Jordan peterson on enlightenment

[Malekakisioannis]

"There is evidence throughout history that there is a possibility for people to be enlightened. And you would think that since enlightenment is viewed as the medication for vulnerability and death that everybody would be struggling as possibly as they could to be enlightened, if we assume that such a state exists. but if the barrier to enlightenment is the self consciousness of the individuals - humans infinite capacity for evil then you can be immediately convinced about why enlightenment is in such sort supply"

[Forestluv]

He just couldn't resist slipping in some morality. . . 

[Leo Gura]

Enlightenment is in short supply because the cure is worse than the disease -- from the ego's POV.

It is like getting a broken leg and then the doctor telling you, "Okay, don't worry, we'll solve this problem by cutting off your head."

Who's down?

[Tanz]

hmm the dude ran in circles without saying anything  

[tsuki]

For reference: to Peterson, evil is not just selfishness that stems from finitude.
The tension within the human condition is brought upon because of polarity between finite and infinite s/he experiences.
This is the cause of suffering in life and it has no obvious payoff. He sees two ways to address this problem other than suicide - one is by embracing meaning through conquering fear and the other is nihilism. Peterson thinks that when people choose nihilism, they basically rot with resentment and evil is the outward expression of that. It is the deliberate destruction of happiness of other people. Relatively speaking, in terms of human psychology, I think that he is right.

Contrary to popular opinion here, I think that he actually does understand postmodernism, but he falls into believing that it is somehow universally evil. It is only evil in his own definition of evil, as it guides people into destroying meaning while giving no alternative. To him, this makes nihilism the only way of addressing suffering and since as a psychiatrist he's been treating people for that - it's no wonder that he hates postmodernists. 

I think that despite his multi-perspectival (yellow) thinking, he does not appreciate the importance of stages of development. I believe that he is spiral-aware as he brought up Piaget on multiple occasions, but he fails to see that postmodernism is needed at later stages of development. Given how much effort he's put into battling it, I don't think that it's likely that he will ever embrace it.

7 hours ago, Malekakisioannis said:

"There is evidence throughout history that there is a possibility for people to be enlightened. And you would think that since enlightenment is viewed as the medication for vulnerability and death that everybody would be struggling as possibly as they could to be enlightened, if we assume that such a state exists. but if the barrier to enlightenment is the self consciousness of the individuals - humans infinite capacity for evil then you can be immediately convinced about why enlightenment is in such sort supply"

I remember hearing this quote and I'm not sure, but I think that it comes from this video:

In terms of human psychology, exploring the "humans infinite capacity for evil" is nothing else than shadow work.
It was always clear to me that Peterson is not against enlightenment - on the contrary - he advocates FOR life that guides towards it. The tension point between Leo and Peterson's teaching is the goal they are aiming for. Leo does not respect the relative domain and goes full god-mode, masculine style.

Edited February 7, 2020 by tsuki

[Leo Gura]

Peterson has no clue what enlightenment is. Nor is he Spirally aware.

Attachment to meaning is the source of all suffering. So he is unwittingly leading people straight to hell, along with him. That's what ignorance does. The pursuit of falsehood (objective meaning) is devilry.

If you want to understand suffering, Buddhism explains it perfectly. The solution to suffering is perfectly clear. Yet no one wants to do it. People love to beat around the bush.

[tsuki]

26 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Peterson has no clue what enlightenment is.

You mean, like, zero? Not a single peak of all the enlightenment mountains?
Maybe there is an enlightenment peak that is accessed through psychology?

26 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Attachment to meaning is the source of all suffering. So he is unwittingly leading people straight to hell, along with him. That's what ignorance does. The pursuit of falsehood (objective meaning) is devilry.

Yes, I agree. But don't you do that as well?
All teachings are partial and lead straight to hell because if they aim at any audience, then they are based on objective meaning.
If you don't admit the possibility that some hells are less contracted than others, then what is the point of teaching at all?
I think that given how large Peterson's audience is, the hell he's leading into is not all that bad.

26 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If you want to understand suffering, Buddhism explains it perfectly. The solution to suffering is perfectly clear. Yet no one wants to do it. People love to beat around the bush.

The problem is that the solution that is proposed does not work in modern day society. It never had,
It is aimed at select few individuals that are predisposed to this path. It's extremely masculine.
Enlightenment has always been in short supply, just like Peterson claims. 

___________________________

PS. I do understand why you're calling people devils, but as a technical term - demons would be more appropriate.
Demons demonize, but devils? Hmmm...

Edited February 7, 2020 by tsuki

[Leo Gura]

14 minutes ago, tsuki said:

You mean, like, zero? Not a single peak of all the enlightenment mountains?
Maybe there is an enlightenment peak that is accessed through psychology?

He had some tiny mystical experience but that doesn't mean he understands enlightenment proper.

Quote

Yes, I agree. But don't you do that as well?
All teachings are partial and lead straight to hell because if they aim at any audience, then they are based on objective meaning.
If you don't admit the possibility that some hells are less contracted than others, then what is the point of teaching at all?

I have a much better understanding of the traps of this work and communicate that. Of course that still doesn't make the process fool-proof. But my teachings are far more advanced and accurate than JP's. Again, not that my teachings are necessarily perfect.

Yes, all teachings are relative, but some are better than others. Especially if we're talking about advanced topics like overcoming suffering or understanding God. Very few people understand such topics accurately.

Quote

I think that given how large Peterson's audience is, the hell he's leading into is not all that bad.

A large audience compounds the danger of ignorance and ideology.

If JP had a small audience I'd be much less hard on him.

Quote

PS. I do understand why you're calling people devils, but as a technical term - demons would be more appropriate.

Demons demonize, but devils? Hmmm...

Devil is a technical term in my lexicon.

Demon means something else to me. To me a demon is an actual demon-looking entity. A non-human.

Devil is the right term because it implies deception and trickery. Which is what we're mostly dealing with in this work. Devil is also the opposite of God, which is exactly what the ego is. It's a very powerful term once you get a handle on it.

[tsuki]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I have a much better understanding of the traps of this work and communicate that. Of course that still doesn't make the process fool-proof. But my teachings are far more advanced and accurate than JP's. Again, not that my teachings are necessarily perfect.

Yes, all teachings are relative, but some are better than others. Especially if we're talking about advanced topics like overcoming suffering or understanding God. Very few people understand such topics accurately.

"All teachings are relative" and they are relative from two "ends", so to speak.
Not only they are relative to the teacher, they are also relative to the student.

Even if you had many deep mystical experiences, they may not mean a thing to a regular person. Not just because a regular person is a devil, etc, but because different things speak to different people. Is there an objective criterion of teachings that would allow us to sort them into absolute hierarchy? I wonder what would postmodernists say.

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

A large audience compounds the danger of ignorance and ideology.

If JP had a small audience I'd be much less hard on him.

I understand that, but then again - maybe the fact that he aims for a big audience is the trade-off he has to make? The symbols he has to use must be much more widely recognizable so the quality of his transmission would obviously decrease. Not saying that he makes this choice deliberately - he may be a victim of his success. That would make him a tragic character, now wouldn't it? If he were conscious of it, it would make him a martyr, a bodhisattva .

Is it really better to have a few, select, fully enlightened individuals than a mob of intellectuals ripe with knowledge, just waiting for their proper mystical experience? I just can't understand why you're behaving as if it was a contest between you and him. He's like a fertilizer for your flowers.

And you fight devils as if they had existence apart from the energy you give them when you fight.

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Devil is also the opposite of God, which is exactly what the ego is. It's a very powerful term once you get a handle on it.

Leo, I don't want to be cheeky or anything, but God has no opposites. Ego is a part of the design, that is the enlightenment of psychology.

Edited February 7, 2020 by tsuki

[Gnosis]

8 minutes ago, tsuki said:

God has no opposites.

Your statement holds truth, yet it's clear Leo's statement has gone over your head and you haven't understood what is meant by,

31 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Devil is also the opposite of God, which is exactly what the ego is.

...

Otherwise there's no one to be Enlightened!

...

I have no intention the join the argument apart from this one interjection, because it's a rather important and very subtle insight of the journey.

I've decided to take most of the text out of my post. Plain explication robs the reader of the experience and subtlety of insight.

Hint: Relativity

How deeply do you understand your own words when you say that God has no opposites, or that ego is part of the design?

Do you really think those statements run contrary to Leo's?

I'll leave the rest to the Silence.

[OmniYoga]

Quote

"There is evidence throughout history that there is a possibility for people to be enlightened."

haha

just give me 1 evidence
how you can tell who is enlightenment and who isn't ?

it's subjective exprience 

you can not even tell the diffrence between some sort of mental illness, psychosis or some sort of nerosis, maniacstate and an enlightenment

what if there is no diffrence?

and it's funny cuz to compare englightment  and not englightment 
you need to make assumpotion that something exist (the object that you compare the subject) and make a distinction between them - which already creates duality

[Javfly33]

2 hours ago, OmniYoga said:

haha

just give me 1 evidence
how you can tell who is enlightenment and who isn't ?

it's subjective exprience 

you can not even tell the diffrence between some sort of mental illness, psychosis or some sort of nerosis, maniacstate and an enlightenment

what if there is no diffrence?

and it's funny cuz to compare englightment  and not englightment 
you need to make assumpotion that something exist (the object that you compare the subject) and make a distinction between them - which already creates duality

@OmniYoga Because there´s common denominator for people who show traits of what we call mental illness, psychosis, or neurosis: They usually suffer tremendously and they are not definetely "in peace".

In fact, that´s why we call something a "mental illness", because it shows that it´s disruptive for the life of the one who has it. In pychology there´s this "rule" that goes something like this "we call mental illness when it starts disrupting the life of the patient". 

From this point, of course you are right in realizing that from an outside perspective the different between an Enlightened person and a person with Psychosis are just the labels you put on each one!

The thing is, the mechanism why some people are labeled as having psychosis, and others being Awake. The ones labeled as Awake, whatever crazy things they might affirm, it´s clear that their possible "mental illness" shows no traits of disfuncionality or suffering in his life, so, whatever they have, we can´t call "mental illness" anymore. People with psychosis shows clear traits of disfunctionality and suffering in his life, so we use a label of mentall illness such "psychosis".

[OmniYoga]

@Javfly33 turst me,

a sense of no-self is STRONGLY disrupting the life of the patient, as well as questioning the reality, 

we have no idea what they feel inside, it's subjective
deloslivng an ego is not a pleasure, that's why almost nobody does that

and you can conditioning yourself  to feel certain way - actaully maybe this is what medition really does, but that doesn't make you less deluded than everyone else, you're just immune to some aspects

[Javfly33]

11 minutes ago, OmniYoga said:

@Javfly33 turst me,

a sense of no-self is STRONGLY disrupting the life of the patient, as well as questioning the reality, 

we have no idea what they feel inside, it's subjective
deloslivng an ego is not a pleasure, that's why almost nobody does that

and you can conditioning yourself  to feel certain way - actaully maybe this is what medition really does, but that doesn't make you less deluded than everyone else, you're just immune to some aspects

@OmniYoga I get your point, I also have wondered the same as you, however I like to think that since I started this spiritual journey, the final destination is real sanity, far from the distorsions and interpretations of the mind. However how the road might be here from there, that I can´t assure how will it be.

[Danioover9000]

On 07/02/2020 at 0:50 PM, Javfly33 said:

@OmniYoga Because there´s common denominator for people who show traits of what we call mental illness, psychosis, or neurosis: They usually suffer tremendously and they are not definetely "in peace".

In fact, that´s why we call something a "mental illness", because it shows that it´s disruptive for the life of the one who has it. In pychology there´s this "rule" that goes something like this "we call mental illness when it starts disrupting the life of the patient". 

From this point, of course you are right in realizing that from an outside perspective the different between an Enlightened person and a person with Psychosis are just the labels you put on each one!

The thing is, the mechanism why some people are labeled as having psychosis, and others being Awake. The ones labeled as Awake, whatever crazy things they might affirm, it´s clear that their possible "mental illness" shows no traits of disfuncionality or suffering in his life, so, whatever they have, we can´t call "mental illness" anymore. People with psychosis shows clear traits of disfunctionality and suffering in his life, so we use a label of mentall illness such "psychosis".

   I agree about the distinction between psychosis and enlightenment. the psychosis is more commonly dormant in the person's innate limitations of brain and body, whereas in enlightenment, during awakening, it can bring up powerful energies that can either temporarily cause psychosis, or permanently cause psychosis. It sucks for people who have psychosis, Because it really can create dysfunction and more misery. I worked with these people, and someone I know suffers from schizophrenia that he couldn't function normally in his life, having to depend on medication and additional support. It's a horrible way to live.

   I don't care what or how you got to enlightenment, you're gonna have to come back to the market place, and be of service. Conflating psychosis with enlightenment and acting as if it's no big deal reeks of ignorance and unsympathy to the people suffering psychosis.  For those who still conflate psychosis with enlightenment, go and help out in the asylums, or care home, or are you scared of losing your enlightenment in a moment of annoyance, thinking that it's still all illusion, all nothing?