i’ve heard these two terms a lot and i can’t work out what they mean. enlightenment can be achieved through many different ways and ultimate truth can be discovered but what is the truth? is it the meaning of life or is it something else, and how can you tell when your enlightened or not. if anybody has a proper idea on these two things and can describe them to me i would be very happy
Well Theory of Truth is a vibrant feild of contemporary Epistomology. So, um, yeah I doubt anyone is going to give you definitive answer within the next 20 years.
In the West, ‘Enlightenment’ is often used in relation to the historical time period. This was the time when science, reason, and rationality were becoming dominant ideas in academia. People started to develop the idea that human reason was the key to knowledge.
In the East, ‘enlightenment’ has many different connotations. It is commonly used in reference to Buddhist religion and the ultimate state of ‘nirvana’. Within Buddhist ideology, enlightenment refers to a state where one is free of all desires and attachments. The mind is sharp and free (in the sense of not belonging to any Being in particular, i.e., a mind that is at one with all things). This mind is capable of seeing reality as it is. As Buddhism spread and developed different branches, ideas about this enlightened state changed as well. If you are interested enough, there are plenty of resources where you can read up on Buddhist/Eastern philosophy.
I think most Buddhists would claim that an enlightened state is unmistakable. You’ll know it if you’re there. The quality of the knowing is a mystery to you and I since we are not there, and it cannot be described using language. Hindu religion (from which Buddhism came) also makes references to these kinds of states. Actually, many Eastern religions/philosophies make use of this idea.
In the case of Buddhism, the ‘ultimate truth’ is to see reality as it is, without filters or personal investment/involvement. To Westerners, this idea seems rather dubious because we are quite heavily attached to our egos and egoic activities. Most people who misunderstand eastern religions generally come to the oversimplified conclusion that they’re ‘escapist’, meaning that devotees are simply using this practice as a way to escape from the mundane world. I think it would be more accurate to say that they are attempting to ‘transcend’ the world, to have real knowledge, and thus, be capable of right action. To them, the meaning of life is to have the ability to see The Truth in order to know how to behave in the world. What exact Truth they’re referring to is much more difficult for us lay people to grasp.
thats really helped me, thank you. i am very interested in this subject and am currently seeking enlightenment but if i am to seek it i am to desire it and all the rest which means i will never reach it. as for ultimate truth it always goes hand in hand with enlightenment but no-one ever says what the truth is but this has got me thinking about it properly, cheers mate
No one says what the truth is because they can’t. Additionally, even if someone could describe the truth to you, you wouldn’t be able to understand it without experiencing it yourself.
You are right about ‘desiring’ enlightenment. Some Buddhists would say that it’s okay for you to have this desire because it sets you on the right track. However, you have to eventually give it up if you’re going to achieve a truly selfless state of compassion…
Apocalypse - if you’re interested in a scholarly understanding of enlightenment then I’d suggest that you read some of Ken Wilber’s works. He’s not peddling a particular approach, but rather trying to understand its nature, and the various interpretations of it.
In my opinion, Truth is personal. I have my Truth, and you have yours. We can deepen our connection to it, we can increase our ability to express it, the more that we heal our unhealed emotional traumas (uet’s). In this sense my Truth is my feelings.
Enlightenment is a very tricky area, in that many people have enlightenment experiences, feel that they are enlightened, but then have problems living up to the realisations that they have had. That results in their being a lot of ‘enlightened’ teachers out there who haven’t actually sorted out all of their own stuff, and can end up being abusive, or leading you in a direction that will not lead you to your enlightenment. In my opinion your best guide is your Truth, your feelings. I don’t think you can reach enlightenment without assistance, and those that can provide signposts are mostly gurus or therapists, but if what they say or suggest feels as if it would involve you going against yourself then I would suggest that you don’t do it. If what they say leads you to feel uncomfortable, but you can recognise the truth in it, then they are probably worth sticking with.
How can you tell if you are enlightened? You feel it. I don’t think that there is any way to prove that you are, so you could just be deluding yourself.
Would someone kindly explain to me what Truth (with a capital “t”) is?
Thanks,
Michael
It is what people desiring enlightenment are supposedly seeking. Since I’m not particularly enlightened, there’s not much more I can say about it. 
Hi Femphil,
Thank you for your honest assessment. I confess that when I hear folks talking about such things that I can’t help but think of something Hannah Arendt once said:
“There is nothing so entertaining as the discussion of a book nobody has read.”
And more seriously, I think of Wittgenstein:
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent.”
Lastly, I see Nietzsche in my mind’s eye, shaking his finger and saying:
“Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that they are not even superficial.”
Regards,
Michael
I’m not sure the East/West distintion is completely fair, it seems to oversimplify the views of both reigions. Most Western Philosophy seems to seek truth in a similiar manner to confucious and his disciples. It involves breaking the world at it seems, seeing what the different parts do and relateing them. In this veiw truth with a capital T would consist of a very large wall chart relateing all concepts to all others.
Then there is the Daoist perspective (which highly influenced the later infusion of Buddhism into the culture.) In Daoism these distinctions don’t lead towards truth but instead away from it. To approach truth one must instead lose distincions. One must realise that wet and dry, hot and cold,… are not really there, but only ways we split up our world. Now the west has had occasional foreys into this line of thought as well. I think I remember some German, (Heidger, Heigle, someone) who liked to droan on about synthesis of our ideas.
Spinoza in particular in intresting, because he useing Confuncian like methods to come at Daoist like conclusions.
I guess what I’m trying to say is, both cultures are probably richer than you have been led to belive. Which is good. 
As I understand it, The Way that can be told is not the True Way. He who says does not know and he who knows does not say. Enlightened is something you cannot kow but you can be. In our qwest for knowledge, each day we add something. But in our qwest for enlightenment, each day we shed some concept, some judgement, some idea, some desire, until we clear our minds of all concepts and judgements, like mud settling in a glass of water, and we finally arrive at 'original mind", the “don’t know mind”. To be enlightened is to be imperturable, serene, patient, to be in total balance, living in simple harmony with what is, remaining always at the center of the circle, embracing both the male and the female, the ying and the yang, accepting the vast unfolding of natural events without the need to be in control. Enlightened beings are said to be magnificent to behold, striking in their inner glow, their teaching being without words, but by their every action, by their daily dance, what they do, how they do it, why they do it, when they do it. It is said that in the enlightened man, each man sees himself and thus is drawn to him. The enlightened man does not speak he acts. When a country is ruled by an enlightened ruler, he does his work and when it is done, the people say, look, we did it all by ourselves. The enlightened man is said to possess nothing, to know nothing, to desire nothing, to do nothing and yet, nothing remains undone, and no need remains unmet.
There is indeed much said about these two things which I do not understand, perhaps because of my disposition. I do seek to understand it though. However, a question always cross my mind when one speaks of an Ultimate Truth. This is what many call “first cause”. I believe that such a first cause denotes a predisposition of reasoning or logic. Which is what I dont really get - you know, if this certain thing is true and things are this particular way when we observe them, then why is it not that they are perhaps another way apart from this? What makes this the Ultimate Truth? Surely, all ignorance is relative and all knowledge from theory seems hypocritical for the reason that there are no truths but for the facts of observation. These are subject to instruments which we use to measure as well, but we really can’t get any better than instruments, in my view, though Im not entirely sure that materialism with incomplete knowledge will be able to explain anything.
I’ll discuss materialism since I am no good at discussing seemingly open ended things. Perhaps someone could discuss the non-material matters of Truth and Enlightenment.
We can usually understand and identify with the conclusions of rational observation of processes, or theories which we have developed which closely describe them. Theories may change from time to time, but the observations remain as good as our instruments are and hence our understanding must require a different theory for guidance if a new instrument sets the standards for understanding this particular phenomenon by capturing it in greater detail whilst accounting for all previous observation or refuting that observation with logic.
What does this have to do with the universal truth? I believe that there is no such thing as an ultimate truth, because of the larger irrelevances of the existence of intelligent life. Perhaps it is because the universe doesn’t actually require us for it to work (though I haven’t checked ) But maybe that is not correct, as it is unarguable. All first causes seem trivial and all universal truths seem wrong as a consequence. This is from an objective standpoint.
If I were to consider the life’s span of things - my requirements and capacities as a result of my individualism, my goals, whims, subjectivities, habits, inclinations, tendencies, and so on and so forth, I would say that there is perhaps an ultimate truth, for me, at my level. This ultimate truth would relate to my deepest aspirations and which would help me identify with the world to deal with it at a subjective, personal level, and with slacking regard for objective philosophy, get on with my life and try to do the things I want to do. But this is not what many people are seeking - they are seeking shortcuts to knowledge and that in itself is perhaps a flaw of seeking the Ultimate Truth or having an ulterior motive.
Enlightenment? How is that possible? Is it just a preconception of the superiority of one’s ego in its equanimity towards all things, a delusion of all-encompassiveness, or it is no delusion but an achievable reality. Is it the balance between handling self and handling others? Is it the wisdom which will take all one’s life to achieve? Is such wisdom or balance truly practical or desirable, given everything else?
Does one attain Enlightenment when he/she discovers the Ultimate Truth (if there is one)? Is Enlightenment betterment or intellectual superority or is it an absolute and a benchmark? Or is it at all existent?
Thanks in advance for any comments.
Lost Guy & Philosophic Caveman,
I agree completely. I was simply making the distinction as a starting ground for someone who knows little about this particular topic. However, Eastern religions do specifically target the ego, whereas Western thought is generally more resistant to this idea. I am also inclined to think that all seekers of truth are heading in pretty much the same direction.
Your assessments are correct, I think. To live without attachment to distinction/division (i.e. ‘oneness’) is the key to not just the Daoist way, but also the Buddhist way. I have grappled with this concept for years but mere intellectual understanding is not enough…
Hi Polemarchus,
I sympathize with your sentiments. I have studied eastern thought for many years now (one reason why I now live in China). Occasionally, I still struggle with ideas surrounding anything considered ‘mystic’ or ‘esoteric’. I try my best to keep an open mind. At the very least, an intellectual understanding is possible. However, if one’s being is to be somehow influenced by these ideas, I suspect one must be willing to surrender something. I have yet to surrender this something (perhaps it is rational thought, perhaps it is skepticism, perhaps it is … ). When I do so, I’ll fill you in on the results.
off to meditate,
femphil
Have you met any Baguazhang teachers? Where in China are you?
ahhhhhh the replies are coming thick and fast which is good because all the views mean people have different ideas on truth and enlightenment which is what its all about. i belive more in the empty yourself of everything kinda of idea because once you are just you then you can truly live. i cant remember who said it but “if you live in the past you’re dead, if you live in the future you havn’t been born yet and if you live in the present then you are alive”
Polemarchus - I use a capital T because that is the way I’ve seen it written in many of the books or articles that I’ve read. On reflection I think that it is appropriate since it is being used as a proper noun, in the sense of it being a unique kind of truth.
I believe this is an area which attracts a lot of words, without always adopting the more rigorous discipline of philosophical debate. However, in my opinion, there is much here that is worth discussion. I see philosophy as trying to increase our understanding of the world, of trying to think our way through the difficulties in life, of trying to find answers to questions and questions to answer. Philosophy, I think, is predominantly a mental exercise. The search for enlightenment, I think, has a lot more to do with feelings - about love, about feeling at one with yourself, and at one with the world, about how we relate to each other. I believe it is always possible to improve upon our situation in life, whether that is a mental, emotional or physical change. Further, I believe it is a healthy desire to try and improve.
What I don’t get, is how do you figure emptiing ones mind or such is the right thing to do? And if its not the right thing to do, then what is the motivation for doing it? I mean I understand its supposed to be pleasent but I’ve never liked hedonism.
I seek truth the Confucian/Analytic way, because if I uptain that Truth then I will know the percise right thing to do at every moment, and can have the most positive effect on my complete universe. Running off into emptiness seems to me at best selfish and at worst terrifiying.
Quid est Veritas?
I would say that which is not false. As best as I reckon, one excludes the other. Of course the skeptic in me says “prove it” and the idealist starts imagining various scenarios where it may or may not be the case.
That stated, if the Truth is a matter of degree, there must either be an endpoint or it is infinite. The terms True and False imply the endpoints. From there I guess it is a safe bet to say that which serves as the Truth (capital T) is the endpoint.
Kinda like this:
F_______________________________________________T
(Here is everything that could possibly be true or false)
If it is infinite then well, no finite being will be able to answer your question.
I live in a small town called Guilin, located in one of the poorer provinces of Southern China. No, haven’t met any Baguazhang teachers (though I’d like to have some around). Sadly, the closest I’ve come (which is not very close at all) is my younger brother, who is apparently studying to become a ninja back in Canada. 
Are you interested in Daoism or Baguazhang or both?