Serious question: At what point in the continuum of enlightenment would this post appear inappropriate?
Would Lao Tzu ever respond in this manner? Is it reasonable to think that a human could unlearn all defensiveness, or is it just accepted that it’s a never ending process? Or maybe instead of supressing the emotional reponse, the real goal is to not have the emotion in the first place?
Reading the o.p. is like consulting the I Ching, only more verbose and less poetic.
Let’s try something more substantial, like “What is the deal with the fine structure constant?”, and “Where the heck are all of the magnetic monopoles?”
Stranger
When conceptualizing enlightenment to others, there seems to be two roads. The first is Zen Buddhist-style simplicity of language. This does not really make up much for a forum discussion. “What does Zen Buddhism teach? Nothing (no thing).” So the alternative is to be verbose. Think how many times Christ said, “The Kingdom of Heaven is…” All in an attempt to articulate, through use of analogy, enlightenment. But the subective experience can never fully be articulated, and that is due to the fact that we DO decide our own reactions, more specifically, we, the listener, give words meaning.
So if the feeling of enlightenment is not in our experience, then no word can describe it. Ironically, if the feeling of enlightenment IS in our experience, then ALL words describe it. What I mean here is that, you see God in all things, in every single experience. And that, again, is where the Kingdom of Heaven by Christ comes in; he saw it in EVERYTHING and in NO THING.
So, you are right. When you read my words, they lack the substance they have when I send them out. My words will always lose my exact intention when I send them out. The hope is that, on the other side, someone rebuilds their meaning in exactly the way they began. Think of a transporter system in something like Star Trek. You hope you don’t lose an arm on the other side… but the background notion that you don’t rebuild perfectly on the other side is always there.
You make an excellent point; that is if you feel my response was defensive. I was pointing out a fact that I found humorous, which I felt actually demonstrated my philosophy quite well. The egoic mind, which can be quite neurotic, often feels the need to make things “perfect”. This is a completely maddening chore, because it is never-ending (and the notion that someone could post a single line, submit it, then decide that this single line is not perfect enough, says quite a bit that the egoic mind knows no limits to what it must adjust, edit, redo, etc, all in futile efforts to make perfect)
But, in my experience, when I talk, sing, write from the heart, it is perfect as it is. Not objectively perfect, mind you, but to me, it is quite perfect. And in my experience of life, that is absolutely all that matters.
Dude, put down the bong and focus: fine structure constant. If you can enlighten me and the rest of the world on this topic, there are some guys in Stockholm who will not only buy you a nice dinner but will also give you a big pile of money.
Stranger
cmyk
I cannot say if I am as enlightened as He was. But I would say this: I, and every other human on earth, have the capacity to become as enlightened as He was. And from my reading of the New Testament, it appears Christ would not only agree, but that was His message (“The works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do…” and “And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.” That is to name a few; there are many more instances of this sort of conceptualization).
But remember, Christ was man, and I would argue, no more or less a man than anybody else. So of course He felt physical pain. I am not arguing that He did not physically feel it. I am arguing that He accepted it, and would not allow it to control Him. I think an excellent example of acceptance, actually, is the quote you use, “I thirst!”. This is a declaration of fact, an acceptance of the reality and the present moment. It is not a sign of struggle, as far as I interpret it.
So again, it is not about turning off the physical input of pain; it is about turning off the mental self-imposed agony of pain, the mental struggle against pain, and instead, accept pain for what it is, and know that like all things, the pain is temporary.
Revenant Threshold
The ego, as I speak of it, is the totality of the egoic mind. The on-going commentary of your head which creates your narrative, makes “sense” of it, and gives it a very specific, and therefore limited, sense of purpose and self. So that would include the Id and the Superego, too, technically I suppose.
Further, it is not about ignoring an input. But, like you say, the exact opposite of that. It is complete acceptance of the input, and further, acknowledgement of WHAT the input is and WHERE it is coming from! If one is defining the ego as within their control, and NOT THE defining aspect of self, then they recognize the whining and self-deprication of the ego as nothing more than temporarily fabricated nonsense, the flavor of the week, and therefore separate from their permanent self; their consciousness of oneness, love and acceptance, ideas that the egoic mind cannot fully conceptualize but which can be felt wholly by the soul.
I don’t think I have agreed to this. What I may have said is that there is no NEED for enlightenment, in that you certainly can live without it. You can live however you choose. But, given this, why not choose a path which leads one outside of the realm of suffering?
The enlightened person does not merely feel love… they ARE love, expressing nothing but love, in all of their actions, thoughts, and feelings.
The type of enlightenment you have understood from my explanation seems to be one of a callous nature, unfeeling, and emotionally deadened. However, now perhaps you can see that is not the case at all. It is the mind which emotionally deadens life. Here is an analogy which may work:
Have you ever watched an exciting sporting event, and you are trying to pay attention to the game, but the commentator is either very irritating or, on the other hand, very captivating? You find yourself entranced by the commentary, and quite entertained by it, perhaps. Then, all of a sudden, an amazing play happens, but you MISSED it! You were too busy focusing on the comentary to pay any attention to the game! This is the mind’s relationship to life, merely commentary: mere words which can never fully articulate the beauty of the game itself.
So, on this note, you will truly feel love, because you have no conceptualization of love which tries to constrain love into a box, blocking you from the true experience of it.
And so then why wouldn’t an enlightened person cause suffering, you ask? Because they are incapable of it, by their very nature! They can act only in a loving way, because they recognize that the self, absent of the selfish, greedy, egoic mind, knows only dispositions of love, and therefore, can only express love to others! In addition to this, on a more trivial note, they realize they cannot CAUSE suffering in another, but instead, they may or may not be able to cause a reaction in another which may or may not be suffering.
Yes, I believe such a way of life is possible for everybody. And yes, I do believe that you honestly disagree. And no, subconsciously you don’t know what I’m saying is right. But you are speaking on behalf of your mind. It may be the case that you may not know how to speak THROUGH your mind (the mind as a filter from the heart, which is what I am doing; I am not thinking as I write, it comes out). Now, I say this not to fault you. This, again, is the nature of the “Fall”, “Original Sin”… the adding of the egoic mind to the experience of oneness, the illusion of individuality and separateness. The fact that I know I am in control of my mind, and it is my servant, NOT the other way around, makes me the unusual one, only due to my awareness, not any inherant nature. You, being very logically sound in your arguments against the possibility of enlightenment, are very well-versed and intelligent. But you will not see what I am saying through intelligence, but the lack thereof; the silencing of the mind would make this clear.
You can spread the feeling of love. You can be “real” with others. You can see through the transparency of their egoic wall and truly accept them for who they are… an extention of you, as you are extention of them. This breakdown of social norms, this connection, is an incredible feeling. I would say that is a very good thing, if I had to label it. 
Once you realize the source of your attachments, the egoic mind, it is easy to pick and choose what you prefer to experience and express during your life. But, I see your conflict. The egoic mind, alone, CANNOT pick and choose. It takes the ability to silence the mind to get the result which is preferable.
But let me be clear. There is one “attachment”, if we can call it that. It is the present moment, the here and now. So this is the confusion in our language. In a state of acceptance, you must accept the existence of this ongoing singular moment, and that may be perceived as such an “attachment”, if we are going to get technical.
An “unnecessary” attachment then, is one where you try to extend a past moment into a present moment, a conceptualization into the present moment, a future worry into the present moment, etc. To truly be one with the present moment, the here and now, you have to silence all else. Perhaps this makes more sense?
It is not necessarily that the experience of love leads to enlightenment, per say, but more a matter that moments of enlightenment leads to moments of love. It is the reversability issue, as we see in scientific study. What causes what?
I would say that if you feel pure, unconditional love towards another, you are on your way toward enlightenment. This means that there is absolutely nothing that person could do to you which would lessen your love. The egoic mind does not understand this concept, as it sees love as an economy, or as people put it earlier, a battlefield. That is only because your mind makes it this way.
But for enlightenment, one needs to have this unconditional love for ALL OF LIFE. That means, every single person, every single experience. Now, of course, I am not talking about romantic or sexual love here, but more of a totality of acceptance; that your loving emotional state is unconditional- it cannot be altered by your next experience, or any for that matter. This is how Christ, as His body is being destroyed, could say, “They know not what they do” in defense of His torturers. His love never changed. That is the example He set.
Bad emotions, like hate, anger, aggression, envy, etc; they cannot lead to enlightenment because they are all products of the egoic mind. Love is not a product of the egoic mind, and as I established, it cannot truly be experienced through the egoic mind either. That is why love drives so many people “crazy”, their mind simply cannot wrap around it. It is why people act so illogical; they are trying to use their mind to determine how they will act, while they feel this love, often ending in ways which are not preferable. One must flow with love, accepting its grace, not conceptualize it and limit it by way of the mind.
This seems awfully convoluted, but I will try to respond.
If you have the realization of enlightenment, and you are able to accept it for what it is (not a transient experience, but the stage upon which our transient experiences take place), you will prefer to live life in that way from then on out. Why would you prefer egoically created suffering? This, if anything, seems terribly illogical to me. You make the point that you COULD, technically do this. Yes, you could. But why?
Further, everyone has a different CONCEPT of enlightenment. But that is the thing, you CANNOT fully conceptualize enlightenment. Again, how many times did Christ say “The Kingdom of Heaven is…” Because conceptualization is through the mind and use of words, there is an absolutely unlimited number of different ways to understand and articulate enlightenment. That is the beauty of it, not a fault.
** Stranger On A Train **
Obviously, you’re kidding, but again, I will reiterate. For the record, I have abstained from all narcotics since the New Year. Further, if you read what I have been saying, you would probably infer that a big pile of money wouldn’t particularly interest me.
Revenant Threshold
I overlooked this. Let me be clear. Enlightenment is a state of no mind. An “erroneous” state of mind then is really any state of mind at all.
Of course, I know we could get into technicalities here. There are times, practically in life where you must be of some state of mind. This is not “erroneous”, which is why I put it in quotes, as long as you know where the state of mind comes from (the ego) and what it is not (your self). This way, your self always remains in control; captain of your life ship, rather than captive.
**RoOsh **
I graduated from the University of Arizona in December, and lived in the dorms my freshman year, back in 2003. Do you still think you know me?
Then how about using a piece of this newfound knowledge to enlighten the rest of us and resolve one of the great mysteries in natural science. Fine structure constant: what is its fundamental basis and why is it almost, but not quite 1/137?
Stranger
My question: Have you ever heard of the “Tommy” Syndrome, and if so, how do you think it pertains to your enlightenment?
Czarcasm
I looked up “Tommy” Syndrome, and this is what I found:
Perhaps that would be excellent advice, to knock out all external distractions, if one is seeking enlightenment. But that is making the assumption that by removing external distractions, the internal distractions will follow suite; that the egoic mind will silence in response. This, certainly, may not be the case. Although maybe it is worth a try.
But since the path of enlightenment encompasses all of life’s experience (acceleration toward the goal may vary, perhaps), then there is no singular “right” way. Now, I could say “That seems to me a misguided direction,” in regards to egoically sourced behavior, but perhaps such egoic behavior must manifest for the person to understand its futility. In other words, they may have to travel a bit in the “wrong” direction, in order to find the “right” direction. They must know what they are not, to realize what they are.
**
Stranger On A Train **
It is not a matter of newfound “knowledge” but, rather, wisdom. I have addressed this before, but I will do so again. Wisdom and knowledge (read also: intelligence) are not inter-changeable. One does not necessarily cause or imply the other. Granted, they are often viewed as correlated, but, again, correlation does not imply causation.
In this way, it is possible to be wise with an extremely small amount of knowledge and brain power (an excellent, perhaps arguable, example of this is the movie “Being There” with Peter Sellers). The issue with such a state is that, due to a lack of ability to articulate the wisdom, and discuss it logically (if this is at all possible), few will recognize this person as being wise at all. But, of course, this wouldn’t be a problem to the wise man.
On the contrary, the world’s greatest teachers have had both; the wisdom as well as the ability to articulate it in a great many different ways, Christ, of course, being the most famous example. So it seems natural that we associate the two.
Anyway, back to the point at hand, I cannot claim to know all the answers, particularly when it comes to answers of random knowledge. But when it comes to wisdom and philosophy, I am delighted to discuss indefinitely.
** don’t ask **
I agree that no convincing is needed. Nothing is “needed.” But, I find this discussion to be an excellent challenge and exchange for my heart and mind, so the intent here, on my part, IS TO reply. I certainly don’t NEED to, but I am CHOOSING to, all the while knowing, I don’t HAVE to.
So your model for wisdom is “Chauncey Gardiner”, a man who “…never learned to read and write. No, sir. Had no brains at all. Was stuffed with rice pudding between th’ ears. Shortchanged by the Lord, and dumb as a jackass.”
Hmmm…I’m underwhelmed by the bounty of your wisdom.
Stranger
**Stranger On A Train **
It is intriguing to me how you have misconstrued my use of reference. Let us go over what I said again, shall we?
“(an excellent, perhaps arguable, example of this is the movie “Being There” with Peter Sellers). The issue with such a state is that, due to a lack of ability to articulate the wisdom, and discuss it logically (if this is at all possible), few will recognize this person as being wise at all. But, of course, this wouldn’t be a problem to the wise man.”
I acknowledged that my reference was arguable right at the get go. You pointed out the, hence, counter-“argument”. But this does not at all invalidate my point.
One could watch this movie and perceive each and every one of Chauncy’s actions as that of a wise person (as we see by way of the other characters’ reactions to him in the movie), stuck with an unintelligent mind. You have not listened to my key statement in all this: Wisdom and Intelligence are two entirely separate, distinct entities, existing on differing continuums; the heart and the mind.
In this way, I can say, “Do you see the wisdom in the lillies, which do not toil, but move, live, and die with ease?” Clearly the lillies are not intelligent. They have no capacity to be so. But can they not teach, through their complete absense of mind, a wonderfully wise lesson? Same, perhaps, for Chauncey.
Let us not forget the final scene of “Being There” as well, as it seems equally relevant to our discussion…
Aren’t there neurochemicals that make you in peace with the now? If so, are you advocating a Soma-regulated life as described in Huxley’s Brave New World? And I quote:
“There’s always soma to calm your anger, to reconcile you to your enemies, to make you patient and long-suffering. In the past you could only accomplish these things by making a great effort and after years of hard moral training. Now, you swallow two or three half-gramme tablets, and there you are. Anybody can be virtuous now. You can carry at least half your morality about in a bottle. Christianity without tears-that’s what soma is.” World Controller Mustapha Mond, Chapter 17, pg. 238
Brain chemistry is tricky to regulate. Everybody breaks, they say.
**Gozu **
As if people aren’t doing exactly that today? It is an outside-in approach rather than an inside-out approach. There are a number of things misguiding about this, even if the pill effect was absolutely effective in the way Huxley describes:
This then implies that you are not inherantly made whole, and that you NEED something to be whole. This is exactly the opposite of the enlightenment I speak of, which assumes you are whole all along, yet simply are not aware of it.
Once the pill is popped, you no longer are in complete control. You may be in a tranquil, peaceful place, but not of your own internal doing, and, so then if you desired, or freely willed, to be removed from such a state, you would have no way of doing so. You would be trapped in peace, which actually removes the relative bliss of peace, since there would be nothing to relatively compare it to, since, presumably, you would choose to become addicted to such pills, not knowing, or caring to know, how to freely control your self/mind balance without them.
On the contrary, the effort is not very great at all. In fact, once you learn to silence your mind, you realize that anything but mental silence takes great effort, relatively speaking. When you get right down to it, there is nothing easier, and more natural, than simply being. Period.
Now, I certainly do understand Huxley’s point, in that if you were to try to train your ego to control ITSELF, that presents a problem. The ego cannot control itself, but rather, YOU control the EGO, as a distinct, separate entity, yet dichotomatically tied together by a Holy Trinity of sorts.
Freud’s psychoanalytic theory was based on the ego controlling itself, insofar as he actually broke the ego down into three arbitrary divisions, saying the superego must control the id, by way of the ego, etc. Now, since the ego (in its totality), by its very nature, is unable to control itself effectively, it is easy to see why psychoanalysis can often last decades without significant result.
Define, clearly, without all the perfume and sunshine farts, the words “intelligence” and “wisdom”.
** ZebraShaSha **
Intelligence: A measure of the mind’s ability to conceptualize what your self is NOT.
Practical synonyms: Mind. Ego. Original Sin. Transience.
Further, it is cunning, based on the idea that it is separate from what exists around it. It is often characterized by transient and, yet, repetitive thought cycles. It is either of a state of negative emotion or conditionally positive emotion. It forms attachments and judgments . It’s inability to truly empathize by way of recognizing oneness, and, thus, be permanently trapped in selfishness is the cause and source of all human suffering.
Wisdom: An intangible, unmeasureable knowing of what your self IS.
Practical synonyms: Selflessness. No-mind. Silence. Emptiness. Oneness. Stillness. Love. Acceptance. Empathy. Permanence. God.
Also:
Intelligence: Relative
Wisdom: Absolute
You seem to believe human beings have an infallible control over their state of mind if they so choose. I do not believe that is accurate. The moment you start starving or someone starts shocking your testicles, you will be overwhelmed.
Therefore, attaining a zen-like state depends on the outside world, which includes whether or not you have Soma pills.
And of course we do not have Soma today. Antidepressants and recreational drugs are about as removed from Soma as computers in WW2 are from today’s supercomputers. Comparisons are fraught with danger.