what are people’s thoughts on this…
i’m asking in response to an idyllic couple of days of revision in which i’ve spent most of my time in the sunshine in regents park…oh, and i also just got moby’s play…top, top music…
anyway i wanna know what you people think…
Being about as spiritual as a spanner, I’m probably not the best person to answer this. But heck, I’ll give it a go. In my opinion it’s simply a life-changing experience, for the better, where you suddenly become aware of a force which suddenly makes you feel you have a greater understanding of the world around you. Or something.
I think that the word enlightenment can only have personal meaning. I wouldn’t argue that there is some sort of universal enlightenment. In other words, I don’t think that there is something that happens to anyone and that makes them enlightened. For someone, enlightenment may come from a realisation that life is entirely devoid of meaning, for someone else it could come from finding a new meaning. Surely there could only be some sort of universal enlightenment if there was a universal truth.
Therefore enlightenment in a religious context may involve ‘finding God’ or discovering a previously unrecognised spirituality. In a secular context, it could mean reaching a new level of understanding or seeing the world in an entirely different way. For something to qualify for being a source of enlightenment though for an individual I think it would have to change his philosophy of life/ his outlook. This would then result in a change in the person’s character.
Enlightenment is probably just a sham propagated by professional philosophers to justify their work.
It was certainly key to the creation of a strange cult in Northern India in order to support a down-and-out who hadn’t eaten for some time…now what was his name?
Unenlightenment = Ignorance.
Ignorance = Being unaware of what you don’t know.
So much in the same way as Plato (it was Plato who said it yeah? One of the big Greek 3 anyway… ), ignorance is thinking you know a lot, wisdom is knowing that you know very little. Enlightenment, for me anyway, is simply the point at which we can break free from societal constraints and see things from a perspective unsullied by your own emotions, prejudices or those of the community in which you live. It’s a realisation where you become properly aware of your mode of existence (your essence) and where you become aware of, and begin to develop your Dasein - the most fundamental part of human existence: the being that allows us to comprehend being.
Enlightenment, then, is a hightened state of awareness - for those of you who have read Satre’s Nausea, you’ll probably understand what I mean by this. I wish I could see the world in the same way as Roquentin - I find it hard see how you can be unhappy, when you are so accutely aware of existence all around you, to the point where it permeates your very being, your very Dasein.
I doubt that anyone can reach this level of enlightenment (without drugs anyway - but that’s another story) but it’s still a pleasant thing to aim for.
jp i agree, reading/revising being and time puts the whole dasein thing into context…
re a universal truth, reading heidegger, husserl, nietzsche, ie. real philosophers and comparing what they have to say to other “inauthentic”, smirk, philosophers it strikes me that everyone is talking about the same thing…just that as each person presents us with a new and unique possibility for experience, each of those people has a unique perspective…
fuck that…sounds like hippy drivel shit!!!
hehe…???
What’s the difference between an authentic and an inauthentic philosopher?
depends, what’s the punchline?
It is surely impossible to see things without emotion or prejudice.
This is one of the fundamentally interesting things about human beings- if we were enlightened in the way that you suggest, we would simply be reduced to the level of machines.
That’s quite correct. There is no way of empirically testing yourself or someone to know whether you’re totally void of those humanistic traits. i.e. “societal constraints” and of “your own emotions” in this sense. But this however does not offer a reason not to attempt this challenge of daesia or whatever the fuck he called it. The closer one gets to this form of “spirituality”, one more is surely better off in judgment of themselves and of the outer world.
In this case one is better off in attempting to achieve this seemingly impossible goal. This of course is completely unlike my effort of attempting to fly after watching superman 3 times as an 8 year old…
Funnily enough, although I may come across as quite anti-religious on these boards, I do have some respect for certain aspects of some buddhist teachings. In particular, enlightenment to them (nirvana) is characterised by getting rid of all personal desires and attachments, and thus ending suffering… the ultimate idea of detachment?
Great! Buddhism! Love it! Hope to post a new topic on it soon. Arguably Buddhism is a philosophy and not a religion but certainly no Buddhist would ever bother to argue the point either way.
I also like the Buddhist view of enlightenment because it does not postulate any other wordly essence, it simple means the ‘cessation of thirst’ when you have overcome the fact that everything in the world (including ourselves) is impermanent and to no longer cling to keep things the same or strive to make them different.
Become Buddha by practising Meditation which will help reach Nirvana taking you out of Samsara which you will stay in until you better your Karma which will only happen when you accept Annata, Dukkha and Annica. (lesson 1 in buddhism, dont’ quote me on this) er…not sure where that bit was going really…
Yep, I agree entirely. I wasn’t suggesting that we reject our emotions outright and attempt to disregard them at all costs. Without emotions, human existence, as I see it anyway, loses all meaning so I certainly wouldn’t advocate an absolutely indifferent, stoical approach to life at all.
All I’m suggesting is that we must control our emotions and not have them control us: how many wars would have been avoided if this were the case?
And as for prejudices… well, dualism necessitates them I suppose, so it would be impossible for human beings to discard all prejudices in this sense, but at the same time it’s not too difficult - assuming the individual is willing to change - to overcome many of them and attempt to see things as objectively as possible, without basing judgements purely on your own experience. You may argue that our experience is all we can ever truly know - and that would be a valid point - but at the same time, we have to recognise that our individual human essence does not constitute the entirity of existence. If you find that this mild objectification of perception and understanding “mechanises” us, then I can only wonder what foundations you would base any system of practical morality on.
That’s true. It’s impossible to make a proper self-assessment on such a subjective issue as this - which is part of the problem. Some people assume they’re always right, but that’s because the same internal system of logic that created these prejudices in the first place, would be the one that would have to critique them in any quest for objectification or “extrospection”. How can someone overcome their prejudices when they are unequipped to do so? The same people who are likely to be guided by emotion and prejudice - to the point where the formation of any objective rationale is impossible - are also the people least likely to be able to discard them. So it’s a catch 22.
So, for the same reason, it’s often very difficult to judge when we are in the wrong - or may be in the wrong - or when we can truly say we’ve overcome ourselves in some ways to become in any way enlightened. The same cognitive processes that gave birth to our “world-view” - or Dasein I suppose - are the only ones we can rely on to overcome and change these parts of ourselves: we require our Dasein to change itself in order to attain any notion of “self-improvement”, but when you consider that the Dasein is the very metaphysical foundation of our being, how can you postulate a being one step further removed to objectively judge it? It’s a bit like the “if God created the universe, what created god” argument: if we can objectify or quanitify the Dasein by postulating a mode of being one step further removed, then what does this mode of being become? If you argue that we don’t need to postulate a more distant form of being to understand our own Dasein, then how can we form an objective judgement of it? Of whether we are becoming enlightened, acting morally by an objective standard etc? Surely it would just be our Dasein judging itself, caught up in a loop of its own internal logic. So, just like the people I spoke of before who are unequipped to judge themselves on a more superficial level, perhaps us white-beards, too, are unable to make any sort of proper judgement about such things as enlightenment.
I think my logic’s a little cloudy, but I hope you get my drift.
Also, good to see you’ve joined the party mate.
Yeah but surely that’s an unsatisfactory mode of existence though? Quash desire and what do you have left? What possible satisfaction can you attain from life? If you desire nothing, how can anything make you happy? Surely the quest for enlightenment - or knowlegde - is a desire in itself?
As Neitzsche said, stifling desire is antithetical to human existence. If we use Schopenhauerian (now there’s a word) parlance, if the will has nothing to direct itself upon - or no actual direction at all - how can we form an idea: a particular mode of being? Interestingly, I think Schopenhauer advocated a more stoical, “rationalism above emotivism” archetype for his ideal ethical essence, but, if you construe the will as synomymous with human desire to some degree (which, from what I understand of it, doesn’t seem to be an unreasonable assumption) then I don’t quite understand how Schopenhauer ended up with the conclusions he did.
But anyway, that’s for another post.
So the desire to change is futile then, as is any pretense to conserve? That’s a pretty grim view isn’t it?
Quick extension of ben’s lesson in buddhism for everyone else who hasn’t studied the religion in all that much detail yet:
Become Buddha (an enlightened one) by practising Meditation (to give you self-control) which will help reach Nirvana (a state where suffering is eliminated through the abandonment of desires) taking you out of Samsara (rebirth in the endless cycle of reincarnations) which you will stay in until you better your Karma (the cause and effect of your actions) which will only happen when you accept Annata (the idea that nothing, including human nature, has an intrinsic permanent existence), Dukkha (that there is suffering inherent in the fabric of life) and Annica (that all life is impermenent).
This may be a grim view, but if you subscribe to it fully, it won’t be unsatisfactory, as you don’t have any sort of desire for a mythical “something” from life. Desires are the cause of human suffering, not happyiness.
Once you understand Annata, Dukkha and Annica are part of the human condition, you are neither happy nor unhappy, but aware of what life really is. You need not be “happy”, for, in buddhist parlence, you have reached nirvana anyway.
enlightenment = the act of having discovered an album by the name of doves - lost souls
hardly. radiohead all the way!
Buddhists don’t actually know what nirvana is. They can’t actually define it. They can only say what it’s not. If you read any Buddhist text, you’ll see Buddhists actually don’t know anything. I personally feel Buddha must have had a little too much of something or other before sitting under that Bodhi tree…
I’m not a Buddhist, nor am I someone with a particular tendency to reproach Buddha-bashers. However, your comments reveal a degree of insularity and may be offensive to some, yet are not backed with any sort of argument. You say Buddhists “don’t actually know what nirvana is” - but surely this is the point. How can you know enlightenment if you have not been enlightened? The Buddhist belief is that they are unenlightened and must endure a life of suffering until, by meditation, they achieve enlightenment/Nirvana. Their whole belief system works on the basis that they do not know what nirvana is until they achieve it, so your condemnatory statements are baseless and ill-founded.
Even if you do not agree with them, you must concede that, if nothing else, at least the Buddhist philosophy has given rise to a people of peace, which is more than can be said for the religions “of the book.”
And if, as you suggest, old Siddartha indulged himself now again…who are we to judge?
jawaad:
saul williams has a nice clice of the enlightenment cake i think…i am a poet who proses what the world composes, who poses what the world comproses…
anyway in response to the buddism quips i find myself it much better to approach things from your own standpoint, what I believe, what I identify myself with, positive active noble, rather than negative reactive attacks upon the positions of others, especially non-descript others which allows use of stereotypes in a rather unwholesome fashion…
enlightenment, illumination, strikes me as someone who knows, who gets it, i have had, and so know it is possible and real, experiences that can only be described as perfect…undescribable glimpses of the true nature of things…an epiphany if you like, in previous ages the only recourse for me would probably have been religion, as they are revelations…of how everything works, what has happened and what will…and as soon as i re-focus my attention upon the fabrication that is my self my ego it goes…gone, out of sight but not out of mind…i’ve never done acid or anything but reports of trips always remind me of it…whatever it makes you feel or think reply, here or in a private message, i’m more likely to read what’s said if it’s actually in a msg, long public topics bore me…i prefer personal discource, as it allows a connection rather than the usual point-scoring bickering that permeates all public boards and discussions…
my view on this subject are much more complicated than what i’ve revealled here, but i felt i should back up my claim with a bit of honesty…
…anyone for hippy drivel shit??
hehe
life is to love and learn
xxx
I also like what JP said about enlightenment, and I like his/her avatar, too. 
Yet, to me, societal restrictions put on our immortal Soul (if it exists, of course) is what we should call Dasein. Because for us, human beings, Dasein is the genus proximum of Lebenswelt, and Lebenswelt is surely not our transcendental Self.
I also believe that Heidegger has radically deteriorated the phenomenological method of Husserl, appending too much ontology to the concept of Inentionality and interpreting it as directedness of human existence (Dasein) towards Death, rather than as inexistential directdedness of consciousness towards things.
Thank you.