are just enlightening experiences. The buddhist practioner has just received guidance on how to make the mind more condusive to having these experiences.

I agree with you. But I didn't mean to suggest that (by extension) there are exclusively Buddhist enlightening experiences, just that there are approaches to attaining enlightenment particular to Buddhism. This is what I was getting at.

[Guest gunnaknow]

Fair enough Tinker.