Really just a couple questions about enlightenment: (1) Does Judaism, Christianity or Islam offer any novel insight into the human condition? By novel I mean original thought; not plagiarized rewrites of ancient Greek, Indian and Chinese philosophies. (2) As a Jew, Christian or Muslim – what personal enlightenment into the human condition has your belief inspired? (3) For everyone else: Have you ever had an epiphany into life and the human condition that arose from your particular belief system? If so what? Thanks, Michael
Generally... Enlightenment.. is a Buddhist thing... as from Buddha.. story of .... the term maybe used in many ways... and probubly is by many groups... Buddha, just after Enlightenment.. was walking down a road.. and another man walking the other way stopped him, and asked... "excuse me.... but, what are you? some kind of alien or angel or something? .... and Buddha replyed.. "I am awake..." as he had, suddenly awoke from a life long dream.. an illusion.. and it was from this enlightenment that Buddha went forth to teach. -MT (at least thats what i have on file thus far... more research is needed.)
# Enlightenment A philosophical movement of the 18th century that emphasized the use of reason to scrutinize previously accepted doctrines and traditions and that brought about many humanitarian reforms. I don't think Christianity or Islam can live up to that, can they?
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/kant-whatis.html This isn't what you thought, but it's a good read nonetheless.
Michael, (1) That man was created in the image of God, but reflects Him inaccurately because of sin. This belief precedes any Greek, Indian or Chinese philosophy, although many have since formulated it in their own words. (2) Because sin is not just something that afflicts you, but also a path taken, forgiveness and repentance are equally necessary. Without forgiveness, the consequences of sin would escalate eternally - sin would beget more sin, and we would forever be trying to play "catch-up" for countless generations of it, in a single lifetime. And without repentance, there is no forgiveness left. But after forgiveness, it is possible to start life as a new creation - with no debts unpaid, no desires unfulfilled, and no self to save.
do you have even a shred of evidence to back up the latter part of that statement, or is it just what you think?
I think that Jesus had some novel insights, but the belief systems that he inspired are somewhat lacking in insight. I do think they exploit the human condition, which includes knowledge of our mortality, and the passion of our animal natures that conflict with a harmonious society. Jesus' own insight included a realization of oneness with God, which I think was his way of saying that between the whole of existence and ourselves, there need be no separation. We are manifestations of the whole. Buddhism describes a similar thought, "nothing is permanent", which means that although there seem to be numerous forms, the reality is a constantly changing universe that takes certain temporary forms, one of which is ourselves. I have had this same insight, which is not intellectual, but a feeling, an experience of the dissolution of the personal ego and identification with the whole, which is generally referred to in eastern philosophy as liberation. Jesus called it the kingdom.
I don't like the idea of forcing other people to a certain religion. 500 years, every time a new country was discovered, a priest would go there to teach religion. They didn't respect other religions. Portugal (my country), did this. In fact the catholic church grew in numbers because of Portugal, Spain and France.
Maybe I should have specified, "This belief precedes any similar belief in Greek, Indian or Chinese philosophy" - but it depends on how you define what is Greek, Indian or Chinese. The particular belief of imago Dei seems to be unique to the Hebrew tradition. Genesis is generally dated to the time of Moses (1500BC), though some of its current form is post-exilic (c.560BC). But its account of the flood and creation goes back to at least 2000BC (Sumerian dynasty - Abraham was a Sumerian from Ur). (1) Greek history starts with the Aegean civilization (1600BC), which was dominated by nature worship. Greek philosophy only started with the pre-Socratic philosophers, around 700BC. There was no consensus where man came from. According to Hesiod (700BC) in his Theogeny, Chaos "came to be", gave birth to Heaven and Earth (Gaia), who gave birth to gods, who in turn gave birth to men. This is the closest you'll come to the Hebrew idea in Greek thought (their "general revelation" allowed Paul to quote from Epimenides (600BC) and Aratus (300BC) in Acts 17:28 to identify the God of the Hebrews). (2) Ancient Indian philosophy is represented by the Rig Veda, which dates to around 1500BC, and consists of 1028 hymns referring to a host of gods (Wikipedia: Rig Veda). It's impossible to come to the conclusion that man was made in the image of any of these gods. It could be said that in Indian philosophy there is no "image", only truth (reality) and ignorance. Everything looks in the same direction (is a manifestation), but there is never anything "looking back", except by ignorance or illusion. (3) Chinese philosophy is diverse and much harder to trace, but to the best of anyone's knowledge, there was no codified philosophy before the I Ching (philosophy of change and substance, which is certainly ancient), and no account of creation until Taoism (c. 600 BC), which only became known in contrast to the newly introduced Buddhism. (Confucius and Gautama Buddha were contemporaries). Neither said much about God or man's relation to him, since they focused primarily on man's duty. This overview of Origin beliefs at wikipedia might be worth a look.
From a Christian point of view, this appears to be enlightenment. However, it seems to me to be nothing more than a statement; in particular, a clarification of where “we” came from. Man was created in the imagine of God. Ergo, man came from God. (A) What insight into the human condition does this statement afford? - - If I take the statement as literal, then may wonder why does god have a Penis? Or, -- Why are our retinas so screwy? Or -- If I take the statement as esoteric, I may wonder if I am suppose to reach a higher plain of understand, and that this plain-of-understanding is God’s “image”. If that’s the case, then is this really a Christian idea? If not taken as a flat statment, well then, I was under the assumption that reaching these higher states of consciousness were the meat-and-potatoes of Hinduism and Buddhism? If it’s just a statement. Then there doesn’t appear to be much of a personal reflective nature to the statement. Ie: there’s no “thinking” involved. (B) However, there is this notion of “sin” and that could afford some thinking. Yet, isn’t it the Bible that lays out what “sin” actually is? So again no need to think. Don't eat this, Do eat this. Don't do this, Do this. As a matter of fact, in one story, the Godhead tires of the way man is acting/doing things and so kills most of them off!!! This seems like man is NOT to think, come to a conclusion, and do as he has concluded. But instead he is to do as God has concluded is good for him to do? What kind of bullshit is that? Why have consciousness if one is not to use it? ?? So to me “sin” in a Biblical sense is also not about “thinking” but about obeying. And obeying is not about to lead one to any sort of “enlightenment” on the human condition. As a matter of fact, we can see that society kind of crapped out in Europe during the rein of the Pope and the very terms “Enlightenment” and “Renaissance” describe the era following this, when the Church had lost it hold on people. Isn't that a sort of evidence, from within Christendom, that the Bible actually stifles enlightenment? (C) If there is little room for thinking, then the would be enlightened-mind is relegated to having faith. Not thinking .... but instead accepting. Does accepting (and not thinking) create an enlightened individual? Faith, to me, seems like a sort of mental-couch-potato introspection and if anything appears to lure people away from enlightenment. In terms of the human condition, is there anything particularly MORE enlightening in the phrase: You were created in God’s image. over the phrase You were created in the image of the Gods. ?? When you compare to the two statements, neither appears to be all that enlightening? Its like saying: Your nails are painted blue, like the Gods nails. Basically a statement at best and a lie at worse. Jenyar, thanks for the comments and debate. I sort of thought that there’d be a little bit more coming from other people of various religion. It sort of makes me wonder: What are people getting out of their belief? I guess as an academic I made the assumption people were finding enlightenment. Now I am starting to think maybe it’s just as they say: Opium for the masses. Perhaps enlightenment isn’t really what people want at all, they want someone to tell them what to think and be done with it. If so, well that’s sad Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! huh? But I suppose it makes sense.
Did you achieve this feeling via meditation? If so how? Oneness with the universe is interesting, I think I could feel it when I was younger, but not so much now. This reminds me of some of the ideas about he bicameral brain and children. Anyway, at present I don’t meditate at all. Although I do intend to. I hope I can reach that state again. My personal belief is that my mind is individual. I am only at one with the universe when I, for what ever reason, lose the inherent ability to distinguish self from not self. I always “know” this is “my” arm. This desk is “not me”. However, there is a part of a brain (or parts) that allow me to make this distinction. I believe that for some people (perhaps after a stroke or a tumor) they lose this ability. They can not tell self from non-self. I think this is sort of like the “oneness with the universe” the esoteric describe. I believe it's a purely physical phenomenon, but would nevertheless like to experience it, via meditation.
All you need do is find a quiet place, close your eyes, still the mind and forget yourself. What remains is you.
It's a realization about ourselves, not so much about God - i.e. it doesn't work so well backwards. Let's say I create an image of myself in wood, does it automatically follow that I'm made of wood? Our retinas aren't screwy, unless they don't work properly. That's just the nature of nature, so to speak - the consequences of entropy and possibly a long history of sin. As for reaching a higher plane of understanding, that doesn't need to be "esoteric". I.e. once you've gained the knowledge, there's no need to look for deeper meanings. There's no law stating that every higher or newer understanding must remain difficult and esoteric - unless it's really beyond our abilities. Or to put it in other words: if after everything has been said and done, you don't actually believe you've been enlightened, it's not going to mean much (and that isn't just a Christian idea). From a certain perspective, certainly. But once you've realized what you have to realize, it's going to be very mundane - "Ah, so that's it then." You're just trying to know the fundamental truth of things, nothing more than that, which would lead into a realm of eternal doubt and skepticism. It might be an amazing thing for someone who's never heard of it, but if you've heard it so many times that you take it for granted, it won't hold much magic. When you've realized that meat-and-potatoes really are meat-and-potatoes, at the highest plane of understanding, there won't be much left to do other than tuck in. A person who's been lost in the desert for two weeks might feel differently about the same realization (and maybe that's how people generally expect enlightenment to feel, being spiritually starved, even if intellectually and materially comfortable). A statement itself will arguably never seem to have much of a personal reflective nature. If I said, "Hey! I'm enlightened", it would be just as easy to say "so what?" as to write a library full of books about it. The thinking comes in when you start wondering what it means, what the implications are if it's true, and so on. So if you meant wisdom and what seems wise, I think that is something else - a result of enlightened thought. Well, it would have been rather disillusioning if what you said were true. But to use an analogy, is justice simply "Don't do this, don't do that", or does it require some thought? If a constitution was all we needed, why do courts exist? The Bible says "All wrongdoing is sin", and the law tells us what "wrongdoing" means. If you stop thinking about what you're doing, you're therefore not doing what God concluded is good. So you see, if the statement was as simple as you thought it was, how do you explain not understanding what it means? In fact, the "Enlightenment" only came two hundred years after the Reformation and new humanistic trends. It's religious foundation had already been established by monasticism, described as a culture of "love of learning and the desire for God". Monastries had existed from the days of Constantine, and preserved scholarship and morality during the so-called "Dark Ages". Writing became an art, which paved the way for the printing press and the wide dissemination of information that heralded the Reformation. The Abbey of Cluny in the 10th century sought to escape corruption by establishing its independence from the feudal system in which all medieval institutions were rooted. From answers.com: The role of monasticism in the development of the new civilization of the West is incalculable. Monasteries were islands of stability, and their inhabitants, almost alone, preserved learning in the West.I suggest you read the articles on Dark Ages ("many modern negative conceptions of the age come from Enlightenment authors") and Renaissance ("present-day historians also see the [Italian Renaissance] era as one of economic regression and of little progress in science") at wikipedia, so you can see the stereotypes expose themselves. Reason, reform and scholasticism came from within and without the official church and state. You also seem to presuppose that boundlessness is somehow more enlightened than limitations like self-control, responsibility and the principles guiding them. Yet all religious expressions of enlightenment have emphasized strict mental and physical discipline. Is this just coincidence? If deviating from the course of enlightenment is called "sin", then don't you think it might be a useful concept for someone who seeks to be enlightened? And if, from there, people intent on making the right decision and thinking in the right way, want to know under the circumstances what is right and what is wrong, you might start codifying the "path" - giving guidelines, setting boundaries, even making laws. They might be a step removed from what actually does need to be done, even a hindrace, but disobeying these laws would, in effect, be to stray from the path to enlightenment. Throwing out these "restrictive" laws, that point out various sins (don't murder, don't steal, etc.) would actually put you back a few thousand years (about 5000, counting from Hammurabi), rather than "freeing" you to be enlightened all by your lonesome self. Just because too many people have been riding on a precept for too long, doesn't mean it loses its truthfulness. Maybe people are just taking it for granted, and need to become aware (what the word for "enlightenment" actually means) of its truth again. You are just unaware of your own faith, which is in your reasoning ability. Thinking that thinking is the only tool for enlightenment. You might have accepted the legacy of the Enlightenment as the highest human ideal (secular humanism), but if all faith is to be questioned, shouldn't this implied faith be questioned, too? If you think about it, such total reliance doesn't make sense, and can be just as fanatical as religious fundamentalism. There is room for spiritual and physical improvement that reason alone cannot provide. For instance, you can't reason yourself into never needing food, your health depends on other forms of sustenance. Reason has its place, and faith knows this; but for some reason, people refuse be entirely reasonable and make the same allowance for faith. For one thing, many gods can't have only one image (or they would not have been called "many"). And like I explained before, a statement itself can't be enlightenening - it depends on what you do with it. If you don't attempt to think of it as true, it can't have any meaning. The statement above, for instance, would immediately raise the question of who your God is, because that would help you to better understand what it tells you about yourself. Enlightenment isn't where thinking ends, it's where thinking starts (unless you intend to die on that moment); and where thinking starts to have meaning. And you have to have faith in the validity of your experience, or it will lose its meaning, like you said: a statement at best and a lie at worst". CS Lewis once said, "Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted in spite of your changing moods". Just keep in mind that what people get out of their faith won't be immediately apparent from what they might have to say about their faith. Another possibility is that you have an idea of enlightenment or God that's largely a stereotype. If an academic were to describe his Eureka moment in religious terms, he might call it "a moment of enlightenment", "realization" or "sudden awareness". But let him describe it to you - let's say, "e=mc^2" - and you might ask "...and?" An observer might remark, "Truly, science is an opium for the masses; describe something in sufficiently scientific terms, and they say, 'oh, okay, I accept that' and go on their way with a sense that all is well in the world, since it's obviously been explained". It's the same argument made against believers of all kinds. But in the field, you often see religious people putting scientific advances to good use, and vice versa. Why aren't they stoned by these opiums? Maybe they're the enlightened ones...
Or maybe they’re not backwards, maybe that’s a trick – each time they are observed a spaghetti monster alters the image to make you think they are backwards – OR - and I think would be the best answer, that our retinas are the product of evolution. This sort of goes to the center of it. Taking a Christian point of view you come to the conclusion that SIN (whatever that is) and thus PUNISHIMENT is the answer - whereas to most non-Religious, and possibly Buddhist and Taoists, the obvious answer is product of the evolution prosses . Which is more likely to be the truth? Hence which is a more enlightening approach? The scientific method or the religious? Which method discovered the Earths position relative to the sun? Which predicted that the Earth was round? I think the rational mind is more apt at arriving at an enlightened answer than the overly religious? Don’t you? If you had a broken back would you prefer to go to atheistic back-surgeon or a Christian laying-on-hands healer? Do you think that the more religiously minded the person the more enlightened? Do you find that people that are Zealots are MORE enlightened? I actually find the opposite to be true – the more extreme a persons religious zeal the more quacked their ideas about reality and truth are. Thus the less enlightened they are. For example, a person recently told me that Schizophrenia is actually a symptom of spending too much time in the astral plane? Is this some sort of enlightened answer? I would have thought the studies implicating dopamine receptor density would have been more likely closer to the truth? But maybe not – maybe it’s just spending too much time floating out of your body!?!?! :bugeye: Do you see where I’m coming from? Ironic isn’t it? The preservation of non-Christian pagan Greek and Roman philosophies deep within the bowels of Christian monasteries, hidden away during the Dark Ages (a time of Christendom domination in Europe) which inspired the renaissance and period of enlightenment. Yes very ironic.
The Christian point of view is that punishment is the inevitable consequence of sin, whether you wish to call the consequences "evolution", "karma", or simply justice. The answer is forgiveness and reconciliation, because that stops the cycle. Knowing more about the problem might be enlightening, but it doesn't solve it. I'm not quite sure exactly what your argument is, but you seem to make a false dichotomy. The choice isn't just between religious and non-religious - if you had a broken back, you would need a back-surgeon, whatever his personal beliefs is. Someone who thinks he has to choose between people who think like him and people who don't suffers from his own prejudices, so no, I don't think he is "more enlightened". And as there are extremes and ignorance in religion, there are also extremes and ignorance in science. Blood-letting used to be scientifically accepted practice (yes, especially during the Enlightenment), but would you go to someone who still practices it? Would you go to an atheistic quack back-surgeon who thinks exercize is all you need? Or who wants to experiment on you with a new technique in the name of science? I think I do, but I don't see any difference between quack spirituality and quack psychology. There is no known single cause for schizophrenia, and someone who tells you that it comes from a childhood virus infection might be just as wrong as someone who says its caught in the astral plane (which is, by the way, a "pagan" concept). But anybody even vaguely familiar with human biology and psychology will be able to guess the answer will be found in how our minds are constructed - physically and mentally (which includes spirituality), and not "out there". Or did you think all conspiracy theorists and X-files fans are religious? You are operating on a stereotype of religious vs. reason. I just explained how religious institutions were often the sole guardians of reason, and you still responded with this stereotype. Reason is neither non-Christian, pagan, Greek or Roman "philosophy", it's simply reason. You seem to forget that these pagan, Roman and Greek philosophers beleived with equal intensity in their own gods. Just like scientific progress eradicated blood-letting with germ-theory, Christianity cured the West of Olympus and its pantheon of gods with historical monotheism.
If by original, you mean that they took a number of different, separate ideas and connected them in a way that had never been done before, then yes. If by original, you mean that they created a whole new idea, then no. Plegiarism is the false representation of an idea (or work) as your own thought (or work). I've never heard originality claimed by any of these religions. In fact, in one of my religion classes in college, a the priest teaching the course, very early on, stated quite clearly that no individual idea or teaching in Christianity is original. Too many for me to bother writing here. However, to provide an example for your satiation, one realization that I've had, coming directly from particular Christian beliefs that I hold, is that emotion results from an interaction between the intellect and will. Perhaps more specifically, between mind and will.
Im a zen buddhist, though i hate labeling myself i will for this toppic. I havent read all the posts so if this is mainly against this concept i appoligize ahead of time for bringing it up. Enlightenment is true knowledge, wisdom. Insight meditation (if 2+2=4 then 4 = 2+2 (silly comparason but relevant). Also from this point of view... .enlightenment i usualy say this. When you use your mind to come up with the answer of a math problem, the mind can be used to figure out much more, it just depends how much time you spend on that problem and how sincire you are. Not sincire in a "pure" sense but how dedicated you actualy are. How many preconceived notions you have that you cant shake. If you are stuck on one idea then you wont ever learn anything else. Meditation is one route some use but meditation is thinking (unless its non thinking meditation which is different from what i am talking about) so to just call it meditation, and thinking something different is something i have found to be strange. But it is also to be said that meditation is directed thinking (problem sovling could be another way to put it). I dragged on for a while and didnt talk much about the actual toppic .... ive been like that a lot tonight. Sorry again if i wasted your time (for whomever is reading).
