Is enlightenment even possible?

[Carl-Richard]

26 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

It really isn't.

You simply have an apophatic disposition to talking about it. You feel more secure saying what it isn't than what it is. Which is fine, but the kataphatic way (saying what it is) is just another way of talking about it and is just as legitimate.

Regardless of which way you prefer, the mere act of talking about it is of course not it, and you can recognize this regardless of which way you choose to talk about it. The apopathic way is useful to make someone recognize that it can't be talked about, but when you do recognize it, I think the kataphatic way is more useful. That's what talking is for anyway: saying what things are.

[UnbornTao]

2 minutes ago, zurew said:

Reading is not to replace the work ,but to become better at communicating and it is to compare the insights you have with other people who are probably much better at explicating those insights. Also if you have an insight + you read books you will be able to recognize better who is talking about the thing you have insight about and then you can point other people to that work. It can fasten up the communication quite a bit, if you don't need to write down a book amount of information in every given thread.

Most of the confusion about definitions can be cleared up if there is a work or set of works that everyone is familiar with. This can also help with clearing up somewhat who had what kind of insight and what kind of awakening.

Yes, that applies to many things. However let me add: That runs the risk of turning into a religion. 

Some things are unknowable but still true--there's no way around this obstacle, except "consciousness".

Imagine hearing: "form is emptiness, emptiness is form", or claims of that nature. What do you make out of that? What can be made out of that? The effort to systematize absolute matters is doomed to fail, and with time it degrades into a form of rerligion.

[zurew]

7 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Yes, that applies to many things. However let me add: That runs the risk of turning into a religion

I don't know how that risk is lower if we don't engage with reading materials. Also im not really sure what you mean by religion there. 

7 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Some things are unknowable but still true--there's no way around this obstacle, except "consciousness".

I don't see how this is relevant and im not even sure if we should dig into this, because this will open up some stuff that might not even be relevant to the original thing I brought up.

7 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Imagine hearing: "form is emptiness, emptiness is form", or claims of that nature. What do you make out of that? What can be made out of that? The effort to systematize absolute matters is doomed to fail, and with time it degrades into a form of rerligion.

I don't really see what your concern is. Yes communication has its own limits, thats not an argument for not commincating about things though.

I also see some of you falling into the trap of "if you can't exhaustively describe something, then you can't communicate about it at all" , but that second part doesn't follow from the first one.

This whole forum is about debating about a thing that can't exhaustively be described that doesn't mean though that all these talks and debates are completely meaningless.

 

Things can be miscommunicated and misinterpreted and things can be misused - this is applicable to a lot of things, thats not a good reason though to not try to communicate.

Edited Tuesday at 04:05 PM by zurew

[UnbornTao]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

You simply have an apophatic disposition to talking about it. You feel more secure saying what it isn't than what it is. Which is fine, but the kataphatic way (saying what it is) is just another way of talking about it and is just as legitimate.

Regardless of which way you prefer, the mere act of talking about it is of course not it, and you can recognize this regardless of which way you choose to talk about it. The apopathic way is useful to make someone recognize that it can't be talked about, but when you do recognize it, I think the kataphatic way is more useful. That's what talking is for anyway: saying what things are.

Call it the truth, you, your nature, existence, the absolute, but not a highly abstract and vague philosophical notion--or banana. Bring it down from the land of airy concepts into your present experience. In what ways do you consider it to be useful? Curious. To be clear, there's some value in talking from an "experience" of it, probably the most valuable being pointing to its possibility. 

Talking is symbolically representing (which gives rise to misrepresenting) things, not the same as saying that they are (we might not know that)--you're talking about the process of identifying (naming) things.

[UnbornTao]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

I don't know how that risk is lower if we don't engage with reading materials. Also im not really sure what you mean by religion there. 

If a name is given, people cling to it and miss the reality. If no name is given, we remain unaware of its existence. It's a principle. 

Faith, adopting ideas as true.

1 minute ago, zurew said:

I don't see how this is relevant and im not even sure if we should dig into this, because this will open up some stuff that might not even be relevant to the original thing I brought up.

I don't really see what your concern is. Yes communication has its own limits, thats not an argument for not commincating about things though.

I also see some of you falling into the trap of "if you can't exhaustively describe something, then you can't communicate about it at all" , but that second part doesn't follow from the first one.

This whole forum is about debating about a thing that can't exhaustively be described that doesn't mean though that all these talks and debates are completely meaningless.

In essence, your intention is to fit something that is by nature unknowable and formless into a thing that can be intellectually grasped, which we could then share and discuss about. Hence why I brought up that point. It is not that realization can't be exhaustively described, it is that the desire to do so is problematic and might be based on false presumptions--such as that there is something that is there to be handed over. 

If you study Rinzai and Ramana, you might get a better sense of why this matter is unassailable (unapproachable?) But we like to talk about stuff, and some value may be gained--yet a kensho is a kensho, talk is talk.

This forum isn't exclusively about "awakening talk". But in the end all talk about the absolute is chatter, not a recognition of the thing itself.

I'd refine or elaborate but don't have the time right now.

[Carl-Richard]

40 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Call it the truth, you, your nature, existence, the absolute, but not a highly abstract and vague philosophical notion--or banana. Bring it down from the land of airy concepts into your present experience. In what ways do you consider it to be useful? Curious.

Ironically, those are the airy fairy concepts that I'm trying to bring down, into more concrete terms. It's useful to talk about things more concretely, even if there is generalization going on that might not capture edge cases well. But so it is for all topics, not just enlightenment. Language is limited, and there are trade-offs between different levels of analysis.

And I'm not discounting the higher level either. I'm saying "why not both?". Because when things are concrete, you can understand things, predict things, and give concrete advice. If you're stuck at "realizing your true nature", you're not very useful. It might be safer, it might be less prone to inaccuracies, but it's a bit like only wanting to use a hammer and refusing to sow a shirt because you would have to use a needle.

Edited Tuesday at 04:45 PM by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

48 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

If a name is given, people cling to it and miss the reality. If no name is given, we remain unaware of its existence. It's a principle. 

Faith, adopting ideas as true.

Is that supposed to be some kind of zen thing?

I have several thoughts to reply to that:

1) Im not sure its necessarily a problem to have a belief about something ,especially if that belief is true compared to not having any belief about it and staying completely agnostic about it. There is a further level to this, where we say you can't even be agnostic about it (you cant be neither passive or positive or negative towards something that you don't know the meaning of - so for example if I ask you do you believe sdbgjdjfg is true - given that you don't know what sdbgjdjfg  means you are not even agnostic about it )

2)Im not convinced that its better to not have anything in mind when you do your practices and when you do spiritual work. If that supposed to be some kind of argument about the efficiency about spiritual methods being better if you have no knowledge/belief about awakening or enlightenment beforehand vs in the case when you do - thats going to be an empirical claim and I don't think you will be able to subtanstiate it.

3)Its unclear to me whether the beforehand knowledge or belief will block the given person from enlightenment - again if you want to claim this, this is going to be an empirical claim but I don't see how you can substantiate this.

4)But even if you are right, all of this an argument for is to not watch any youtube video or to not read books in this case when when you are not enlightened , but this argument is not a reason to not do any of those things (after enlightenment). 

The issue about recognition (namely recognizing whether you are enlightened or whether you had an awakening will be probably there though, especially if you have 0 concept about it, when you go through it).

48 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

In essence, your intention is to fit something that is by nature unknowable and formless into a thing that can be intellectually grasped, which we could then share and discuss about. Hence why I brought up that point. It is not that realization can't be exhaustively described, it is that the desire to do so is problematic and might be based on false presumptions--such as that there is something that is there to be handed over. 

I don't think those things are entailed in what I said. Everyone here understands that talking about something is not the same as knowing something and knowing something not the same as experiencing something. Words are used to point to things  when you say its not a thing, you are pointing towards it and thats enough to communicate about it.

Look what you did there "something that is unknowable and formless" - you created a category which is applicable to the thing you wanted to talk about and all of those things are meaningful. What you are doing there is pointing towards it.

Again what you are doing there is pointing to a concern about "it can be misinterpreted or misused" - but again thats not necessarily entailed.

Edited Tuesday at 05:18 PM by zurew

[zurew]

@UnbornTao I think you are falling in another trap, where you conflate the properties of the thing thats being pointed to  with the limitations of  pointing or communication itself .

This is similar to this: Don’t confuse the properties of your theories with properties of what your theories are about. Theories don’t need to exemplify what they are talking about. - You can have a clear theory about vagueness ; You can have a meaningful theory about meaninglessness ; You can have an intelligible theory about unintelligiblity etc

Edited Tuesday at 05:29 PM by zurew

[Carl-Richard]

@Sugarcoat I mentioned Jan Esmann earlier. He has a very sober explanation of Enlightenment ("Self-realization") and its various stages ("God-consciousness", etc.) in this interview:

He also explains the curious phenomena of Shaktipat, which is a focused type of transmission of the enlightened state (which otherwise happens passively by just being with them and empathically tuning in to their state). I would love to study that scientifically one day.

And of course, the story about meeting the Blue Being 

Edited yesterday at 02:37 AM by Carl-Richard

[Sugarcoat]

5 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Sugarcoat I mentioned Jan Esmann earlier. He has a very sober explanation of Enlightenment ("Self-realization") and its various stages ("God-consciousness", etc.) in this interview:

He also explains the curious phenomena of Shaktipat, which is a focused type of transmission of the enlightened state (which otherwise happens passively by just being with them and empathically tuning in to their state). I would love to study that scientifically one day.

And of course, the story about meeting the Blue Being 

thanks

[theleelajoker]

14 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Sugarcoat I mentioned Jan Esmann earlier. He has a very sober explanation of Enlightenment ("Self-realization") and its various stages ("God-consciousness", etc.) in this interview:

He also explains the curious phenomena of Shaktipat, which is a focused type of transmission of the enlightened state (which otherwise happens passively by just being with them and empathically tuning in to their state). I would love to study that scientifically one day.

And of course, the story about meeting the Blue Being 

Very interesting  coincidence you mention Jan and Shaktipat.

In late 2019 - I just had finished my first meditation retreat and came back from living and working 1year+ in India and Nepal -  a friend told me about it. Jan was giving a two day seminar in London including Shakitpat. He said "seeing where you are right now, this might be the right thing for you". I was very skeptic, but also very curios. I trusted my friend, so I thought "why not give it a look"?

I went there. I did not like Jan at all. He was super boring, pessimistic, defensive, depressed, moody, the complete opposite of being inspiring. I thought about leaving early but stayed for the Shaktipat transmission. Other participants said sth like "yeah he is like that but we are here for the Shaktipat". Well, it seems you have to take the good with the bad...

After a while the participants - including me - were getting the Shaktipat. Shortly after, there was a lunch break and I went into a small cafe with another participant to eat. We talked about the Shakipat, asking ourselves if we feel something. We kind of felt something, we talked about it....and the next thing that got us out of our conversation was the waitress telling us that it's early evening and that the cafe now closes! How is that possible, we just sat down moments ago for lunch?

We talked for hours and we did not notice that time passed. It was crazy. Be both could not really describe what exactly was going on. We felt different and the Shaktipat definitely did sth to us. We both felt the same. If I had to describe it, then I would say it was like being high on very clean, very sharp MDMA but without the visuals. A very functional state of consciousness, being "high" without really noticing being high.

I completely forgot about this experience until now. Looking back at it now, I can take some conclusions from it:

1. Either Shakitpat is real - or they were serving us psychedelics in the cafe Assuming the first, you can - at least temporarily -  transfer states of consciousness from one person to the next one. How fucking crazy is that? I could not really contextualize this experience 5 years ago. Today it seems even more strange to me.
2. Your guru, or teacher can be a really shitty person and still have something real about him. Indian philosophy is coined by the idea that your teacher must live the teaching, that he should embody the principles in daily life (see e.g.: Heinrich Zimmer: Philosophies of India). I personally experienced that the complete opposite can be true as well. What an irony that the video above is in the context of "positive" life interview (LOL) as Jan is the most depressing teacher I ever met re any spiritual teaching. But who knows, maybe he just had a bad phase...
3. Shakipat alone does not really seem to change much in the long run. Many participants were already there for the second, third, fourth time. Can be a piece in the puzzle, but not more than that. Beyond the experience at the cafe I did not notice any changes in my state of consciousness or my life in general. Who knows, effects might be subconscious but I never felt like doing another Shakipat again.
4. "Bliss" and Enlightenment" seem very arbitrary. In the video above, Jan says he feels bliss right now. I don't get the feeling he does. Same way he did not seem to be in bliss when I saw him. Admittedly, only once for two days many years ago. But my impression re this is very constant.

Edited 10 hours ago by theleelajoker

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, theleelajoker said:

I went there. I did not like Jan at all. He was super boring, pessimistic, defensive, depressed, moody, the complete opposite of being inspiring.

Sounds like exactly what @UnbornTao is looking for 😂 Cool that you met Jan. I met him in a dream once and he gave me some advice about spirituality which I can't remember.

Edited 7 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

@UnbornTao You don't need to respond to all of my stuff.

Some of it is not even relevant to what I really care about - some of them are secondary.

Without me writing essays lets go step by step.

1) Do you think the term enlightenment is actually a meaningful phrase or do you think its meaningless?

2) Do you think two enlightened people can have a meaningful conversation about enlightenment?

[UnbornTao]

On 11/12/2024 at 4:40 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Ironically, those are the airy fairy concepts that I'm trying to bring down, into more concrete terms. It's useful to talk about things more concretely, even if there is generalization going on that might not capture edge cases well. But so it is for all topics, not just enlightenment. Language is limited, and there are trade-offs between different levels of analysis.

And I'm not discounting the higher level either. I'm saying "why not both?". Because when things are concrete, you can understand things, predict things, and give concrete advice. If you're stuck at "realizing your true nature", you're not very useful. It might be safer, it might be less prone to inaccuracies, but it's a bit like only wanting to use a hammer and refusing to sow a shirt because you would have to use a needle.

Those are more experientially-oriented while "philosophical" ones are not. "Me" and "I" were probably one of the first words you learned, while many people haven't even heard of nonduality, which is a term abstracted from experience. (?) 

A "spiritual" term can be understood, but highly abstract ones might not facilitate having insights. Abstraction is convenient for the mind, because nothing gets confronted within your self-experience--just notions being discussed, refuted, agreed upon, etc. I wasn't clear--I'm talking in the context of enlightenment work--that's where this negation comes in. About understanding and communication, it depends on what you are up to, but obviously very useful.

Might edit when i have the time.

Edited 2 hours ago by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

6 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Sounds like exactly what @UnbornTao is looking for 😂 Cool that you met Jan. I met him in a dream once and he gave me some advice about spirituality which I can't remember.

That you hold such a disposition to what I said is your contribution, not mine. And it shows we don't like our fantasies being destroyed.

[UnbornTao]

On 11/12/2024 at 5:02 PM, zurew said:

@UnbornTao I think you are falling in another trap, where you conflate the properties of the thing thats being pointed to  with the limitations of  pointing or communication itself .

This is similar to this: Don’t confuse the properties of your theories with properties of what your theories are about. Theories don’t need to exemplify what they are talking about. - You can have a clear theory about vagueness ; You can have a meaningful theory about meaninglessness ; You can have an intelligible theory about unintelligiblity etc

I'm saying there is no substance to enlightenment and so no property or thing to point to, that's why I recommended Rinzai and Ramana.

Consider that Ramana's "deepest" teachings were said to consist of him sitting in silence.

I can understand the desire to intellectually grasp enlightenement, but taking that too seriously defeats the purpose/is counterintuitive. We don't want to add more notions onto our self-experience but subtract what's false, so to speak. Trying to fit a square peg in a round hole doesn't work/degrades the reality of what's being referred to.

Sorry, rough post for now.

Mu

[Staples]

Enlightenment is a construction.

[UnbornTao]

On 11/12/2024 at 4:48 PM, zurew said:

Is that supposed to be some kind of zen thing?

Yes, and a principle. A bit like the finger pointing at the moon.

On 11/12/2024 at 4:48 PM, zurew said:

I have several thoughts to reply to that:

1) Im not sure its necessarily a problem to have a belief about something ,especially if that belief is true compared to not having any belief about it and staying completely agnostic about it. There is a further level to this, where we say you can't even be agnostic about it (you cant be neither passive or positive or negative towards something that you don't know the meaning of - so for example if I ask you do you believe sdbgjdjfg is true - given that you don't know what sdbgjdjfg  means you are not even agnostic about it )

When it comes to your nature belief is actually an impediment as it undermines/predates/  questioning about it. Notice what you believe about yourself and what you are--I bet that set is consdiered or held as true in some way, if we're honest about it. That certainty gets in the way of a genuine open inquiry. After all, why question at all if I already know (assume) "the answer"?

On 11/12/2024 at 4:48 PM, zurew said:

2)Im not convinced that its better to not have anything in mind when you do your practices and when you do spiritual work. If that supposed to be some kind of argument about the efficiency about spiritual methods being better if you have no knowledge/belief about awakening or enlightenment beforehand vs in the case when you do - thats going to be an empirical claim and I don't think you will be able to subtanstiate it.

It's just that in this context, "knoelwege" is covered ignorance, as the underlying condition remains that of ignorance about one's nature. And also, no method can achieve it for you--it's a way to focus your mind. Similar to how no action within a dream can wake you up.

On 11/12/2024 at 4:48 PM, zurew said:

3)Its unclear to me whether the beforehand knowledge or belief will block the given person from enlightenment - again if you want to claim this, this is going to be an empirical claim but I don't see how you can substantiate this.

See above. If you "know", then there's no possibility for real breakthroughs or insights.

On 11/12/2024 at 4:48 PM, zurew said:

4)But even if you are right, all of this an argument for is to not watch any youtube video or to not read books in this case when when you are not enlightened , but this argument is not a reason to not do any of those things (after enlightenment). 

It could be said I'm advocating for a change in our relationship to the matter, that would go like:

Want to know what's true aboutyourself. If that includes reading and research, fine, but with enlightenment, the only thing that matters is the breakthrough in consciousness itself, so your knowledge and beliefs can be recognized as such and be set aside, as they are additions to what's there, and might very well block our openness and lessen our capacity to wonder about it.

On 11/12/2024 at 4:48 PM, zurew said:

The issue about recognition (namely recognizing whether you are enlightened or whether you had an awakening will be probably there though, especially if you have 0 concept about it, when you go through it).

It isn't relative, so if it's a genuine one (aand this might not be as common as people make it out to be), then it must be true and so self-validating. But this isn't done through intellect, preference, conviction, etc. Again, consider Ramana's case. As far as the enlightenment goes, your consciousness of what realized is clear.

On 11/12/2024 at 4:48 PM, zurew said:

I don't think those things are entailed in what I said. Everyone here understands that talking about something is not the same as knowing something and knowing something not the same as experiencing something. Words are used to point to things  when you say its not a thing, you are pointing towards it and thats enough to communicate about it.

Look what you did there "something that is unknowable and formless" - you created a category which is applicable to the thing you wanted to talk about and all of those things are meaningful. What you are doing there is pointing towards it.

Again what you are doing there is pointing to a concern about "it can be misinterpreted or misused" - but again thats not necessarily entailed.

Do we? To what degree? Do we experience that reality deeply, or just superficially, as an idea? I'm sure we can still go much deeper in this recognition. For ecample, consider most of what you call yourself is conceptual in nature, yet it appears to be solid and real. 

I don't get the obsession with things being meaningful. You apply meaning to it. Is it true? is the question to ask in my view. In any case, why you engage in something determines the meaning of it. Forget about the formless unknowable. Like I said, it just gets in the way. This is why I shared that fancy zen quote on my other post. Now we focus on the words, missing an experience of what's real about it. 

6 hours ago, zurew said:

@UnbornTao You don't need to respond to all of my stuff.

Some of it is not even relevant to what I really care about - some of them are secondary.

Without me writing essays lets go step by step.

1) Do you think the term enlightenment is actually a meaningful phrase or do you think its meaningless?

2) Do you think two enlightened people can have a meaningful conversation about enlightenment?

Depends on what you mean by meaningful. It is a word that points to a possibility. Any other use apart from that might cause more harm than good.

What's a meaningful conversation? I'd assume enlightenemnd isn't an object or some thing that can be shared, such as an opinion. This being a philosophical indulgence, from here (not enlightened), I wouldn't know what the enlightened individuals could do in such a situation--drink a beer, perhaps. There might be something that could be done in such a case. My guess is that it would relate to a process and action, so would happen within the domain of relativity. 

There, something.