/lit/ - Literature

>What is enlightenment /lit/?
phenomenology

Reconnection with and reflection of the Principle. It is attainable.

>>3588395
>Reconnection with and reflection of the Principle
what

>>3588395
>esoteric garbage

>>3588404

Concepts like 'enlightenment' are easier to approach if you're familiar to some extent with the metaphysics and terminology of Neoplatonism. Read a wiki article or something

>>3588410

It's not difficult to grasp; you just haven't read very widely.

>>3588422
>ad hominem
>red herring
0/10 for arguing skills

>>3588427

I can only hope that some day I'll measure up to the masterdebater who blows arguments out of the water with ironclad retorts like "esoteric garbage"

>>3588379
Which particular concept of enlightenment? I think it exists in the sense that it can refer to a particular state of mind achievable by practise, insight and conditioning. I also believe it's romanticised too much, in the same way as love is, leading to people experiencing it but not recognising it because they've been indoctrinated with some unrealistic concept of it. I like the whole 'enlightenment is nothing special' sentiment among certain zen types.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_9cVjPjjho

>>3588454

I agree to an extent, but widespread bastardization and misunderstanding of Buddhist concepts has made it just as likely that people will prematurely judge themselves to be 'enlightened' on the basis of some vague feeling of contentment.

It's just being completely present and accepting with a mind free from distraction and judgement.

>>3588495
That as well. Which can only be countered by dogmatism and strictness which kind of ruins the whole thing as well. Best to just stop caring about enlightenment.

>>3588505

I think it's possible to be strict where it matters without burying enlightenment in lay dogma and sentimentalism. It takes discerning intellects, but it wouldn't be enlightenment if every individual could snap their fingers and attain it.

>definitions

>>3588532

Mystics may have talked about throwing away all of their books and whatnot, but that just shows that theories and definitions of enlightenment are ultimately unnecessary for the individual seeker; not that they have no value or purpose.

>"This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana."
— AN 3.32

>"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."
— Ud 8.3

Where water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing:
There the stars do not shine,
the sun is not visible,
the moon does not appear,
darkness is not found.
And when a sage,
a brahman through sagacity,
has known for himself,
then from form & formless,
from bliss & pain,
he is freed.
— Ud 1.10

See also this piece by Thanissaro B.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/nibbana.html

>>3588436
I saw this and lol'd

>>3588551
yes, the value or purpose of them is to show how its quest is meaningless and should never have appeared.

the point of a cure is not to create the illness and then cure it in order to show its greatness as a cure, but to get rid rid the illness and then disappear.

>>3588554
>"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."

This is a pretty good summary of all traditional concepts of enlightenment. Discernment between the uncreated/eternal/real and the fleeting/contingent/illusory, and attachment to the former.

>>3588568
You are everything that is wrong with this world. Not only are you utterly stupid, bereft of any kind of logical thinking, you are belligerent about it. You are driven to browbeat others with your monstrous lack of intelligence.

What you need to do is kill your family, your children if you have any (God forbid), and then stick a shotgun in your mouth and blow your own head clean off for the betterment of the human race.

Do it. Promise everyone here that you will. So that we can sleep better, you disgusting lying piece of shit. You kill people with your half-truths and bullshit twisting of the facts. I hate you. I fucking hate you with all my soul. You killed my mother.

You murdering son of son of bitch. Let people see the fucking truth so they don't fucking blow shit off as just more of the scary-boo BS you spout.

>>3588578

>>3588578
what the fuck...

The psychological equivalent of cutting off your hand so you fingers never get hot or cold. It along with its ugly distant cousin asceticism are basically the anti-thesis of life. Don't bother yourself with it. If you're yearning for some sort of vague romanticism look into works like pale blue dot.

>>3588591
>If you're yearning for some sort of vague romanticism
Agreed, if this is the case. But there are many people who are looking for the anti-thesis of life. It may seem intuitively 'wrong' to pursue such a thesis, but I can't really think of a reason why one must choose life over... well.. nothingness I guess.

Life's not all that great.

>>3588568
>yes, the value or purpose of them is to show how its quest is meaningless and should never have appeared.

It isn't meaningless or unnecessary though. Understanding enlightenment in terms of a "path" or "quest" or "progress" toward something makes use of an apt metaphor; its danger is that it can blind people to the reality that enlightenment is not simply the "quest" for a sublime Object but simultaneously the actualization of something that has been latent in the Subject all along.

Different traditions often stress one of these aspects or the other. Excessive apophaticism and reduction of enlightenment to this latter dimension in a Buddhist perspective is just as bad as misplaced theological zeal and denial of 'divine immanence' in an Abrahamic perspective.

>>3588566

You are one step closer to enlightenment my son

>>3588604

And nothingness is better? This is the issue I have with things like buddhism, beneath everything else the basic tenent is that life isn't always 100% brilliant so let's sit around and wait for death (or to escape samsara) so we don't have to deal with the shit bits.

I really don't want to sound like a Nietzsche fan but wouldn't shaping your own perspective of the world to something enjoyable and positive be better than just fucking it off entirely?

>>3588608
Yeah i see your point, but realizing that the metaphor is a metaphor and not a literal truth sometimes is harder; like, realizing that the quest for enlightenment is a metaphor is an enlightenment itself.

I think there are ways, not just of curing the tendency to take metaphors literally, but to get rid of this tendency.

>>3588591
>The psychological equivalent of cutting off your hand so you fingers never get hot or cold.

Enlightenment is not simply a matter of denying the worth of the material world and the mundane aspects of life. This is part of the reason why Gnosticism was correctly deemed a heresy in Christianity and why Islamic and many other mystics have traditionally shunned rigid asceticism altogether.

theories, definitions and instructions are necessary to unfuck your current - loaded with dogmatism, inane knowledge and the opinions of others etc - corrupt state of mind

you'd be more "enlightened" if someone had put you on a deserted island; you'd be free from the cultural garbage and any public thought whatsoever, albeit, essentially, you'd live in the wrong sense/direction of the "enlightenment" conception; i.e. living within the framework of "enlightened" state of mind is only compatible when the primary needs (food, clothes, shelter) for survival are taken care of; after that, for it to work, it has to be coupled with intelligence.

it's a quest for realizing that fundamentally you know nothing, that you should stop arguing as much, sit quietly and enjoy the whatever
after that's done, just drop the whole thing

A collective invention that allows people to cope with existence.

>>3588671
>for it to work, it has to be coupled with intelligence.
>fundamentally you know nothing

>one who seeks the Tao unlearns something new every day.

>>3588671
>it's a quest for realizing that fundamentally you know nothing

In a manner of speaking, depending on what we mean by "you." But not really.

>>3588726
what i meant was, that intelligence is needed for comprehending that you're initially psychologically corrupt; after that, the sense of "enlightenment" never ceases to leave your being - it only grows stronger
it's the gradual and spontaneous process of unfucking oneself until there is nothing left to unfuck, i.e. the state of not knowing and the realization that there is nothing to understand, or how you put it -
>one who seeks the Tao unlearns something new every day.

>>3588737
that's the point, there is no 'you'
the concept of self is illusory.

Enlightenment = Self awareness + Compassion,

There, saved you some time,
time you could be spending reading

>>3588591
I would say it's more like cutting off a gangrenous leg or arm. Removing it is not anti life, it would actually be promoting life to remove those poisoned tissues. In the same way, awakening removes the three poisons of delusion, hatred and greed, allowing us to live a life free of these negative traits.

>>3588836
>poisons
>traits

the three poisons are just love, hate and ignorance. those translation are just cute ways to attract people. actually, more accurately they are affirmation, negation and ignorance.

the point is not to get rid of the negative traits, but to get rid of the traits tout court.

so i wouldnt say it is about removing healthy or sick limbs, but about removing a fake, unnecessary one.

>>3588861
>so i wouldnt say it is about removing healthy or sick limbs, but about removing a fake, unnecessary one.
are we talking about the hermit of the tub, monsieur? ah, a little cynicism perhaps?

>>3588861
>get rid of traits tout court

Except that is just plain wrong, there are all sorts of practices for cultivating positive emotions and actions in Buddhism, see the 10 perfections (paramitas), the 4 divine abodes (brahma viharas), etc

Also, if that was the case, why would the Buddha have spent 45 years of his life teaching and spreading the dhamma?

The whole Buddhism=nihilism thing is a really old misconception

There is no ultimate state of enlightenment, just a gradual journal of self-discovery and in turn learning about the world.

When it comes to asceticism, that should come about on it's own, you know how it goes, "The more you know, the less you need". Everything in our lives is there for us to learn from if we want to, and our environment changes as we change. There is no point in strict denial and suppression of temporal pleasures, it's just as bad if not worse than indulgence.

>>3589236
Yeah, the cultivation of positive emotions is the entrance, but is is not in itself good; it is applied to those with excessive negative emotions. See the neyartha/nitartha distinction.

Also, hagiographies are not biographies.

Denying the "positive emotions" does not mean affirming the negative ones. What is really an old misconception is that "buddhism is not nihilism" crap when someone does not take the karuna thing literally.

>>3589256

>two truths

Nagarjuna's two truths never denies karuna or other positive emotions. I would see two truths more as a form of fictionalism not nihilism, see Jay Garfield's work on this.

>Also, hagiographies are not biographies.

True, but they can tell us about the philosophical system the saint is expounding. The point here is that the Buddha could have remained in nirvanic bliss for those years, but he chose to teach out of compassion. A nihilist would not work hard for 40 something years to start a new religion, he would just dwell in nihilistic bliss - whatever that is.

>Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.

(in other translations "nonage" is "immaturity")

http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html

>implying this is not far superior to all other notions of enlightenment

>>3589278
>denies
I never said he denies it. But does not affirm it either.

>he chose to teach
you do realize the story tells he was not gonna say anything and the "motivation" came from an external source right?

>start a new religion
well if you write that i guess theres no point in continuing this discussion.

>>3589289
Well most mahayana (post Nagarjuna) Buddhism indeed affirms the importance of compassion and positive action, indeed the goal of mahayana is to become a bodhisattva, which is a being of endless compassion.

Also I care about what he did as a person. Establishing a new system of thought, going against the brahmins, caste system and popular gods of the time is not something one does lightly. A nihilist would certainly not have done so.

>>3589252
>There is no ultimate state of enlightenment, just a gradual journal of self-discovery and in turn learning about the world.

Sure there is. It'll be out of a person's reach as long as his concerns don't extend beyond himself and 'the world' considered separately from higher ontological orders.

>>3589279

Not only is it not superior, it describes an ideal that Kant himself hardly embodied.

>>3588379
>What is enlightenment /lit/?

Deluding oneself so completely that nothing matters anymore.

Yes - even those faggots at /x/ or /a/ with their 'tulpas' can be considered 'enlightened'.

>>3589363
>Deluding oneself so completely that nothing matters anymore.

It's the opposite.

>>3589361
It's all degrees, degrees that will go on forever. The world and our own selves are infinite mysteries, some would have more experience in handling these mysteries than others, and it would appear that they do have all the answers, but it's much like how high-schoolers appear to be the next thing to adults compared to third graders. Say they'd have a damn good understanding of what others behind them are going through by virtue of surpassing those challenges, but there's still so much more out there. Then it boils down to what is relevant to us and what do we need the most at the time.

>>3589361

are you serious?

>>3589385

The process can be subdivided endlessly into degrees, but they're only meaningful insofar as they help the person seeking enlightenment. I understand and agree somewhat with what you said about experience, but one does 'reach' a final 'goal' and it is in no way determined by individual preconceptions of relevance or temporal need.

>>3589389

Yeah, you?

>>3588379
>What is enlightenment /lit/?
Enlightenment is a state of mind which allows a conscious being to live to his fullest.
>Do you even think it is something really attainable?
No, because it's not a static object, it's a dynamic process.

Yeah I know this thread kind of died but wanted to share this:

http://www.smith.edu/philosophy/documents/MadhyamakaisNotNihilismNov2012.pdf

Madhyamaka is Not Nihilism, Jay L Garfield

>I will argue that this nihilistic reading of Nāgārjuna is unjustified, and that Nāgārjuna is
in fact a robust realist, offering an analysis, not a refutation of existence. On that analysis
to exist is to exist conventionally, and ultimate existence is in fact an incoherent
ontological fantasy. I focus on what many take to be the sharpest case for extreme
nihilism, Nāgārjuna’s negative catuṣkoṭi


This is tackling claims of ontological nihilism though, not ethical/existential nihilism

>>3589771

I feel sorry for Buddhists. Modern folk are more intent on reading their shitty philosophical perspectives into your religion than into any other. Excluding Christianity, of course.

>>3589792
This has been happening since Buddhism began expanding into other countries though, nothing new under the sun there. When Buddhism entered China, it was interpreted through Daoism, when it got to Tibet, it mixed with the Bon religion. Buddhism has always been in flux itself and has been interpreted and mixed with multiple local philosophies and beliefs.

Here is how you attain enlightenment:

1. Fall in love with a carrot danging from a string on a stick.
2. Chase this flying carrot wherever it goes until you obtain it
3. Eat the carrot
4. Now there is no carrot.
5. Love the string and the stick
6. Shove a carrot up your ass

You are not enlightened.

-Tao Lin

>>3589887
U the type of swashbuckler that calls a Michelin tire a misinterpretation of the wooden cartwheel.