Talking about enlightenment without regard to a particular philosophy Sometimes, people speak about enlightenment without reference or regard to a particular philosophy (or religion). Even though the very concept and definition of enlightenment, and the course of training leading to it, is traditionally connected to particular philosophies. Three related questions come to mind - How meaningful is it to speak about enlightenment without reference to a particular philosophy? Doesn't speaking about enlightenment without reference to a particular philosophy imply that what traditions say is more or less irrelevant? And how would one even know what enlightenment is, how to recognize it, how to attain it - if one has no regard for a particular philosophy which has worked out the concept, the definition and the course of training for enlightenment?
Of course. As one 'offender' I started the thread 'Can humans become enlightened? as a response to the Can animals become enlightened thread where I thought the presumption apparantly shared by many was that humans could. I wondered how all these people knew that. I also wondered how they knew animals could not. At the very least we need a definition that is useful enough to allow us to contrast enlightenment with other states - if I have not already made to specific a claim by calling it a state. We should be able to read the definition and get some idea, for example, about whether we are enlightened or not, and perhaps also be able to use it as a guidepost to see if we are moving away or closer.
Well, there was 3 ways to archive "enlightenment"(whatever that is), according to Krishna(I could be wrong lol). 1. Meditation.(What greenberg is talking about) 2. Knowledge. (reading all the goodies out there about enlightenment) 3. I kinda forget this , heh, I should not be posting in this thread i'm sorry lol - wild guess - "Divinity"?
looking at definitions of existing or aspiring states of consciousness indicates an existing philosophy.
given that science cannot answer any of the ultimate questions of life, it appears to be a relatively low grade type of enlightenment by itself
How do you define enlightenment? For Hinduism, it is moksha or freedom from karma For Buddhists, it is Nirvana or freedom from the effects of want and desire In psychology means gaining knowledge and understanding that enhances clarity of perception So I would say there are two elements to enlightenment: spiritual and intellectual. Kant, on the other hand, has defined a lack of enlightenment as the inability to think, not due to a lack of knowledge, but a lack of courage.
Does an "enlightened" person need to know everything that there is to know? And if not, how is it decided what he doesn't need to know to still be considered "enlightened"? Can the typically-depicted, cartoon character sitting on the top of a mountain know everything that's going on in the world? And if not, how can he be "enlightened"? For example, if he doesn't know about new research on genetics, cloning, etc, can he be called "enlightened"? If not, then the old guy sitting on the mountain is just fucked up, huh? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Can ol' Joe Redneck be "enlightened" if he's compassionate toward those he knows and he's happy and content? Baron Max
generally enlightened means to have the ability to discern reality from illusion (illusion generally being catalyzed by the influence of lust/wrath/etc)
It is the epitome of ignorance to conclude all questions have been answered and the ultimate in ignorance to conclude not one has been answered.
A so-called 'spiritual enlightenment' would merely be the self-serving illusion of personal acceptance of the supurnatural.
if you can't point to you nose and say what it ultimately is or answer where you ultimately are .... :shrug: and given that you have no foundation apart from your opinion in your response to SAM below, it appears that you are apt for the odd excursion into unbridled ignorance when it suits your agenda anyway ....
you mean where you contextualize all claims of enlightenment as delusional without citing any body of evidence (outside of your personal whimsy)? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It is the epitome of ignorance to conclude all questions have been answered and the ultimate in ignorance to conclude not one has been answered. sounds like a chicken, walks like a chicken.... etc etc :shrug:
