Well, what is it? Have you ever reached it? Is it a permanent state or a merely a glimpse? Or perhaps it is, in it's nature, unattainable.

Can we achieve it? Can I achieve it?

I'm framing this question with the assumption that all positive spiritual development is directed towards the goal of 'enlightenment'. So enlightenment is whatever you deem to be the teleological consequence of your belief system: whether you are an evangelist, zealot, atheist, pantheist, syncretist, chrestomathist, disciple, slave or whatever.

With the combined minds of nearly 17,000 people we should be able to come up with one or two good pointers, at least?

Not another drug related thread Phan, surely? What a surprise.

It contains far too many big words for most of us plebs, anyway ;)

What particular substance has helped you "achieve nirvana tonight" (if I may quote the great Frank)

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
With the combined minds of nearly 17,000 people we should be able to come up with one or two good pointers, at least?

Are you serious?


On a forum where the biggest threads concern red subaru's and soup!

(and don't we just love it???)

Originally posted by mojoworking
Not another drug related thread Phan, surely? What a surprise.

It's probably in response to the "where have all the interesting threads gone?" post.

This one is way above my head but I'll be following it with fascination. (I'd personally argue that you can't achieve enlightenment through drug use, just euphoria, but don't ask me to back it up with anything substantial or informed).

Enlightenment ...

HELP ... I'm falling upwards.

:banana:

Originally posted by Ant
..I'd personally argue that you can't achieve enlightenment through drug use..

Ok. To be serious for a moment (because I've spent the night consuming the one drug that is guaranteed to take you furthest from enlightenment, namely alcohol);
I disagree with that comment.

I believe that certain drugs do activate areas in your brain that normally remain inactive. Of course attaining enlightenment is not necessarily related to that. I think enlightenment as I understand it takes a lot of work and thought.

But the drugs that people tend to use on recreation will give you new angles on old thoughts, so it's a start.


(Not advising drug use by the way)

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
So enlightenment is whatever you deem to be the teleological consequence of your belief system: whether you are an evangelist, zealot, atheist, pantheist, syncretist, chrestomathist, disciple, slave or whatever.]

Err.... teleogolical? Started to struggle a bit here. However, I kept going....and then came to "pantheist, sycretist, chrestomathist". :huh: Now I'm completely lost. Originally posted by Phanerothyme
[B]
With the combined minds of nearly 17,000 people we should be able to come up with one or two good pointers, at least?

As I've never come across these words before, think you should count me out for a reply, and reduce your expectation to 16,999! :hihi:

It's midweek...I am alarmed at the un-natural depth of this post...I assume only 'p**sed people will understand it so maybe I will have a look later in the week!

Originally posted by redrobbo
Err.... teleogolical? Started to struggle a bit here. However, I kept going....and then came to "pantheist, sycretist, chrestomathist". :huh: Now I'm completely lost.

As I've never come across these words before, think you should count me out for a reply, and reduce your expectation to 16,999! :hihi:
Well, he did say nearly 17,000, Red... So he perhaps knows you better than you realise and had already discounted you! :D

But I see what you mean about the long wurdz!

Better make that 16,998, Phanerothyme... :)

Returning, if none too seriously, to the topic... If enlightenment also involves 'finding your inner self', then I have no intention whatsoever of seeking it... I have enough problems dealing with my 'outer self' without further complicating matters!;)

Originally posted by Pseudonym
Well, he did say nearly 17,000, Red... So he perhaps knows you better than you realise and had already discounted you! :D

But I see what you mean about the long wurdz!

Better make that 16,998, Phanerothyme... :)



Methinks your right Pseudonym! However.....

Originally posted by Shiesh
It's midweek...I am alarmed at the un-natural depth of this post...I assume only 'p**sed people will understand it so maybe I will have a look later in the week!

...... maybe better make that 16,997! :hihi:

Originally posted by Pseudonym
Returning, if none too seriously, to the topic... If enlightenment also involves 'finding your inner self', then I have no intention whatsoever of seeking it... I have enough problems dealing with my 'outer self' without further complicating matters!;)

Now you see innerselves are small, blue & furry (as demonstrated on one of those friendly bacteria yoghurt ads) there is no mystery & htey are not hard to find. I have to agree with you about outerselves - they're a much more disturbing prospect & v problematic :help:

I wish you had said 'The Enlightenment'. I could have done you a nice little lecture on Kant, using powerpoint, and all for the measly fee of £45 per hour. I'd even have thrown in some of my own philosophical insights and humorous quips. Never mind.

Is 'enlightenment' possible? I suppose it comes down to one's conception of 'truth'. If, like the postmodernists [Lyotard, Derrida etc] and poststructuralists [Foucault, Kristeva etc] one views 'truth' as relative rather than absolute and intrinsic, the idea of 'enlightenment' means little except in a very subjective sense. If we live within a universe of relativism, people 'talk past' each other in effect, and there are no 'foundations' or 'universals'. However, if, like my good self, one believes that even if 'reality' is socially-constructed there may still be a socially-constructed reality 'out there' [we simply have to trust our senses, and could not negotiate our way through life without doing so] there IS a possibility of 'enlightenment'. I believe that there are absolute, intrinsic scientific truths 'out there', even if human beings like Foucault and Lyotard [following Kant] argue that 'reality' is 'all in the mind', and that meaning is ascribed to the world only by social actors. The 'truths' are there regardless of whether we conceptualise them or not.

Actually, it is possible to adopt a 'third position' here in the form of metatheory. This would be where one does not make absolutist statements that are 'written in stone' [such as the 'grand narratives' of Marx etc], but rather aims for an 'ontologically-flexible' approach which avoids both absolutism and the relativism of postmodern and poststructuralism. Here, one would be essentially making an 'educated' statement based upon existing theory and empirical evidence. One would make methodological generalisations as opposed to substantive generalisations. In plain terms, we shouldn't assume that there are no truths outside of social construction, but equally, we should be wary of making the kind of 'absolutist' statements and promises that Marx engaged in.

As I believe in an 'ontologicaly-flexible' notion of truth, yes, for me, 'enlightenment' IS possible. What form does it take? I have a reasonable knowledge of the arts, humanities, biological and social sciences [although I am lousy at mathematics, in my view]. This means that I am fortunate to have had access to 'the best' knowledge accumulated in these fields. The knowledge has enabled me to view the world in a more 'sophisticated' , less essentialist and reductionist way. In particular, I feel 'enlightened' by study of biological/social science because I now appreciate the complexity of the bio-social world, and realise that rarely do unitary explanations for human behaviour suffice. Whether it is self-deception or not, I feel 'better armed' to cope with the absurdities of life than I did previously. This causes pleasure, but not smugness. One can be 'officially' educated to the hilt, but it is impossible to keep up with all new developments in the fields of knowledge. Additionally, it is no good 'being enlightened' if one lacks self-knowledge and awareness and has a social skills deficit. Many 'clever' types seem to. I tend to get on with most people, and realise that there are millions brighter than me, and I am on a permanent 'learning curve'. We all are really, when you come to think of it.

We appear to have suddenly switched from discussing Enlightenment in our native language, to Speaking In Tongues ... Or so it seems to me, after reading the last post from Timo!:D

Text-speak is a doddle to comprehend by comparison... ;)

"Me 'Ed 'Urts!"

I think the answer is yes - but recognising it as enlightenment is another thing.

Dragon

Originally posted by Jamie
Enlightenment ...

HELP ... I'm falling upwards.

:banana:

You must have been transported by the final movement of Beethoven's last and greatest piano sonata, which has been described as a 'celestial falling upwards' - a teleological resolution in sound of our inner conflicts with an ever mysterious world

Timo, excellent and fascinating post as usual. As a possible key to enlightenment I would go back even further than any of the writers and scolars so far mentioned and cite Socrates, who professed to know nothing. The starting point should be an acceptance of how little we actually know and indeed can ever know about ultimate purposes. I fully agree with you also about the dangers of dogmatism and certainty in explanations of the world and of our place in it: this is a dangerous road, as the history of Marxist thought so clearly demonstrates.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

Can we achieve it? Can I achieve it?

Perhaps we are born enlightened and from the first breath everything is tainted.
I hope everyone achieves it, but wouldn't it be a bummer, to strive for enlightenment for all ones life only to find at the end that you were looking in the wrong place....

Pseudonym,
Yes, you are correct. My posting is gobbledegook. All of them are, really. I am no more 'enlightened' than an empty crisp packet blown along by the wind. I am just as baffled by life as everyone else. I can't do anything useful or practical. Simple things like mending a fuse, decorating, putting up a shelf, fixing a wheel, even carrying a cup of tea without spilling it are beyond me. Being able to do 'normal', practical things without making a pig's breakfast of it would be true enlightenment for me.

There, there now, Timo... You get it off your chest my friend... You'll feel better for it...

Confession is, I'm told, good for the soul, if that is the case then I would venture a guess that by coming clean and 'fessing up, you are now travelling along the path towards true enlightenment... You and Dorothy...

Watch out for tin men along the way! ;)


(Flamin' typos... I've been awake far too long!)

Originally posted by Pseudonym
Confession is, I'm told, good for the soul, if that is the case then I would venture a gues that by coming clean and 'fessing up, you are now travelling along the path towards true enlightenment... You and Dorothy...

Watch out for tin men along the way! ;)

Not forgetting the "friends of Dorothy". There are plenty of them on the forum, after all! ;)

Pseudonym,
Judging from what you told me earlier this week, your 'practical skills' [re music from, ahem 'other sources'] are finely honed, eh?

So I'm a 'friend of Dorothy' now? LOL. Better tell my wife. She won't know which way to turn [joke, circa 1963].

Dragon - the answer is yes, but what is the question?

Timo - But is there a numinous enlightenment, like the road to Damascus, available to christians, and another kind to bhuddists or taoists? Or is enlightenment only the revelation of banal and mundane truths, and the realisation of their actual import? Just like dorothy's moment of enlightenment, and the curtain is whisked away.
[edit] and although I don't personally have £45, would you consider The Enlightenment an enlightenment, or a phenomenon of a different kind?

for people who haven't yet discovered google:define -

syncretism - # the union (or attempted fusion) of different systems of thought or belief (especially in religion or philosophy); "a syncretism of material and immaterial theories"

teleology - # The study of final causes, results. Having a definite purpose, goal, or design

chrestomathy - # An anthology used in study



--
Originally posted by mojoworking
Not another drug related thread Phan, surely? What a surprise.
mojo, best cut down on your glue sniffing, as you are starting to see things that aren't there.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

mojo, best cut down on your glue sniffing, as you are starting to see things that aren't there.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I reckon it's far to difficult for us in the West to reach enlightenment - too many distractions. Stuff like working in the office, Eastenders and the media bombarding us with how we should look / what we should buy gets in the way.

So... in order to reach enlightenment, we should ditch all that stuff, sell up and go live somewhere warmer (on a beach perhaps) and eat fruit. Then we'd have no silly distractions, life would be peaceful and we'd have fab tans.

I feel closer to Nirvana already...

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

mojo, best cut down on your glue sniffing, as you are starting to see things that aren't there.

Is that the best you can do Phan? Honestly, all that substance abuse has ruined your sense of humour :thumbsup:

Phan,
I'll endeavour to be concise. 1] I simply do not know whether there is a 'numinous enlightenment' in the form of some spiritual awakening or nirvana-like experience available to human beings. I certainly have never come within miles of one. As I said before [although my good-humoured chum Pseudonym thinks I am off to see the Wizard], I see 'enlightenment' as the simple joy of possesing a fuller picture of human affairs through the study of the arts, humanities, biological and social sciences. Not all the 'truths' uncovered are 'banal or mundane' in my view. Education does not necessarily make one a 'better' person than before, but it allows one, if the education itself is deep and broad in scope, to have a better chance of making sense of the world we live in. I do not, by the way, ever suggest that everything is understandable or knowable.

2] I think the so-called 'Enlightenment' was a wonderful thing to say the least. Perhaps reason was 'deified' and this lead to a belief in some quarters that the hypothetico-deductive [scientific] method was the only method of analysis, but overall it brought great wisdom to mankind. Postmodern rejection of 'Enlightenment grand narratives' is academic ******* in the wind. What do Lyotard and Foucault have to offer- third-rate twaddle that denies intrinsic truth and foundations. The paradox is that Postmodernism is now part of the canon of the arts and humanities as a discipline in its own right. Effectively, the likes of Lyotard are telling us that 'it is true that there is no such thing as truth'. To coin an old Sheffield phrase, 'F*** them with a ragman's trumpet!'

By the way, I would not define 'teleological' quite the same way you do. To me,' teleology' refers to linear, evolutionary processes, or gradual unfoldings of events towards a notion of progress. In other words, like the old Whig interpretation of History; as steps towards greater and greater progress. Perhaps the events of WW2 put paid to historical notions of teleology. The Postmodernists are correct, in this case to be sceptical about teleological accounts of history.

I've done my best [no tin men in sight yet , Pseudonym...] and I'm off to eat my Scotch egg. Ta ra for a bit, as Roger Scruton would say.

The path to enlightenment is knowlege.

WHAT on earth are you people talking about ?
"enlightement" is it a new kind of soup ? :confused:

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Well, what is it? Have you ever reached it? Is it a permanent state or a merely a glimpse? Or perhaps it is, in it's nature, unattainable.

Can we achieve it? Can I achieve it?


What is Enlightenment and how do we achieve it? The Ultimate Question....

I believe Enlightenment occurs when an individual soul attains the level of spiritual development that enables it to reunite with God.

Perhaps when each and every soul is reunited in God (or the Spirit of the Universe if you prefer), then that is the End of Time.

So ultimately complete Enlightenment is attainable, as everything merges into Oneness. That state of being at one with God would be how I would envision Heaven.

Quite what that means on a day-to-day basis, I don't know....

Personally, I believe we're all here on a Spiritual Quest with the ultimate 'goal' of reaching Enlightenment. It may well take a number of lifetimes - maybe a lot of lifetimes! - for each soul to work towards its Enlightenment, but that is the overall task for each of us.

Every now and then in a person's life, if you're lucky, and if you're open to it and intuitive enough to recognise it, I think for a moment you might be granted a brief awareness of what Enlightenment is like. But it is just a brief flash of insight or feeling - as Phan says 'merely a glimpse' of Enlightenment.

Just my thoughts.

StarSparkle

Originally posted by StarSparkle
What is Enlightenment and how do we achieve it? The Ultimate Question....

I believe Enlightenment occurs when an individual soul attains the level of spiritual development that enables it to reunite with God.

Now that's more like it! Big Bang revelatory Enlightenment! That has to be worth trying to achieve has it not? Leaving aside for the moment troublesome definintions like Soul and God (not to deny their existence, just avoid being mired in semantics), this sounds like achieving a unity with the rest of the universe, the final and irrevocable action of dissolving the boundary between 'Me' and 'Everything Else'.

Originally posted by SHarper
Perhaps we are born enlightened and from the first breath everything is tainted.
I hope everyone achieves it, but wouldn't it be a bummer, to strive for enlightenment for all ones life only to find at the end that you were looking in the wrong place....

That's an interesting take I must say. Perhaps rather than being tainted, which sounds very negative to me, we move away from our purity and enlightenment gradually, as our minds ossify, twisted into shape by all we experience. Is it then a case of trying to pulverise those self imposed mental strictures in order to return to a state of enlightenment? I can see the value of glimpsing a state like this, but returning to it does seem regressive. Perhaps pure enlightenment is the realisation it is not possible.

Originally posted by timo
Phan,
I'll endeavour to be concise. 1] I simply do not know whether there is a 'numinous enlightenment' in the form of some spiritual awakening or nirvana-like experience available to human beings. I certainly have never come within miles of one. As I said before [although my good-humoured chum Pseudonym thinks I am off to see the Wizard], I see 'enlightenment' as the simple joy of possesing a fuller picture of human affairs through the study of the arts, humanities, biological and social sciences. Not all the 'truths' uncovered are 'banal or mundane' in my view. Education does not necessarily make one a 'better' person than before, but it allows one, if the education itself is deep and broad in scope, to have a better chance of making sense of the world we live in. I do not, by the way, ever suggest that everything is understandable or knowable.


I don't mean that the discovery of a wider and deeper picture of human affairs is dull or trivial, but that the information is derived by profane means, rather than divine or spiritual. Also, I think you touched upon an important aspect of what it means to achieve enlightenment, by whatever means or definition - should it make you a 'better' person?

2] I think the so-called 'Enlightenment' was a wonderful thing to say the least. Perhaps reason was 'deified' and this lead to a belief in some quarters that the hypothetico-deductive [scientific] method was the only method of analysis, but overall it brought great wisdom to mankind. Postmodern rejection of 'Enlightenment grand narratives' is academic ******* in the wind.What do Lyotard and Foucault have to offer- third-rate twaddle that denies intrinsic truth and foundations. The paradox is that Postmodernism is now part of the canon of the arts and humanities as a discipline in its own right. Effectively, the likes of Lyotard are telling us that 'it is true that there is no such thing as truth'. To coin an old Sheffield phrase, 'F*** them with a ragman's trumpet!'

There are philosophers who might suggest the only road to enlightenment is a rejection of all purveyed truth as dogma, and the only enlightenment is to be had through direct experience of the universe, right now. Everything else is confabulation. It's not a state of mind that would enable you to get the shopping done though....

By the way, I would not define 'teleological' quite the same way you do. To me,' teleology' refers to linear, evolutionary processes, or gradual unfoldings of events towards a notion of progress. In other words, like the old Whig interpretation of History; as steps towards greater and greater progress. Perhaps the events of WW2 put paid to historical notions of teleology. The Postmodernists are correct, in this case to be sceptical about teleological accounts of history.
I've always known teleology from Philosophy 101 as being the study of final causes, and intended it to mean, in my OP, as a kind of reference to whatever flavour of 'omega point' your particular belief encompasses. You see, post-modernists do have something to offer, just not the all-enveloping meta-analytical discipline that some of them claim.

I've done my best [no tin men in sight yet , Pseudonym...] and I'm off to eat my Scotch egg. Ta ra for a bit, as Roger Scruton would say.

back2basics - when you say knowledge is the path to enlightenment, do you mean that with a sufficient, critical amount of knowledge you attain a new state, one of enlightenment? Or that we are all enlightened to different degrees and that knowledge and enlightenment are equivalent terms?
Well, I'm off for a hommelette, as Lacan might would say, if he hadn't died in 81.

I mean the Enlightenment movement, everybody is discussing this in it's spiritual context. In the 1800's there was a movement called the Enlightenment movement.

European literary and philosophical movement which took place roughly between 1660 and 1770. Also called the Age of Reason. Central ideas and values of the Enlightenment include a belief in the powers of reason to understand nature and guide the human existence; a belief in the essential equality and dignity of all people and in basic human rights to freedom and happiness; a challenge to ignorance, superstition, deception, tyranny, and oppressive traditions; a humane and rational approach to the organization of human life and society; an emphasis on moderation, proportion, and balance.
fajardo-acosta.com/worldlit/glossary.htm

(English) A philosophical movement of the 18th century, first developed in western Europe, and also known as the "Age of Reason." The Enlightenment brought empirical methods to science and held that social, intellectual and scientific progress could be achieved through reason.
www.smith.edu/vistas/vistas_web/glossary1.htm

I believe knowledge is a pre-requisite of consciousness. It's like a join the dots image. When you haven't joined the dots you cannot see the big picture. If you join to incorrect dots the big picture does not make sense.

Originally posted by back2basics
I believe knowledge is a pre-requisite of consciousness. It's like a join the dots image. When you haven't joined the dots you cannot see the big picture. If you join to incorrect dots the big picture does not make sense.

So there is no actual 'state of enlightenment' at a remove from the perception (however indistinct or inspired) of the mundane world?
I'm concerned specifically about the state of enlightenment, rather than The Enlightenment, which was - as I understand it - a period in which the belief that the rational had finally trimuphed over irreason and superstition, was widely held.

In some ways, The Enlightenment actually precludes the sort of enlightenment I am wondering about.

I feel that your join-the-dots illustration is misleading, because it implies that someone has drawn the whole picture in advance. Perhaps there is no picture just a lot of dots - connect the dots to make whatever picture pleases you most, the more dots you use (and the fewer you ignore) the more complex and difficult the picture gets....

Phan, I am always fascinated by your posts; what do you do in life and where DO you get all this knowledge from???

Lizzmo' (a phan of yours :P)

Originally posted by back2basics
When you haven't joined the dots you cannot see the big picture. If you join to incorrect dots the big picture does not make sense.

Do you think that the dots that are available for you to join up, are ALL the dots that exist?

There is no possible way to know that you have accrued all, or enough of the knowledge necessary to begin, or even where to begin.

How do you know who to believe when there are so many different versions of the truth?

How would that be misleading?

It doesn't imply that somebody has draw the picture in the first place. We observe, we measure and we predict. I am aware of the philosophical argument about perceptions. And perceptions should not be trusted, we do not trust our perceptions.

The whole picture is out there, the Universe and all it's wonders. Society and it's complexity. You can believe somebody drew that picture, it doesn't change the argument. I don't believe somebody drew it, but I know it's there, observable and we can make predictions and the predictions, to me, disproves the perception argument.

Sure you can join the dots you want, and many people do. That's why critical thinking and objectivity are important. Nobody joins all the correct dots, certainly not the first time. We will be searching for the correct dots to join for eternity, but that the search for enlightenment it's never ending. The search will continue.

Anyway which ever definition of Enlightenment you take, both are based on knowledge of something. In my chosen definition, it's and objective knowledge of the World, how it's built and how interactions works. In the one you are interested in, it's a knowledge of spiritual matters.

Surely, we all create our own reality through the choices we haver made, either conscious or subconscious?

Originally posted by lizzmobile
Surely, we all create our own reality through the choices we haver made, either conscious or subconscious?

Indeed we can, but if you do, someone has to come along and burst your bubble....

I was enlightened after reading 2 books

A brief history of time
The blind watchmaker

These convinced me that we don't need an infinitely powerful "being" to produce life, the universe and everything we can observe.

They offer a much simpler explanation than trying to explain how such a being could come to exist.

Originally posted by SHarper

How do you know who to believe when there are so many different versions of the truth?

You look at the methods used to ascertain the truth. We humans have a tendency to favor the subjective. But we have methods of attaining objective knowledge.

In wanting to find a truth about the nature of the Universe..

do you trust a man who preaches and takes donations.

Or do you trust a man who predicted Black wholes existed prior to their observation?

Some people will take the first, some the second. Who had the greater objective credentials?

Two different ways of searching for enlightenment result in different realities.

In one we have a statement, with no proof. That knwolege cannot be used to give us anything tangable. No predictions made.

The other use techniques that did not require observation (so perceptions did not skew this first stage), then we observed and checked the predictions to find them correct. When you then feed in the millions of other truths and they still fit, we have some form of objective truth. Not reliant on a single observation, not relient on perception. When the parameters are many the probability of coisidence is reduced. We also take that factor in to account as well. The we check and we double check and we try to find a weakness. When all of this has been done the dot is drawn, but it could be moved at a later date.

Indeed we can, but if you do, someone has to come along and burst your bubble....

Which we can then use to learn from ... just trying to be positive :)

You look at the methods used to ascertain the truth

Somebody on here has a (fab) sig that says that there is no truth in life, just human opinion. When you got on any forums, you will get hundreds of different opinions on things you were convinced you were right about.

At the risk of going off at a slight tangent, I love your signature, Lizzmobile.

I think it explains a great deal about our earthly existence:

"We are not human beings on a spiritual journey, we are spiritual beings on a human journey"
Deepak Chopra

I think we are all essentially spiritual beings, currently living out this part of our existence in a physical world.

StarSparkle

Why thank you darling, I have to admit to being very inspired and indeed in tune with a great many of your posts, you just seem to phrase things just how I feel about them :bigsmile:
I still have baby brain so very much (nearly two years on!)

Originally posted by lizzmobile
Somebody on here has a (fab) sig that says that there is no truth in life, just human opinion. When you got on any forums, you will get hundreds of different opinions on things you were convinced you were right about.

I am not talking about opinions. I am talking about objective truth and the scientific method. The same method that gave us so many things we now take for granted. Electricity, Television, flight. If you don't trust science, why would you fly? How does your doctor cure you? If you think everything is an opinion, how do we take one opinion over another? How do we now take for granted that the Earth moves around the Sun? Why go to school of they are just teaching you opinions?

If you do not beleive in Gravity, will a ball fly upwards? No. So you do not create your own perception.

Opinions are about things we do not know, we have no objective truth for. Facts are different. It is my opinion that M-Theory will be the single unifying theory. It is not my opinion that gravity exists.

After asprin has cure a billion headaches, is it still opinion that it can cure headaches?

Is it still opinion that the internet is storage for millions of pages of information or is that truth?

Originally posted by lizzmobile
Which we can then use to learn from ... just trying to be positive :)

Dont get me wrong, I'm not being negative, I haven't even started forming my own personal bubble as yet, I don't know how many dimensions it needs to encompass, or who I'm taking with me into it, although there is a short list.

Yeah, I guess the bubble forms more as you experience more things. And that means everything...

B2B, I hear you, and agree, it's just there always seems to be someone out there trying to counter whatever anyone else claims. So how does your doctor get you better? Placebo effect or medical 'truth'?

Time for 'us tea now, catch you later.

Originally posted by lizzmobile
B2B, I hear you, and agree, it's just there always seems to be someone out there trying to counter whatever anyone else claims. So how does your doctor get you better? Placebo effect or medical 'truth'?


For sure, which is why I said you look at the method and that the search for truth is never-ending.

The great one at the moment is ID and Evolution.

You either take the side of something that cannot be observed, measured, has given us nothing tangible, not enhanced our lives and only a few hundred people are pushing.

Or you trust the side that has given us tangible things, results and enhanced our lives. Who is pushed by thousand of the same people who gave us scientific advances like computers, the internet, birth control and lighting. A theory that allows us to predict what will happen, they are not psychic, but their predictions give us a measure of closeness to truth and how objective that theory is.

Originally posted by lizzmobile
Why thank you darling, I have to admit to being very inspired and indeed in tune with a great many of your posts, you just seem to phrase things just how I feel about them :bigsmile:
I still have baby brain so very much (nearly two years on!)

Oh, thank you, Lizzmobile - that is so kind of you to say.

I'm really touched, thank you.

StarSparkle :)

Originally posted by back2basics
The whole picture is out there, the Universe and all it's wonders. Society and it's complexity

Is there a way that this can be grasped as a kind of gestalt, in its totality, rather than one little atomic fact at a time?

Perhaps, in the domain of science, enlightenment is the equivalent of inspiration or the "Eureka Moment" -when you engage with the problem or observation in an entirely different way - and from that enlightenment unfolds a solution to the problem, or a complex description of natural phenomena?

Given that this has certainly happened often in scientific history, from the theory of displacement (allegedly) and the structure of the benzene molecule to invention of the laser and alternating current, could this state of inspiration not be sustained instead of just happening in a flash, as it seems to commonly do.

Would that not constitute enlightenment? All truths becoming self evident, everywhere at once?

To extend your join-the-dots illustration, it would enable you to see the rich oil painting from which the sparse, dotted outline is derived.

Now that would be pretty good enlightenment. Not sure how I would rank it against being at one with god, sounds pretty similar to me.

----

I note the tao-ist sympathisers - by their absence. How apt. In some ways, talking about and discussing 'enlightenment' is the best way to try and obfuscate it.

Since abona fide state of enlightenment must (IMO) be beyond language, talking about it in an attempt to attain it is futile. But talking about people's understanding or rejection of the idea is still very rewarding (IMO)

Originally posted by lizzmobile
Phan, I am always fascinated by your posts; what do you do in life and where DO you get all this knowledge from?
What do I do? Not much at the moment. All this knowledge? Dunno, some sticks, other stuff just flies straight out again. Don't ever ask me about money or economics, or sport, for example.

Glad you are fascinated :blush: - I don't just write for myself, occasionally I try to write for other people too.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Would that not constitute enlightenment? All truths becoming self evident, everywhere at once?


To my way of thinking, the above would be an intrinsic part of Enlightenment. Everything throughout Eternity - in the past, present, future (assuming those are in any way meaningful concepts to a Soul) - becomes known to a Soul as it reaches Enlightenment.

Enlightenment by its very nature would involve a state of awareness that could be described as 'all-seeing, all-knowing'?

The Oneness with God.

Hope I'm still making sense! :D

Anyway, congratulations on posting a fascinating topic, Phan - it's good to be able to discuss deep, meaningful subjects that you can really get your teeth into :thumbsup:

StarSparkle

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I note the tao-ist sympathisers - by their absence. How apt. In some ways, talking about and discussing 'enlightenment' is the best way to try and obfuscate it.

*smiles*

I think words just confuse the issue Phan.

I know whenever I try to explain my own insights, as soon as I utter a single word, the real essense of what I'm trying to communicate is distorted or lost.

Words are also the tools of the intellect, not that I have anything against the intellect, it can be a beautiful thing. It's just that some things are for feeling, not thinking.

Further more, and I'm sure you more than appreciate this, words have different connotations and meanings to different people.

I was once sitting next to a buddist monk in Sri-Lanka, and the warmth and intensity of the energy he radiated was ...

... behond words.

As OB1 says "let go luke, use the force", perhaps enlightenment is about letting go of our mental constructs and just feeling; feeling what's inside you and what's in the world around you. Perhaps feeling it to be one in the same.

*tuts*

Now look what you've done! You've got my poor little mind thinking about enlightenment, my attention focused on defining it, or even thinking about it. In such a state one can never find it.

The best way to find some things, is to stop looking for them.

*smiles once again*

Originally posted by StarSparkle
To my way of thinking, the above would be an intrinsic part of Enlightenment. Everything throughout Eternity - in the past, present, future

Now that is certainly an extension of what I had in mind - which was a complete gestalt understanding of whatever one chose to focus one's attention upon. That, I suppose what we could call 'rational enlightenment'.

But I think that 'rational enlightenment' is still mundane. It's a mental leap that reconciles the previously irreconcilable, or intuits a relationship between sets of data. The simple act of learning, reading, and articulating is a continuous series of mental leaps, only much smaller.

The big mental leap or sudden inspirations are manifestations of the same mechanism, except they are great leaps supported by deep understanding and great knowledge in most cases. In other cases, the inspiration came from a dream (benzene), but this too can be attributed to great knowledge and understanding (and an almost fanatical devotion to solving a problem).

Mundane, but essential, enlightenment. However, this kind of enlightenment has a cold logic to it that I find a little spine chilling. All forms of enlightenment short of actually being a deity must, IMO, have some form of intrinsic morality that is obvious and self evident. To me, the moral foundation of rational enlightenment is the pursuit of knowledge.

There is nothing postulated in science that precludes knowledge of the future or the past, but it has so far proved largely impossible to do so on a useful scale (if at all). The past is in the text, and the future is determinable to a certain extent, providing you are looking at something fairly simple and large (like a planet).

On the numinous or spiritual side, your description of enlightenment transcends knowledge and time. At that point something fairly radical must happen, both in your mind, and to your body. I would imagine that your corporeal self would be pretty much redundant, which poses the question of what remains of you, human being-wise, after this ascension to god head? It sounds pretty final!

Originally posted by Jamie
*smiles*

I think words just confuse the issue Phan.


perhaps enlightenment is about letting go of our mental constructs and just feeling; feeling what's inside you and what's in the world around you. Perhaps feeling it to be one in the same.

You see, I don't think that is confusing at all. And I know you recognise the importance of intellect, in being able to transmit and instruct others in the achievement of enlightenment. And language too.

I think this is enlightenment, because whilst we can talk about it, actually experiencing the full weight of that truth would put you to a path of non-violent service to others. Enlightened self interest! Which if applied universally would lead to some really good results all round.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Is there a way that this can be grasped as a kind of gestalt, in its totality, rather than one little atomic fact at a time?

Perhaps, in the domain of science, enlightenment is the equivalent of inspiration or the "Eureka Moment" -when you engage with the problem or observation in an entirely different way - and from that enlightenment unfolds a solution to the problem, or a complex description of natural phenomena?

Given that this has certainly happened often in scientific history, from the theory of displacement (allegedly) and the structure of the benzene molecule to invention of the laser and alternating current, could this state of inspiration not be sustained instead of just happening in a flash, as it seems to commonly do.

Would that not constitute enlightenment? All truths becoming self evident, everywhere at once?

To extend your join-the-dots illustration, it would enable you to see the rich oil painting from which the sparse, dotted outline is derived.

Now that would be pretty good enlightenment. Not sure how I would rank it against being at one with god, sounds pretty similar to me.


Well that is the more spiritual version, all at once a sudden moment of enlightenment. I guess that ties back in to your thread about DMT. Many people have had these moments of enlightenment on hallucinogens (many have written down their thoughts and not been able to understand what the hell they were talking about the next day ;)).

The light bulb moment is not exactly what I was getting at. It's more about consciousness. If you do not understand a principal, you will overlook anything connected to that principal, and you miss a whole section of the bigger picture.

A hobby of mine is Psychology, and knowing a little about body language opens up a whole new way of looking at the world an interactions. Some basic principals can open up a whole new way of looking at the world. How people project themselves on to you or others etc.

Now imagine how Einstein viewed the world. Or Fraud, there view on the World would have been enlightened in their own field. Not always correct, but how would one know any form of enlightenment is correct?

The brain is a series of pathways, as we learn more our brain as a self organizing system reorganizes and joins the pathways. So we may have learnt something, our brain will also make the connections that are also related to that. That is the "eureka moment" where the light bulb goes on as our subconscious makes a connection and tells our conscious brain about it. Each connection makes us more conscious of the outside world and is (in my view) a step on the path to enlightenment.

This was a good thread. We've got another 33,000 members since it was first posted - any advances on the understanding of enlightenment?

I guess not

I guess not

It's a very different forum these days, Phan :( Sadly :(

StarSparkle

we are all on a journey i will be on one later to the belle vue hotel

It's a very different forum these days, Phan :( Sadly :(

StarSparkle

I read the thread with interest, but I didn't think I had anything much to contribute beyond what had been said already. I might have taken slight issue (;)) with some of timo's more sweeping analyses, but I understand he's not around anymore, so it seemed fairly pointless...

StarSparkle - apologies for off-topicness - but I was listening to the song in your signature only the other day and thinking how marvellous it is :)

Anyway, enlightenment. I've only ever considered it in either the historical, Age of the Enlightenment way, or in the consciousness-expanding, hallucinogenic way. I was reading Dr. Susan Blackmore only the other day on this very issue, although I've just Wiki'd her and apparently she's been a psychologist on Big Brother so my opinion has just plummeted :(

I read the thread with interest, but I didn't think I had anything much to contribute beyond what had been said already. I might have taken slight issue (;)) with some of timo's more sweeping analyses, but I understand he's not around anymore, so it seemed fairly pointless...

StarSparkle - apologies for off-topicness - but I was listening to the song in your signature only the other day and thinking how marvellous it is :)

Anyway, enlightenment. I've only ever considered it in either the historical, Age of the Enlightenment way, or in the consciousness-expanding, hallucinogenic way. I was reading Dr. Susan Blackmore only the other day on this very issue, although I've just Wiki'd her and apparently she's been a psychologist on Big Brother so my opinion has just plummeted :(

Oh cheers, hun - it is an utterly beautiful song, isn't it?

It's always been one of my very favourites - one of those rare songs where both the melody and the lyrics come together to have the hairs rising on the back on your neck.

I read the other day that it was partly a tribute to the author CS Lewis - whose work I have loved and adored since I was a child. I reckon the lines from the song I chose for my signature are especially relevant to the writings of the great man.

And, of course, a man whose writings are central to the concept of this thread - what a happy co-incidence!... :)

StarSparkle

My Master once told me this. "Enlightenment is the reward for watching yourself in action.
This is what you must do...You need to watch yourself like a hawk.
This watching can be understood as observing all three dimensions of yourself in action. The physical, emotional and mental dimensions. Your job is to watch these three dimensions of yourself as you go through life.
That's it! That is your job!
Be AWARE of whatsoever you are doing, feeling and thinking as best you can."

Sitting silently, doing nothing. Suddenly...a stream comes and the grass grows by itself.

Blessings. :love:

... and the grass grows by itself.

Blessings. :love:

That was the signature of Carl Warker (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/search.php?searchid=7003784) - a much missed poster.

I've been listening to the Alan Watts archive and he has been most illuminating, enlightening even, on the nature of enlightenment.

Dr. Susan Blackmore is crazy, in the nicest possible way - her talk on memes and temes (http://www.ted.com) is pretty far out. I didn't know she was the psychologist on big brother, but everyone has a cross to bear.

For me, now, enlightenment is a state, rather than a paroxysm, a mode of thought that allows the juxtaposition of gestalts. Thinking with seven league boots on - but much like involuntary lucid dreaming or flying - the realisation that you are actually doing it often brings the state to a close.

I have to say I'm enlightened on a daily basis... usually when someone holds a metaphorical mirror up to me.

That was the signature of Carl Warker (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/search.php?searchid=7003784) - a much missed poster.

I've been listening to the Alan Watts archive and he has been most illuminating, enlightening even, on the nature of enlightenment.

Dr. Susan Blackmore is crazy, in the nicest possible way - her talk on memes and temes (http://www.ted.com) is pretty far out. I didn't know she was the psychologist on big brother, but everyone has a cross to bear.

For me, now, enlightenment is a state, rather than a paroxysm, a mode of thought that allows the juxtaposition of gestalts. Thinking with seven league boots on - but much like involuntary lucid dreaming or flying - the realisation that you are actually doing it often brings the state to a close.

Mmm, the curse of self-consciousness. I often think that's my cross ;)

I have been enjoying some brilliant dreams of late, not quite full-blown lucid ones (which I understand to mean that you are able to control them in some way...?) but ones where I've been aware that I'm dreaming and yet the dream has continued on its merry or not so merry way regardless. The latest one told me I'd have a baby at 34. I'm down with that :)