Enlightenment is the search for feeling good, but is not actually correlated to basic human decency or genuine goodness.
Being good is the product of research, debate, and the scientific method.
My understanding of Eastern religions is that there are multiple paths to enlightenment. One path is the path of reason; this says that it is possible for an intelligent person to figure out true enlightenment by the use of reason and logic alone.
But it’s not the only path. Other people may find enlightenment by some other means, such as faith or prayer or ritual. And regardless of how different people get there, they all arrive at the same place when they achieve enlightenment.
The caste system of India is irrelevant, unless you think that the entire population of India is enlightened.
And I haven’t noticed that scientists show ’ human decency or genuine goodness’ as individuals, more than anyone else.
So, the impetus to tear down the caste system came from the few enlightened yogis, or from the Europeans who had gone through “The Enlightenment”?
That’s the beauty of it. Science doesn’t require you to be good, it just requires that you work in reality. Using magical thinking, any old thing will heal someone. In science, only things that actually heal someone actually heals someone.
Science forces people to address reality and respond to it with real solutions.
It doesn’t make us better by nature, but it does make us do better.
Not included: a question.
That’s one Buddhist take. But the Buddhist conception of enlightenment aka Nirvana differs from the Hindi concept. And while there are writings that speak of some Buddhists on other planets attaining enlightenment via eg smells, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that those who attain enlightenment in practice (insofar that they do so) master the basics of Buddhist doctrine, practice meditation, and eventually adopt a certain temperament.
I’ll take it from the Buddhist POV.
Is enlightenment the same as intelligence? (No.) Are very smart people more likely to be enlightened? (Not in the US, where the underlying doctrine isn’t common, though not unheard of.) Can you be enlightened without a certain minimum of intelligence? (It’s more difficult.)
Underlying question: is the Hindu concept of enlightenment intellectually coherent or philosophically defensible? I assume the answer is yes, but I honestly don’t know for certain. That is my ignorance.
Buddhism is basically a psychological method of dealing with your problems. An intelligent person will try to use reason and logic to achieve enlightenment, he will fail.
I would argue an intelligent person needs to use devotion or ritual rather than adding more reason and logic.
Someone naturally into devotion needs more reason or ritual.
If your totally into ritual perhaps its time for more more deviation or intellectualism.
Wiki also has a full article on moksha. Moksha - Wikipedia
[INDENT]In Hindu traditions, moksha is a central concept[5] and the utmost aim to be attained through three paths during human life; these three paths are dharma (virtuous, proper, moral life), artha (material prosperity, income security, means of life), and kama (pleasure, sensuality, emotional fulfillment).[6]
…The definition and meaning of moksha varies between various schools of Indian religions.[14] Moksha means freedom, liberation; from what and how is where the schools differ.[15]…
Moksha has been defined not merely as absence of suffering and release from bondage to saṃsāra, various schools of Hinduism also explain the concept as presence of the state of paripurna-brahmanubhava (the experience of oneness with Brahman, the One Supreme Self), a state of knowledge, peace and bliss.[16] For example, Vivekachudamani - an ancient book on moksha, explains one of many meditative steps on the path to moksha, as… [/INDENT] In contrast Buddhism defines Nirvana as absence of suffering and release from bondage to saṃsāra.
ISTM that somebody of modest learning could make progress on all 3 paths. A very intelligent person with no exposure to Hinduism might make quite a bit less progress: it seems like it might be a hit or miss affair. What it takes for someone to actually arrive at moksha is not for me to say. Just my WAG.
Enlighten me about how I should improve my IQ score?
Tell me what enlightenment is?
It appears as if the answers are mutually exclusive and that there’s a middle way.
What’s that?
What’s the sound of one hand clapping?
I USED to know. NOW I’ve forgotten.
Is it regressive that I have?
������������������������������������
Why can’t I see into the future?
Does one hand clapping make a sound? Is it clapping in any sense?
Define clapping.
Define one hand. Is it a metaphor? A symbol?
A biological fact?
If my IQ score was high, would I be more able to answer these questions?
Should I ask someone for help finding the answers?
What happens if I can’t process the information?
What is the sight of ONE eye seeing?
Are two hands clapping in unison one?
Ad noxious.
If your IQ score was high, you wouldn’t waste time asking yourself these questions, IMHO.
This is almost witnessing, but it’s mostly gibberish. I’ll do miller a favor and not inflict it on him. This is closed.
[/moderating]