Logic Is Part And Parcel To Enlightenment

[Prabhaker]

5 hours ago, Russell Parr said:

Illogical knowledge is false knowledge.

The very insistence for enlightenment is illogical or not ?

[Russell Parr]

1 hour ago, Prabhaker said:

The very insistence for enlightenment is illogical or not ?

It is not.

[Russell Parr]

45 minutes ago, Dead_Mouse said:

You can fall back asleep after a partial awakening, but nothing goes away because it is and was always there.

Yes, but what you're talking about is reality, not enlightenment.

36 minutes ago, Dead_Mouse said:

There is a lot of knowledge which is illogical and yet we still know it. Does your mom love you? Can you prove it? Because if you can't, that belief is illogical. 

To believe whether your mother loves you or not is not necessarily illogical. Asserting it as an absolute fact would be.

38 minutes ago, Dead_Mouse said:

No one can prove we are "one" with everything

Sure we can, let me show you: Everything is causally connected, and our separation from the rest of reality is but an illusion created by our consciousness.

It is true, as you allude, that the interconnectivity of all things cannot be scientifically proven. This is because science cannot deal with the entirety of reality, as it relies on empirical evidence. Instead, the absolute truth of oneness must be discerned by pure logic alone.

[Prabhaker]

35 minutes ago, Russell Parr said:

It is not.

Then what is enlightenment ? How can you say it happens in human beings? 

[electroBeam]

On 5/4/2017 at 0:49 AM, Russell Parr said:

Logic is the linguistic representation of cause and effect, which is an absolute principle of reality. The enlightened mind is fully logical and unencumbered by egotism, which causes the logical processes of the mind to stutter due to a clinging to ideas, concepts, people, and things.

Be careful not to decry logic. It is an essential ingredient to enlightenment.

That's not how the world is. Its more like

Quote

Logic is based off a direct empirical state of mind/inquiry, and you could say that logic, at least tries to, replicate a fully enlightened understanding, unencumbered by egotism.

Be careful not to decry enlightenment. It is an essential ingredient to logic.

Logic is based of reality, reality is not logical, but logic is realityish. 

Logic is a set of commandments, not by the bible, but by individuals who mistake the belief in consistency as fact.

Believing in logic may be helpful for enlightenment, but only as much as believing in Vedanta is.

 

Logic works very differently to enlightenment. Its only loosely based on empirical observation, and it can only solve problems that are inherently conceptual. 

Objectivity is a skewed interpretation of subjectivity. Its a second, artificial layer to empirical observation, and its only useful to individuals who have a preference, or are attached to those meanings. Saying enlightenment is logical only makes sense within a logical paradigm. Outside that paradigm you begin to realize that perspective shifts have nothing to do with logic.

Edited May 8, 2017 by electroBeam

[Martin123]

Pfff yall boring bunch scared shitless of irrational phenomena. Logic is not even a thing.

If anything gets close to the absolute, it is love.

You cant use logic as a sense of cause ans effect and call it absolute. Reality is infinity, that would mean infinite causes and infinite effects. You cant use logic in that sense because you'd need an infinite number of information. 

Existence is spontaneous.

There is no logic behind anything existing.

Existence is mystery. It begins in mystery and ende in mistery. That in of itself is logical. That I can agree with.

 

Wait what was I trying to say?

ah yes

stop being boring/realistic/rational/logical.

Thats no fun, there's little place for love. Look at where logic got us as a species.

Love >>> logic

amen

cya

rip

suckers

lol

[Prabhaker]

Understand how to meditate (in most logical way.)

 

 

[WelcometoReality]

16 hours ago, Russell Parr said:

Would you say that she is enlightened? Or that she merely had an enlightening experience? One may experience samadhi or satori and one time or another, at will or at random, through meditation or 5-meo, yet still remain overall unenlightened.

To me, enlightenment is both the understanding and the realization. What she is missing is the understanding, which is why she went to Adyashanti.

I dont know if she was enlightened or not. But she had some sort of realization.

Could you define what you mean with enlightenment?

[Russell Parr]

13 hours ago, Prabhaker said:

Then what is enlightenment ? How can you say it happens in human beings? 

I am not following. I was implying that insistence for enlightenment is logical, since enlightenment is the transcendence of delusion.

 

8 hours ago, Prabhaker said:

Understand how to meditate (in most logical way.)

 

 

Pretty funny. Do you meditate?

[Russell Parr]

13 hours ago, Dead_Mouse said:

I'm not sure exactly what it is you are saying...

...but logic and science are integrally linked, which means to use logic is to use a universally-agreed upon and strict type of reasoning normally called "the scientific method", and the demarcation between the scientific and unscientific (or the logical or illogical) is its falsifiability--and it needs to be falsifiable in practice and not just hypothetically. So, by definition, if it doesn't meet this criteria it is illogical--and that includes the belief "we are all one", or that a parent loves their child.

Oh, and "enlightenment" doesn't bestow any skills or powers that can be lost.

Logic and science are not one and the same. Science is systematic, while logic is a quality of thought or systems. Good science is logical. 

It is true that enlightenment doesn't grant any extra powers or skills, but instead it wipes the lense of consciousness with the cloth of reason, enabling one to perceive reality for what it is.

[Russell Parr]

13 hours ago, electroBeam said:

Logic is based of reality, reality is not logical, but logic is realityish. 

Logic is a set of commandments, not by the bible, but by individuals who mistake the belief in consistency as fact.

Believing in logic may be helpful for enlightenment, but only as much as believing in Vedanta is.

Reality is logical, or else we wouldn't be able to understand it or work with it. Logic is not a set of commandments, but it does indeed command consistency. Consistency is the only way to determine and verify fact. One does not believe in logic, that is unnecessary. Without logic, there is confusion.

13 hours ago, electroBeam said:

Logic works very differently to enlightenment. Its only loosely based on empirical observation, and it can only solve problems that are inherently conceptual. 

Objectivity is a skewed interpretation of subjectivity. Its a second, artificial layer to empirical observation, and its only useful to individuals who have a preference, or are attached to those meanings. Saying enlightenment is logical only makes sense within a logical paradigm. Outside that paradigm you begin to realize that perspective shifts have nothing to do with logic.

Paradigm and perspective shifts have entirely to do with causality, and causality is logical. Everything happens for a reason.

[Russell Parr]

12 hours ago, Martin123 said:

Pfff yall boring bunch scared shitless of irrational phenomena.

There is no such thing as irrational phenomena. Only our understanding of phenomena can be irrational.

12 hours ago, Martin123 said:

You cant use logic as a sense of cause ans effect and call it absolute. Reality is infinity, that would mean infinite causes and infinite effects. You cant use logic in that sense because you'd need an infinite number of information. 

My use of the word infinite is more so in a philosophical context, meaning boundless/limitless, instead of in a numerical sense. For example, "causality is infinite" means that there is no part of reality unaffected by causality, rather than there are an infinite amount of caused things in the universe.

[Russell Parr]

5 hours ago, WelcometoReality said:

I dont know if she was enlightened or not. But she had some sort of realization.

Could you define what you mean with enlightenment?

Yes, simply put, enlightenment is the transcendence and overcoming of a delusional perspective of reality.

[Russell Parr]

1 minute ago, Dead_Mouse said:

I didn't say logic and science were the same--I said they were inexorably linked.

Ah, yes but while science must be logical or it isn't good science, being logical does not necessarily involve the scientific method. Take math for example, which makes use of abstract symbols instead of empirical data. Philosophy, which is most fundamental of all, is the logical study of the nature of things like existence, identity, and perception.

12 minutes ago, Dead_Mouse said:

I'm not sure what you are saying in the 2nd paragraph. "Enlightenment" is just awakening to your true self by dropping beliefs and assumptions etc. Nothing more complicated than that. You do get a special velvet cape with "E" embossed on it though.

Beliefs and assumptions aren't dropped, but are used in practicality, yet never clung to.

A velvet cape? All I got was this shitty vest pin.

11 minutes ago, Dead_Mouse said:

Those who aren't enlightened probably shouldn't try to explain what it is to others. The reason for this is because even when you are, you're still wrong, but when you aren't, you're very wrong.

In what way are the enlightened wrong?

[Prabhaker]

8 hours ago, Russell Parr said:

enlightenment is the transcendence and overcoming of a delusional perspective of reality

Why do you believe this ?

[WelcometoReality]

12 hours ago, Russell Parr said:

Yes, simply put, enlightenment is the transcendence and overcoming of a delusional perspective of reality.

I agree. But what do you think is delusional and what is real?

[Russell Parr]

17 hours ago, Prabhaker said:

Why do you believe this ?

Because it's in the name. Enlighten - lighten, to overcome darkness, delusion; to gain insight, to enable consciousness to be the crystal clear light it is intended to be.

13 hours ago, WelcometoReality said:

I agree. But what do you think is delusional and what is real?

What is delusional - the belief that things and/or the self exist independently from the rest of reality. The ego is delusional.

What is real - the Tao, infinite reality, causality.

[SOUL]

People still thinking that thinking can achieve enlightenment?

Thinking is as responsible for enlightenment as emotion is.

[Russell Parr]

Those that think incorrectly end up vilifying thought itself.

[SOUL]

Those that think there is incorrect thought are the ones who think thoughts can be vilified.

I think no such things.