/lit/ - Literature

>>10460654
>Does this mean I have transpired through the endeavor?

Why is everyone's idea of enlightenment different and why does one address all the different ideas instead of going ahead and being an asshole and added some new amalgamation of views contradictory to some other respectable guys?

For example God is mind means something very different from God is death and so on. There's this idea pleasure is like a square root of energy which is a square root of sentience and the more conceptual your activity becomes the more you do of mind and enlightenment is that and if you don't get there the enlightened one doesn't regard you as one who even exists at all so there you go. there's the idea that it's just acceptance of "what is" which is more zen but buddhists appropriate it too. there's another idea it's just of one phenomena in the pantheistic whole that has both secular and enlightened parts but neither of those properties are intrinsic to any of the things in that entirety; they are just transcendent awareness (or lack of) actors of all morality and skill possess in a secret unprovable way. I see this as compatible with the first idea enlightenment is just mind but not at all with the zen thing and also all these other ideas like you just let go but care or it's going to be subjective to the possibilities of the agent or whatever whatever whatever I just wish someone would reconcile all these competing schisms or try to you can add a solipsistic layer that says whatever you believe all that matters is its yours and you do like fuck man can't you idiots integrate anything

Who is a writer who grasps the totality of everything? One who eliminates perspective best?