Is enlightenment even possible?

[theleelajoker]

1 minute ago, James123 said:

Head shot!

[Carl-Richard]

On 15.11.2024 at 0:32 PM, theleelajoker said:

I don't sense this state as you do. Body language, eyes, tone, breath does not give me this impression. I do see value in his points, though.

I can see that, but those are surface level things (forms). It's the Shakti, the pure energy underneath all that. And like Jan talks about, it requires not just openness but love and devotion to really open yourself to it. When I talk about the times I managed to tune into his state, I treated it like an intensely focused and love-filled meditation. You really have to sit there and try to merge with what you're looking at. And you have to not listen to the words and focus fully on the sensual aspects and the energetic response you feel in your body.

 

On 15.11.2024 at 0:32 PM, theleelajoker said:

Let's not talk about "enlightenment", let's talk about action. Let's not talk about some abstract conceptualized states, but concrete, subjective experiences and in particular actions.

I like the quote "Strictly speaking, there are no enlightenment people, there is only enlightened action" (from Inner Worlds, outer Worlds I believe). Let's assume you are "enlightened" - so then what? Life will put you  - if you want it or not - into situations where you have to make decisions and take actions.  Let's say "enlightened action" is actions aligned with the Dao / Dharma  whatever that may be in this situation. You take "enlightened" actions, you get into this state while executing this action. You don't take "enlightened" actions - you loose that state.  But the "state" IS the action, the action is the state. I don't think there is a state independent from your actions. You don't reach enlightenment and then "puff" you stay in this.  No - instead your actions determine your state and not vice versa BS like "I am enlightened, I understand, I am in bliss, etc etc." and then you simply remain in this. 

So what matters in the end is what you do and nothing else. Sorry, but fuck your alleged enlightenment, your alleged state or your alleged bliss.  I can't see that, I can't relate to that, only things that matters to me is what you do and how you do it. Don't talk, show it to me with your behavior, show me with your whole being. 

For me, the whole thing about "enlightenment" is similar to the idea of "Chitta" in the Yoga Sutra. We cannot directly observe it, but we can observe the actions of it. Let's focus on actions with "enlightenment", too. 

I like that approach and commend your impassioned speech. But here again, I would propose the Rumination-Reflection Questionnaire (and others like the Ruminative Response Scale), brain measurements of Default Mode Network activity at rest, maybe even endocannabinoid levels. These are relevant "actions" or behaviors of the relative person who is after my book (and Jan's and others) enlightened.

Maybe you are more interested in what Jan calls "sainthood", i.e. where the personality structure has been significantly molded (from repeated mystical experience or other factors) to represent these more virtuous actions (actions proper). But that takes time and is rare if it's indeed authentic and not just a facade of spiritual ego or repression. It's in a sense easy to play the saint if you really try hard at it. But you'll just feel horrible and after while you will crumble in some way and lash out or have a breakdown. That's the story of many cults.

Definitely, sainthood is better than simply being calm or blissed out when in the company of your own mind or silence. But also definitely, the former is a big step towards the latter. The speed with which you become a saint while in a blissed/calm state is arguably uncomparable to any other thing, outside superb grace.

Edited Sunday at 12:37 PM by Carl-Richard

[theleelajoker]

44 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I can see that, but those are surface level things (forms). It's the Shakti, the pure energy underneath all that. And like Jan talks about, it requires not just openness but love and devotion to really open yourself to it. When I talk about the times I managed to tune into his state, I treated it like an intensely focused and love-filled meditation. You really have to sit there and try to merge with what you're looking at. And you have to not listen to the words and focus fully on the visual aspects and the energetic response you feel in your body.

OK.  Just because it does not resonate with me as it does with you does not mean it's not there. And as I experiences with the Shaktipat, there is clearly something energetic with Jan that goes beyond the visible.

Quote

I like that approach and commend your impassioned speech

Haha you're nice calling it that. I ranted a bit I think

Quote

 

I like that approach and commend your impassioned speech. But here again, I would propose the Rumination-Reflection Questionnaire (and others like the Ruminative Response Scale), brain measurements of Default Mode Network activity at rest, maybe even endocannabinoid levels. These are relevant "actions" or behaviors of the relative person who is after my book (and Jan's and others) enlightened.

 

OK I am doing this test right now : ) I think it's important to add body stuff like the endocannabinoid levels (not familiar with it yet) because my experience is when answering questionnaires we can often create stories that are not so much what is but what we want to see.

Quote

Maybe you are more interested in what Jan calls "sainthood", i.e. where the personality structure has been significantly molded (from repeated mystical experience or other factors) to represent these more virtuous actions (actions proper)

Makes sense. Another concept, another fragmentation, another mental abstraction - but it makes sense

[UnbornTao]

On 11/15/2024 at 8:39 AM, zurew said:

@UnbornTao  I need to clear up some things in my mind, before I can more clearly articulate what my exact issue is about communication. I will tag you when im ready (probably gonna take a while).

 

I will respond to the other things you said that are not about communication.

I dont agree with any of that - Having beliefs doesn't entail, that you cant question those beliefs. I use the term knowledge differently than how probably most of you use that term - I dont take knowledge to be infallible.

So there are multiple things there: 1) I have beliefs about things that I take to be unjustified (I am open to change these beliefs). 2)  I have knowledge about things (these I would consider justified beliefs) , I am also open to change these things,

Me having belief about something or me having knowledge about something doesn't prevent me from the ability to question those things. If you are trying to point to some sort of false sense of certainty - maybe, but again when it comes to me thats not the case. I am open to challenge everything, and I like to be cognizant of what kind of presuppositions a given knowledge or belief of mine is dependent on.

So going back the issue that I brought up - I dont think in principle it is better to not form beliefs about things.

Yeah I think this is one of your most controversial takes - where you state that no method is better compared to another, when it comes to "triggering" enlightenment.

Although this might be another communication issue, where you want to say something like "realization happens sepearately from all methods and actions and you can do that realization right now and there is no direct cause and effect, where the cause is an action and the effect is the realization" ; but this is not the same as saying "there is no method or action that can create a condition or environment to make you more susceptible to have the realization".

Im not sure whether you try to say something like "enlightenment is completely random and purely based on luck" or you want to say something different.

 

It is about one's relationship to beliefs. Also, most assumptions aren't recognized as such, but are subliminally-held and these make up how we experience reality--like fish in water. Observe how belief tends to close people off, as it effectively displaces openness. Acknowledging their beliefs as beliefs is difficult for people, much less questioning them, as this inquiry, done sufficiently deeply, would invalidate their reality. They'd have to admit that their cherished convictions are but affectations, intellectual indulgences adopted from without in order to make up for their unwillingness and incapacity to experience things for themselves.

What if your self (what you take yourself to be) is itself an assumption? This is how deep this belief business goes. 

About the realization, you hold it as relative, as a process. You think there is something there, or a "there" to be found, as if under a rock, or in the depths of our unconscious minds. It is a sudden event, and why it occurs is a mystery to me--not sure it is even possible to know that--you just do it, you make a leap in consciousness. You could get enlightened while walking the dog or cooking a lasagna.

In this context, I was taking knowledge to be direct apprehension of what is true. Such recognition is true in so far as the depth of it goes--assuming it is authentic. "Knowledge", then, is everything else that is indirect--a product of mind and perception. I might be leaving some of your points unaddressed.

Edited Saturday at 08:16 PM by UnbornTao

[zurew]

41 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

About the realization itself, you are stuck considering the matter as relative, as a process. It is a sudden event, and why it happens is a mystery to me--don't even know it is possible to know that--you just do it, you make a leap in consciousness.

I don't know what "considering the matter as relative" means  - all I was concerned there was whether you hold the position that it can be triggered or whether you think it cant be triggered.

Do you think the question of 'whether enlightenment can be triggered  or not 'is an incoherent question and do you think that the question contains a category error? If so why, and what is the error there exactly?

Also, why would it be impossible to find an answer to the "why it happens" question?

41 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

It is about how beliefs are held--your relationship to them. Another problem is that most assumptions aren't recognized as such but are subliminally-held, and these make up how we experience reality--like fish in water. You can observe how religious people tend be closed-off from acknowledging their beliefs as beliefs, especially the consciously adopted ones. Neither does it occur to them to seriously question their convictions as this would undermine their certainty, and would likely be resisted. Otherwise, they'd have to admit that those are affectations, intellectual indulgences, something adopted from without, rather than a personal experience of what's true. 

Im not sure anymore what point you are trying to establish there.

I thought you were trying to argue that not holding beliefs in principle is better than holding beliefs. But it seems to me that you are pointing out specific scenarios where holding beliefs can be problematic , but you are not making a case for why in principle it is better to not hold beliefs (and not just in certain cases and scenarios).

If you are trying to make a specific case for enlightenment , then I would be curious how would you respond to this scenario:

 

You have two people - both of them do the exact same spiritual practice and both of them spend the same amount of time doing the practice. The only difference between them is that one have certain beliefs about enlightenment , the other is completely agnostic.

Which one is more likely to get enlightened in this specific scenario and why? ( I know there is an underlying assumption here that there is such a thing as likelihood when it comes to enlightenment and that enlightenment is not purely based on luck, but given the assumption that you don't think that it is purely based on luck, whats your response to the question?)

 

Edited Friday at 05:06 PM by zurew

[UnbornTao]

Tried to polish up my post above.

On 11/15/2024 at 5:02 PM, zurew said:

I don't know what "considering the matter as relative" means  - all I was concerned there was whether you hold the position that it can be triggered or whether you think it cant be triggered.

You take it to be something, perhaps a result of a process, or a hidden, inaccessible piece of knowledge lying somewhere. Certain things seem to help (but aren't a requisite), yet why it happens is an unknown. Perhaps the notion that it is something to be triggered reflects my point that it is considered relative--but I'm nitpicking. 

Quote

Do you think the question of 'whether enlightenment can be triggered  or not 'is an incoherent question and do you think that the question contains a category error? If so why, and what is the error there exactly?

Also, why would it be impossible to find an answer to the "why it happens" question?

I'm going to be even more pedant now.

It is a sensible question to ask and sounds coherent on paper, but is based on flawed assumptions. See above. That said, while we are not enlightened, we are going to be engaged in something, doing something. So, contemplating--being open and wanting to get it--seem to help. It is rare, but not impossible, that a breakthrough falls on your ass. Yet again, why this happens is a mystery--there's no causal relationship (there is nothing really), and it is "done"--the insight occurs. 

Because it doesn't "happen", and why relates to motive, function, purpose, which are invented and applied. Being is as itself already, rather than a result or occurrence, which are relative. At this point, someone like Rinzai could point the way.

Quote

Im not sure anymore what point you are trying to establish there.

I thought you were trying to argue that not holding beliefs in principle is better than holding beliefs. But it seems to me that you are pointing out specific scenarios where holding beliefs can be problematic , but you are not making a case for why in principle it is better to not hold beliefs (and not just in certain cases and scenarios).

Believing decreases wanting to inquire into things, in this case your nature. Consider for example how we tacitly live as if our perception were an accurate reflection of objective reality. If we were to experience that as something presumed, we'd be more open to questioning it. But we don't, and so we keep on operating from such presumption. We can see that belief isn't just a thought that you hold as part of your internal dialogue--they can show up for us as reality.

Again, are they recognized as beliefs, which implies recognizing that they are not the truth, nor can they be? If or when they are recognized as such, then I don't have a problem with that. In another context, believing yourself to be a capable person, for example, is immensely valuable and positive. You might as well believe yourself to be worthless and live as if that were true. However, both of those are beliefs, not the truth of you. Our main assumption is that our beliefs are mostly cognized by us--yet most of them are just assumed--they are reality for us. This is the point that's easily missed. I think you're considering one particular category of beliefs, that of consciously adopted ones. Assumptions are the most profound of all. The trick lies in recognizing them as such, in a deeply experiential way. From that, increased openness radically empowers your capacity and willingness to question stuff.

Quote

If you are trying to make a specific case for enlightenment , then I would be curious how would you respond to this scenario:

 

You have two people - both of them do the exact same spiritual practice and both of them spend the same amount of time doing the practice. The only difference between them is that one have certain beliefs about enlightenment , the other is completely agnostic.

Which one is more likely to get enlightened in this specific scenario and why? ( I know there is an underlying assumption here that there is such a thing as likelihood when it comes to enlightenment and that enlightenment is not purely based on luck, but given the assumption that you don't think that it is purely based on luck, whats your response to the question?)

Depends on the practice, and whether they are "going after" it instead of merely going through the motions. But it isn't about how much time a technique or ritual is followed, or about the practice itself--the practice at best provides direction and focus for the mind. That said, likely the one who is more open. Belief, or the way it is held in one's mind, effectively displaces an experience of openness. Luck doesn't apply; I'm saying we don't know why it happens, and yet it does. A bit like living as a dream character, doing this and that, and all of a sudden waking up from the dream.

Edited Saturday at 07:39 PM by UnbornTao

[zurew]

14 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Because it doesn't "happen", and why relates to motive, function, purpose, which are invented and applied. Being is as itself already, rather than a result or occurrence, which are relative. At this point, someone like Rinzai could point the way.

I will check Rinzai out.

Being is as itself already, but I thought by enlightenment you meant the realization of Being or the realization of your true nature. There is a difference between X and the realization of X. You seem to be switching between the two or you have been using a different definition for enlightenment the whole time and we have been talking past each other.

Given that you said there is no why, im curious about your semantics about certain terms. You seem to take the position that it 'happens' for no reason (in other words - it literally doesn't have any explanation why it happens and there is no why) and at the same time you say it is not luck based. Im not sure I understand the difference between those two things in this context - can you explain it to me how you differentiate those two?

 

Also can you walk me through the reasoning that ends with the conclusion "enlightenment has no why and it has no explanation"?

Because I understand in certain contexts why there is no why - For instance, when some people say that by God, they mean an uncaused caused, then of course from that definition it will follow that God isn't caused. That seems very straightforward (so thats one way to establish why there is no why) - but of course, the interesting part lies in the argument that shows that God has  the trait of "uncaused".

 

54 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Depends on the practice, and whether they are "going after" it instead of going through the motions. Likely the one who is more open.

 

Your position is very confusing to me.

You say there is no why and at the same time it is not luck based and at the same time things can elevate the likelihood of it occuring and at the same time you say "we don't know why it happens, and yet it does" (which seems to imply that there is a why, we just dont know what that why is, or we might never know what that why is, but you still seem to imply that there is a why there).

[UnbornTao]

Might polish this up at a later time.

On 11/16/2024 at 1:00 PM, zurew said:

I will check Rinzai out.

Being is as itself already, but I thought by enlightenment you meant the realization of Being or the realization of your true nature. There is a difference between X and the realization of X. You seem to be switching between the two or you have been using a different definition for enlightenment the whole time and we have been talking past each other.

Effectively, in this case no. That's what is meant by direct. The realization is the beingness of it; there is no separation. Is is you now.

Quote

Given that you said there is no why, im curious about your semantics about certain terms. You seem to take the position that it 'happens' for no reason (in other words - it literally doesn't have any explanation why it happens and there is no why) and at the same time you say it is not luck based. Im not sure I understand the difference between those two things in this context - can you explain it to me how you differentiate those two?

Therein lies the mystery.

Why it occurs is just that it somehow occurs. Some people might spend their lifetimes meditating without getting very far, while another might comprehend it without much prior work or intention—or with no previous training at all, like Ramana, though he is an extremely rare case. Go figure.

Then again, “why” might not apply; it’s us getting ahead of ourselves. What is it? (I’m talking about the realization itself, not the thoughts about something called “awakening.”)

Quote

Also can you walk me through the reasoning that ends with the conclusion "enlightenment has no why and it has no explanation"?

Because I understand in certain contexts why there is no why - For instance, when some people say that by God, they mean an uncaused caused, then of course from that definition it will follow that God isn't caused. That seems very straightforward (so thats one way to establish why there is no why) - but of course, the interesting part lies in the argument that shows that God has  the trait of "uncaused".

You're still considering it as something. It is no thing, nothing, not nothing, something, everything, all and neither. It exists in the domain of paradox. One can't grasp infinity through the mind. 

As a game, try to think of infinity.

Now, notice everything your mind comes up with is not and can't possibility be, it. The best it can do is imagine, "lots and lots going on forever." This is a notion and as such, relative.

Oh, and just to be clear, that doesn’t mean you can’t say anything about it—that’s what language is for. So, if you want a definition, it’s becoming deeply conscious of the absolute nature of you and existence. And there's no substance to it so in truth nothing to be explained. You can articulate shifts within your experience and perhaps the impact it had on your mind, but these are secondary to it, and seem as varied as there are individuals in the world. 

Quote

Your position is very confusing to me.

You say there is no why and at the same time it is not luck based and at the same time things can elevate the likelihood of it occuring and at the same time you say "we don't know why it happens, and yet it does" (which seems to imply that there is a why, we just dont know what that why is, or we might never know what that why is, but you still seem to imply that there is a why there).

There is no position to be had. Either one grasps it or does not. Where the work needs to happen is within your experience. What we think of it makes no difference and is standing right now in the way of us wondering about it. Here, we’re having fun chatting.

We find ourselves unconscious of our own true nature. Why? We just do. Everything we do occurs within the "dream", so it itself can't produce an experience of waking up. Who does? You. As we exist within it, everything we have is our experience of the dream. In this state, we encounter a paradoxical fact; everywhere we look, ourself isn't to be found. And yet, it seems that having the intention to wake up opens up the possibility for it to occur. That is contemplation.

Is the event of waking up caused by what preceded it within the dream? From within the dream, it might appear that way. Having awoken, though, whatever action was thought to be the catalyst, is recognized to have been part of the dream. Independent from all that, somehow "you" woke up. Have you heard of the koan Mu? That’s the ultimate “answer,” and appropriate here.

Mu

Edited Sunday at 08:34 PM by UnbornTao

[zurew]

6 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

There is no position to be had. Either one grasps it or does not. Where the work needs to happen is within your experience. What we think of it makes no difference and is standing right now in the way of us wondering about it. Here, we’re having fun chatting.

It sounds to me that there is more going on there than just directly grasping things. 

In most cases, it seems to me that there are inferences made about things, but people hide behind terms like direct experience and direct grasp in order to avoid any kind challenge to those claims. Once we use the magic terms we can avoid all criticism (Im not saying you are necessarily doing this, but I have certainly seen Leo doing this about certain things).

To be clear though, I don't think terms like 'directly grasping' and 'direct experience' are incoherent, but I certainly think they can be misapplied (for example - when one apply them to the relative domain and when one use them to make empirical claims). So saying stuff like "I directly grasped that eating apples is unhealthy" - sounds like bullshit and sounds like a category error.

 

 

I will take a step back for now to think more about how to approach these converations, and I also need to take a step back and read more and clear up some things.

If you have time and if you want, I would really much appreciate you laying out your semantics when it comes to these enlightenment talks, so that next time I can be more sensitive to and more conscious of how you use certain words. You can point me to books and to certain works if you want (especially if you think the meaning behind certain terms cant be transferred with just a few sentences) - but I am first and foremost interested in how you use these terms.

Be as descriptive as you want  and its good if you can show the subtle differences between terms using examples(for example, showing the difference between experience and direct experience)

Take as much time as you want and need ( and dont feel obligated to do this, just because I asked you to do this - im just saying this would be useful to me , so that next time there will be hopefully less talking past each other and less misunderstanding; and probably once you lay this out, this will be useful to you as well, because you will be able to refer to your post and show  other people what your terminology is)

So here is the list: direct experience ; experience; absolute; enlightenment; someone being enlightened; relative; assumption; direct grasp; directly observe; knowledge; belief;  realization; awakening ; justification; metaphysics; consciousness; to be conscious of; to become conscious of ; form; formless; being lost in concepts; concept; the act of conceptualization ; Being.

Thats the list for now - its certainly a long list -  when it comes to showing the subtle nuance and difference between two terms I am thinking of:  direct experience vs experience ; relative vs absolute  ; consciousness vs Being (assuming you mean slightly different things by those terms, but maybe you dont) ; form vs relative ; absolute vs formless.

Edited Sunday at 07:15 AM by zurew

[Yimpa]

To whom would enlightenment be possible for? 

[Salvijus]

[Breakingthewall]

12 hours ago, Yimpa said:

To whom would enlightenment be possible for? 

For you, the existence, that is trapped under many layers of identification and apparent movement. Your absolute nature is immutable, diaphanous and perfect. It is simply being, but this includes everything, it is the total potential. It is not that difficult to open your karmic structure and be your total nature for a while, just erase everything.