Is It Possible To Understand Enlightenment Conceptually?

[How to be wise]

Is it possible to make a field of science which specifically links enlightenment and mystical experiences to how the brain functions? 

A field of science that explains why 5-meo dmt and other psychedelics produce mystical experiences will be very useful, because it could help us find a way of creating those same mystical experiences within other people.

The reason why I was even thinking about this is because, realistically, the only way you could get society to enlightenment is with a magic pill. You can never convince 1 million people to do self-inquiry to reach enlightenment let alone 7 billion. 

The only way to get the rest of humanity to enlightenment is with a spontaneous insight, like eckhart Tolle and others. That could be possible if we understood enlightenment conceptually, and how it links to the brain and the body. 

[Joseph Maynor]

@How to be wise Sure.  I think it depends on how you want to define the term "science."  Is Leo's work a science?  What about in the broad sense of science?  I think the biggest problem that Enlightenment faces is that people are so scared of death that they will never embrace death, which is what Enlightenment is: The death of the illusion of life.  It takes a leap of faith to face-down our own Egos, and also a lot of courage and emotional-labor.  What is the difference between science and knowledge?  Maybe instead of trying to pidgeon-hole Enlightenment Theory as a science, we become ok with it just being knowledge.  Or maybe we stop needing to label or categorize it in a meta way period.  The theory works -- and at least in the way that Leo explains it, it is already rich in both breadth and depth.  So, I think we already have what you think we need.  It's just that Enlightenment needs (1) outstanding teachers; and (2) people willing to do the work.  Those are the two key variables as I see it.  

On a separate note -- I think it's a fascinating question though about whether Enlightenment is a way to save the world.  Think about it -- if the world is a dream, who are you saving?  You are playing a video-game in your own mind.  There are no Egos to reform.  Instead of saving the world, you are just watching a dream unfold.  See?  Enlightenment goes deep.  People don't want to believe this stuff.  Enlightenment is basically telling people that their lives are not real.  If you're stuck in the ego-paradigm this is gonna sound like death before death -- like killing yourself before you die, which sounds crazy.  From the egoic perspective, Enlightenment looks like a life for losers who can't handle life and thus need to think it away.  To the Ego, Enlightenment looks like the ultimate way to stick your head in the sand in life -- a systematic denial of reality.  Like committing philosophical suicide.  Egos might think that Enlightened folks are just people who want to die but don't have the balls or ovaries to take their own life for real.  Or maybe they believe that Enlightened people are a bunch of losers: loafers who have conned themselves out of being successful in life through a kind of silly rationalization.  And you wonder why more people don't pursue Enlightenment?  Well, Enlightenment smells like poo to the Ego.  It's like -- who would keep a bunch of mosquitoes as pets?  Let 'em fly around the house?  Probably not, right?  You're gonna get ur ass bit badly!  Same with Enlightenment.  Ego-death hurts.  Enlightenment is gonna be counter-intuitive by its very nature.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Viking]

I dont know if it can be done with a magic pill, more realistically, cultural changes are key. like 200 years ago people thought slavery was alright and now it's obvious that it isnt, same way people can think in the future that enlightenment is the only way to true well being when they realize materialistic stuff doesnt do it.

I think it could be done gradually with slight cultural changes. with that, if it is brought up when people are very young it is much easier to "convince" them to do it.

maybe we could invent a way of raising children that makes them enlightened at a young age, because right now getting enlightened is based on getting rid of beliefs.

 

[Shin]

1 hour ago, How to be wise said:

Is it possible to make a field of science which specifically links enlightenment and mystical experiences to how the brain functions? 

A field of science that explains why 5-meo dmt and other psychedelics produce mystical experiences will be very useful, because it could help us find a way of creating those same mystical experiences within other people.

The reason why I was even thinking about this is because, realistically, the only way you could get society to enlightenment is with a magic pill. You can never convince 1 million people to do self-inquiry to reach enlightenment let alone 7 billion. 

The only way to get the rest of humanity to enlightenment is with a spontaneous insight, like eckhart Tolle and others. That could be possible if we understood enlightenment conceptually, and how it links to the brain and the body. 

5-meo dmt can't produce an ego death if you are attached as fuck to your identity, so no it won't work either.

[How to be wise]

@Joseph Maynor @Ilya @Shin But there have been people who knew nothing about enlightenment and then suddenly became enlightened. Byron Katie and Eckart Tolle are a few examples, and they sure as hell are grateful for that now. Now imagine everyone on this planet got that same instant realisation. The world would be a better place.

[krazzer]

@How to be wise The problem is that enlightenment inherently cannot be conceptualized. There are no symbols or statements or words that lead you directly to it. That's why it's so hard to convince other people to search for it. You can't. They have to do it themselves.

I do believe however, that at some point humanity must face the true nature of consciousness when we are technologically so advanced that we can transfer our minds to a machine. Or when we can transport ourselves. Does the old you die? The new or transported you thinks not, because he has all your memory. Well then what if you die every time you go to sleep and wake up thinking you are the same you as you were yesterday? 

To an enlightened person these questions are irrelevant, because it's all you, nothing dies. But these kinds of questions will inevitably come up more and more and should bring more and more people closer to enlightenment. 

At least that's my perspective.

[Leo Gura]

@How to be wise Modern science (quantum mechanics and general relativity) already says that all conventional notions of reality are untenable.

Science has shown that reality doesn't really exist.

But it doesn't matter. To the ego that's all theory. Even if science perfectly explained enlightenment, that alone wouldn't enlighten people.

Enlightenment isn't hard. The hard part about is it is that no one wants it. If you give a magic pill to someone who doesn't want it, it will just freak them out and make them demonize the magic pill. Which is happened in the 60's with the psychedelic revolution. Society wasn't ready for it.

Reforms are needed at all level of society: pop culture, religion, economy, government, education, law, etc.

[Cudin]

We cannot explain it yet, but we have some crucial clues as how enlightenment affects someone's brain.

In this video, Ken Wilber enters in a state of Samadhi in just a few seconds. It's pretty impressive.

 

[Nahm]

@Cudin thanks!

[Joseph Maynor]

@How to be wise 

14 hours ago, How to be wise said:

@Joseph Maynor @Ilya @Shin But there have been people who knew nothing about enlightenment and then suddenly became enlightened. Byron Katie and Eckart Tolle are a few examples, and they sure as hell are grateful for that now. Now imagine everyone on this planet got that same instant realisation. The world would be a better place.

Maybe.  If you think about it, it could be possible.  Let's say we concede this.  Now -- how do we confirm it?   See?  That's the issue.  Testimony is way-down on the scale in terms of Epistemological-weight.  

Edited September 22, 2017 by Joseph Maynor