The beauty of the message in the video is that those often thought as 'primitive' meditators adhering to mystic religious edicts are actually achieving quantifiable objectives. The only difference between now and when the art of meditation was introduced into those eastern cultures is that, now, the effects can be objectively observed. It's not about science vs culture, it's science in culture. And this is an increasingly growing trend in scientific observations.

My belief:

‘That Which Is' - an eternal awareness - the only thing that exists.

To feel what it’s like not be that, it pretends to be 'that which is not', which is everything we appear to see hear/touch/smell/taste. This ‘pretending’ involves forgetting what it really is until it remembers and wakes up.

'We' don't actually exist, we are, and are in, an illusion. To quote Roger Ebert just before he died, "This is all an elaborate hoax"

So all science vs theism vs philosophy is just over non existent complex detail in an attempt to somehow find a simple neat equation to explain the truth. Good luck with that.

Call me crazy if you like, I don't mind

The beauty of the message in the video is that those often thought as 'primitive' meditators adhering to mystic religious edicts are actually achieving quantifiable objectives. — BrianW

Personally I'm in an absurd position in my life. I owe my current job (income) to Yogananda Paramanhansa's dogma indirectly by charitable benefactors but don't believe in his metaphysics and have a cynical view about it akin to what Karl has expressed. Every now and then there is some admission that fundamentally appeals to me like "Yogi's aren't interested in phenomena" amidst vast tracks of dubious speculation about the "truth" underlying phenomenal world based on special privately experienced phenomena. Meditation is fine, and even good in light of evidence, but the dogma feels like a waste of time.

It makes it seem as if Yogananda's lies are a means to an end. Meditation is the greatest good in his eyes so it's ok to seduce folks into it by lying. If the structure for persuasion isn't there, no one will come. Or he is not intentionally lying at all from his point of view but is just a product of his lineage (an inherited metaphysics from his guru).

The instances of folks using sleight of hand to charm and beguile their adherents into believing dogma makes me very angry. Yogananda is very likely guilty of doing this. It conveys bad faith, that there is an ulterior motive going on.

I don't think Yogananda lied to his followers, it's just that he did not account for the difference in culture. Back in his native India, if people left their homes and occupations and went to live a life of contemplation, nobody would think it strange. In the western world, it begs the question,

Why would meditation require me (or anyone else) to do that?

However, the answer was given a while back (ironically by his teacher in one of his previous incarnations - he thought he was Arjuna) by Krishna when he said,

The one who actively performs one’s own duty without desiring a profit is a true sannyasi.
Such one is a Yogi, rather than those living without a fire and duties.
(Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 6; 1)

The path to enlightenment doesn't need anyone to stand out from others or take any special considerations contrary to what many believe.

I have come to find that the biggest point of conflict between eastern teachings on spirituality and the western (now modern) understanding is, primarily, the difference in cultural practices. Even rational teachings seem weird because they're presented in the unaccustomed way. The way of eastern teachings was through symbolism while the western world prefers direct expression.

Meditation is fine, and even good in light of evidence, but the dogma feels like a waste of time. — Nils Loc

Another problem with eastern teachings is that of the corruption of the teachings by those who do not fully understand. Just as, currently, in the modern world, there are lots of wanna be celebrities who are inclined to 'fake it till they make it', so also the bane of the ancient eastern world of spirituality is that there were a lot of wanna be teachers of exemplary ineptitude whose effects on spiritual teachings have been worse for their meddling. However, if taught by a capable teacher, most of what seems outrageous becomes commonsense if not quite intelligent.

Personally, to gain some understanding of the teachings on spirituality, I've had to filter out most of the relative conditioning accompanying the teachings. Sometimes it's culture, language or just plain personal preference. Often, I've found the core teachings to be exceedingly rational.

The no cursing thing was just out of paranoia really, but within a day I noticed more mobility of the throat chakra, and action in that channel between the stomach and nectar of immortality in the top of the mouth, which when aligned properly, allows the toxins that are generated in the throat there to be purified in the stomach.

See, that is another reason I get crap, because I used eastern techniques, like yoga a lot, and people think that makes it evil. Never planned it, or thought much about it, but I actually think that not cursing is making a big difference. Reading about it suggests precisely this, that irreverent, vulgar, or disrespectful speaking disaligns the throat.

Imho, unity is the reality, and that what is being discussed are various techniques for overcoming the perception of division. — Jake

Exactly. I couldn't have said it better. — BrianW

I'd bet we can say it better, so perhaps we could try together.

What is the source of the illusion of division?

If we answer that the source of the illusion of division is incorrect thoughts, then the door is opened to many different competing religions and philosophies etc all attempting to uncover and articulate the correct thoughts. This process has been going on for thousands of years with rather limited constructive result, and at the price of considerable social division and conflict both rhetorical and real. It's debatable whether this process has actually solved more problems than it has caused.

If we answer instead that the source of the illusion of division is the medium of thought itself, then all of the above can be swept away in a single movement. After all, what would be the point of arguing about competing philosophies for thousands of years if the illusion we are trying to cure arises from that which all philosophies are made of?

If the source of the illusion of division is the medium of thought itself, then a never ending search for the perfect philosophy can be replaced by simple mechanical methods of managing the medium of thought. And so, a solution of sorts becomes far more accessible to very many more people, because the remedy no longer involves sophisticated esoteric concepts and all of that.

In this way of looking at the problem, thought is just another mechanical function of the body which requires ongoing management to remain healthy, just like all our other biological processes. We have to eat, but not too much. We have to sleep, but not too much. We have to think, but not too much. Simple. Obvious. Common sense.

A price tag of this perspective is that we have to let go of the dream of a perfect permanent solution, ie. "enlightenment". If the illusion of division arises from thought itself, and we have to think to survive, then some degree of illusion and thus suffering will always be with us.

Luckily, nature provides a solution here, we'll all be dead so much sooner than we realize. Help is on the way, just hang in there a bit longer! :smile:

But, uh oh, here comes an obstacle to simple solutions. If the problem and solution is basically simple the "clerical class", by which I mean all teachers, gurus, priests, philosophers and shamans etc, are no longer needed. And so the authority generating machine of all religions and philosophies works to make sure the subject remains complicated, elusive, in need of experts.

The clerical class is largely made up of people just like us, articulate people who like complications. And they typically have an added skill, the ability to generate authority. Put all this together, and the result is thousands of years of unnecessary complexity and conflict, all in the name of peace.

The illusion of division which so afflicts us arises directly from the medium of thought we are made of psychologically. That's why suffering is a universal property of the human condition, whatever the time and place, culture, philosophy, or religion etc.

I understand meditation as something that isn't done, it just happens. As for wannabees, they are just human beings like everyone else, just doing what seems best, they exist everywhere. Buddhism says the middle way is best, which seems obvious to me, but that path isn't a straight line, it's impossible to walk that path instead we have waver side to side fron the dotted line because all humans are flawed.

What is the source of the illusion of division? — Jake

I think it is confounding the absolute with the relative. When we think that all there is to us is the relative (or limited) life, we fail to recognise the fundamental on which everything is based - Reality. The absolute is that part of reality which remains constant, while the relative is that part which undergoes change or manifests as activity.
The relative is often regarded as the illusory part of life because it has no permanence due to its limitations and therefore it does not fully reflect the whole of reality. So, to find the absolute, we must first find the part of us which is tethered to reality. And because reality is absolute, it means everything is tethered to it. This tether must be constant for as long as we are a 'something' within reality. This means that, no matter our changing thoughts, emotions, physical body, etc, there is an unyielding connection to reality. This, I believe, is what is designated as 'self' (or atman in the Bhagavad Gita) and is the distinct connection with reality. Having realised this 'self' it becomes possible to know reality. Using the 'self' one learns about reality and, the greater the understanding of the absolute gained, the less the persistence in separation (relativity). Eventually, being fully in the state of realisation of absoluteness, one may be said to be enlightened in comparison to those in the relative state.

I think enlightenment is where the consciousness is fixed in the state of absoluteness because in that state one is all and all is one.

I understand meditation as something that isn't done, it just happens. — TWI

Allow me to share my two cents about meditation.

From my perspective meditation is the deliberate application of mind.* Instead of letting the mind wander, one directs it with a specific intent. In spirituality, meditation is used to 'quiet' or 'still' the mind. This means directing the focus of consciousness away from the objects/subjects of the mind and observing the mind as a whole as though from an external perspective, where one observes it as one 'thing' instead of the many objects/subjects within the mind.

From the point of view of spiritual teachings, consciousness is an aspect of 'self' (see explanation in previous post) and is derived from reality and, therefore, it can be integrated (inserted) or disintegrated (withdrawn) from the mind. But, if you hold to the idea that consciousness arises in the mind, then withdrawal means unconsciousness and it becomes impossible to deliberately 'still' the mind. Most conflict arises at this point because not much has been investigated about consciousness and, therefore, it is a matter of personal endeavour to determine which school of thought you align with.


* [A much, much later correction - It is more appropriate to suggest that meditation is the deliberate and focused application of awareness e.g., upon the mind.]

Meaning no disrespect to anyone, and being guilty of excessive typoholic philosophy myself....

What if we were to just sweep all these ideas away and focus on the EXPERIENCE of unity?

Typically, we try to use some collection of ideas as a tool which is supposed to move us towards the experience of unity. Assembling the correct collection of ideas is seen as important, so we spend a LOT of time on that, studying various religions and philosophies etc.

What if we just skipped over all the ideas?

When we're physically hungry we don't turn it in to some sophisticated philosophical issue requiring experts etc, we are practical and direct, and just go get something to eat.

Why not approach psychic hunger in the same manner? Why not cut out the middleman of ideas and just stop doing so much of that which is creating the illusion of division?

I like what @Jake says about transcending the sign-system itself, eschewing the articulation of the absolute as its self-violation. 'Don't try.' The mistake is assuming there is a mistake. The pursuit of enlightenment is the impossibility of enlightenment. But grasping just this is an enlightenment through concepts after all. The absolute has to violate itself with noise to grasp itself as silence. The silence is the neutralized memory of noise.

I've been dwelling on a different concept-celebrating notion of enlightenment based on self-consciousness through concept (basically a stew of Hegel and others I'm reading.) We can just as easily celebrate the concept in its systematic and immersed-in-the-sensual-and-emotional (enfleshed and enworlded) movement toward its own darkness, the always-failing always-striving self-articulation as pure opportunity. (Or, if we just want to put it in simple words, philosophy is already heaven. Philosophy is is a prayer and praise directed at philosophy.) I associate these ideas with Hegel, whose theology (and therefore god as seed) celebrates concept as philosophy's possibility. 'God' waits in the future, a future that is the life of theology-philosophy as well as its continual death (a death attached to it, as a dog to a tail.) Man would be a futile passion if he could not mock himself as a futile passion?

Here's a little defense of the grand language and quasi-religious feel. 'Philosophy shouldn't talk about god.' Why not? Philosophy is after truth. Philosophy is atheistic. And what is this truth? Why this truth? Philosophy must already be telling the truth about itself, have truth, be truth in order to decide itself for truth, a truth it must already talk about. Is the secret of eternal truth just an ideal community to be? in the self-making? And directed always others and one's own to-be? Does the decision (that philosophy is after truth, for instance) ever see itself? Or does it lose its fixity with its appearance for itself? 'I didn't know I believed that. Do I believe that?' Philosophy is doubt. Why? Doubt is good. An intention blind to itself in its movement. A basic structure of affirmation, if only the affirmation that affirmation can be 'sin' (not done among nice people.) Doubt is good. The atheistic or agnostic question is 'God,' incarnate in the strict atheist, an example toward the founding of an ideal community-to-be --and that which exists for this community is the real. The world exists 'for' a passionate subject, and yet this 'subject' is passionate about its own boundary, the to-be-seen world-with-the-others, becoming more and more a 'we' as opposed to an 'I.'. The 'subject' is a movement toward substance in its highest sense, a sense that includes ideal (necessarily translucently veiled) community, 'god', 'truth.' And substance is a something that determines what this same something (itself) is. The word 'god' stores the non-technical motive of even the most mechanical and deworlded of philosophies. What does it mean to want to be taken seriously?

I think it is confounding the absolute with the relative. When we think that all there is to us is the relative (or limited) life, we fail to recognise the fundamental on which everything is based - Reality. The absolute is that part of reality which remains constant, while the relative is that part which undergoes change or manifests as activity. — BrianW

This to me is the thought of the pure, eternal present -- the 'pure witness.' This 'I am' at its most general, the 'I am' that anyone (and therefore no one as one ?) can say. Or maybe this 'witness' is too self-conscious. You might be pointing at being itself, or the possibility of being, the space for beings.

Do we abstract this present as an ideal object from a language that can only live in time and incident? It occurs to me that the possibility of the creation of the pure present (as fiction) can be thought of as constantly present. The pure present is truly universal, maximally social. Is this its value? And, or, or in other words that it doesn't die? Why is it good (do we tend to find it good) to recognize as reality that which remains constant? Or the unchanging space of and for changing things?

So, to find the absolute, we must first find the part of us which is tethered to reality. And because reality is absolute, it means everything is tethered to it. This tether must be constant for as long as we are a 'something' within reality. This means that, no matter our changing thoughts, emotions, physical body, etc, there is an unyielding connection to reality. This, I believe, is what is designated as 'self' (or atman in the Bhagavad Gita) and is the distinct connection with reality. Having realised this 'self' it becomes possible to know reality. — BrianW

Very beautifully put. Spirit has to lick its wings clean to know itself as spirit.

one may be said to be enlightened in comparison to those in the relative state. — BrianW

I like this as a line that brings everything down to earth. Instead of viewing enlightenment as some static state (perfectly present in silence stillness), I think it makes more sense to think in terms of a generally better sense of life. We can talk in less suspicious terms as a more pleasurable way of thinking and feeling about our situation. The vulnerable individual is still down here. He or she is just in touch with a valuable mode of being, intermittently and yet with a poetry that overhears and edits itself. (Scientism thinks it denies itself this pleasure, but lives to sing its own praises in the same way.)

If we answer instead that the source of the illusion of division is the medium of thought itself, then all of the above can be swept away in a single movement. — Jake

But only in the doing of it, perhaps. To think the other of division is to divide. Division's other is a product of division (while maybe division is simultaneously a product of its other.)

If the problem and solution is basically simple the "clerical class", by which I mean all teachers, gurus, priests, philosophers and shamans etc, are no longer needed. And so the authority generating machine of all religions and philosophies works to make sure the subject remains complicated, elusive, in need of experts. — Jake

This is beautiful and gets to the heart of the issue. For me the tricky part is that the best gurus are always anti-gurus. The anti-guru or anti-try position has to be remember and imposed against 'positive' positions to be heard. It has to posit its own negativity (be 'positive' and exist in division.) And it wants to speak itself, at least sometimes. The 'real' shaman is, in other words, the anti-shaman who remains necessary in the context of a tendency toward mystification and distance. The overcoming of mystification and distance is itself (in some sense) a last form of such mystification and distance, inasmuch as it exists still as a goal, a to-be-had. And if one falls in love with this project then one is only at the beginning of its implementation. The self becomes a darkness to be explored for unseen mystification and distance.

If the structure for persuasion isn't there, no one will come. — Nils Loc

Excellent point. And if our speaking is directed outward in order to change (initially) the imperfectly mutually experienced conceptual and emotional realm, this structure of persuasion might always be there in some sense, so that we can think of different manifestations of the same-enough good-enough 'truth' directed at a particular audience.

Those who seek the guru will only listen to the anti-guru to the degree that he is recognizable in the guru role. It occurs to me that seeking the guru for answers already answers the question to be asked in some sense. What's the truth about truth? What is the real science? Who I bring these questions to already answers them in some sense, yet not completely or I wouldn't ask. And if I think I already kinda know, then I still want to talk about it, and I still need the right want better and better words. So into the darkness of the future as gloriously unsaid....

I think heaven is a state of consciousness not a place, one should try to be beneficial or at least harmless for its own sake. — Noah Te Stroete

Those are a couple of my favorite ideas. The goal is a mode of existing. 'Virtue is its own reward.' The desired mode is fundamentally giving and friendly. What I like about this is (among other things) the proximity of 'heaven' and the 'divine.' It's something we are always already doing, at least intermittently. One vision of philosophy (among so many others) is that of the kind of thinking that gets us to better or more frequent versions of this mode.

In other words, does selfish intention taint altruistic action? — gnat

Perhaps it helps to compare altruism to selfishness.

Yes, altruism eventually serves the self. You feel better or become famous or whatever. But, the point is, there's benefit to others too.

Selfishness, on the other hand, serves no one but the self.

Altruism=self+others
Selfishness=self only

The ''others'' is critical I guess.

What is the source of the illusion of division? — Jake

I think it is confounding the absolute with the relative. — BrianW

What is it that divides reality in to the "absolute" and the "relative"?

I think enlightenment is where the consciousness is fixed in the state of absoluteness because in that state one is all and all is one. — BrianW

How does one remain fixed in a "state of absoluteness where all is one" using a medium that operates by a process of division?

I've defined my view of the term enlightenment - but what's yours? A claim to superior understanding and authority that has no practical means of demonstration? — karl stone

I don't think any claims have been made. The topic here is enlightenment in the sense that Eastern philosophy uses it. You have chosen to derail it by focussing on a valid alternative meaning that was not and is not the subject of THIS topic. Enough, I think. :up:

If the focus of such endeavors was on experience, and not interpretations of experience, then a vast ocean of unnecessary conflict would be rendered unnecessary.

This in my interpretation, and it's way better than anybody else's interpretation, so there!

What is it that divides reality in to the "absolute" and the "relative"? — Jake

Why is it good to recognize reality that which remains constant? Or the unchanging space of and for changing things? — sign

I don't know. These, I believe, are some of the great unanswered questions. If reality is in unity, harmony and ultimate freedom, why should there be a need for any transition from a state of relativity to absoluteness, or from any state to another? Can't everything be ok just the way it is?

As far as I can tell, the answer is humans. For whatever reason, humans want to change. We want more of somethings and less of somethings. We want inspirations such as enlightenment, heaven, peace, etc and we want to avoid deterrents such as ignorance, hell, death, etc.
Is all of it an illusion? Perhaps.
But, how would it be if we denied it? Suppose we chose not to change in any way, would that be possible?
The valid teachings on the path to enlightenment say that while at any part of the journey, it is impossible to see the whole path. The idea is that, as one moves forward, one becomes able to perceive the next few steps ahead. Thus gradually, one is able to see more of the path the further one progresses. And, as one becomes familiarised with the path, one is able to realise more choices and, consequently, greater freedom in one's actions.
Does this make sense? Possibly. Is it something one is willing to accept? Choices, it all depends on choice.

Another factor about eastern teachings on spirituality, unlike the western (modern), is their insistence on personal endeavour. The teachings on enlightenment (e.g. by Krishna or Buddha) are given by teachers who've attained it for themselves. And, they give the methodology by which anyone can attain the same degree as them, but only if one is willing to put in the necessary efforts. Western (modern) teachings allow people to wait for scholars to discover things for them. This has a tendency to make people lazy and complacent. It's why we find so many people who're willing to regard spiritual teachings as nonsense without having taken the time to venture into them for the sake of better understanding.

All I can say is, there is a natural tendency, a flow, in nature whereby it seeks to be better realised. This is understood predominantly as the impulse to evolution. The reason or purpose behind it, I'm afraid, still escapes my understanding. But, I recognise it as a part of nature, both internal and external, as a part of me and others, and choose to direct my efforts into venturing further into fields of knowledge in search of whatever truths that may lie within. And, as it turns out, in more ways than one, we're all doing the same, each to their own capability.

How does one remain fixed in a "state of absoluteness where all is one" using a medium that operates by a process of division? — Jake

I think, first, one transcends the relative. That is achieved by directing the consciousness to that which is constant. After that, one endeavours to remain or return to that state of absoluteness (unity) as much as possible because one is more inclined to better perform actions which one is more accustomed to. It's like practice makes perfect.

I think the difficult part of this is whether one understands the consciousness to be an aspect derived from reality (the absolute) or an aspect which has its rise in the mind (which is relative). If the latter, then I don't see how one can realise unity.

I think, first, one transcends the relative. That is achieved by directing the consciousness to that which is constant. — BrianW

So thought conceptually divides reality in to the "relative" and the "constant". And then, having created the division, thought cooks up the goal of moving from the relative towards the constant in order to heal the division.

Put another way, thought conceptually divides reality in to "me" and "everything else", a process which generates fear and suffering, so then thought cooks up the goal of somehow reuniting "me" with "everything else" to escape the suffering.

Why not just take a break from thinking?

What's the point of including all the complex esoteric concepts middlemen? Why not just skip all of that?

To me, it all seems to boil down to where one thinks the illusion of division is being generated.

GURU: If one sees the source of the illusion being incorrect thought content, that suggests a process of philosophy etc to replace the incorrect thoughts with correct thoughts, a very elaborate process which has been going on for thousands of years.

ANTI-GURU: If one sees the source of the illusion being the medium of thought, then the subject becomes radically simpler. Take a break from thinking.

What the guru approach has going for it is that it promises a perfect permanent solution.

What the anti-guru approach has going for it is that the guru approach can't deliver on it's promise.

One thing the "anti-guru" approach (for lack of a better word) may be able to contribute is to help the reader clarify their relationship with all these enlightenment related philosophies.

Does the reader see the philosophies as a means to an end? Or are they an end in themselves?

As example, imagine that it could be proven that the only path to enlightenment was to play golf, and that everything else was a waste of time. Would the reader then immediately drop the philosophies and buy some golf clubs? Or would the reader decline golf and remain a philosopher?

What is the real goal? What is the bottom line for the reader?

So thought conceptually divides reality in to the "relative" and the "constant". — Jake

I don't know about this. I understand consciousness to be different from thought. Consciousness allows us to recognise thoughts but it can also transcend thoughts by going beyond the relativity of the mind.

Imho, unity is the reality, and that what is being discussed are various techniques for overcoming the perception of division. — Jake

Exactly. I couldn't have said it better. — BrianW

The idea is that, as one moves forward, one becomes able to perceive the next few steps ahead. Thus gradually, one is able to see more of the path the further one progresses. And, as one becomes familiarised with the path, one is able to realise more choices and, consequently, greater freedom in one's actions.
Does this make sense? — BrianW

I think this makes sense. We can describe this as the journey of potential freedom toward finding itself as actual freedom. Let's say that enlightenment is something like recognizing mind as the source of divisions and distinctions. We still have the journey of the mind toward such a realization. And the very concept of mind would have to be generated by mind upon this journey. The concepts that point at conceptualization (as the potentially self-alienating source of division) have to be generated by this conceptualization before they can point to it. So even if enlightenment is timeless in the sense of a repeatable act of meaning (a grabbing one's self from out of the 'illusion' and pain), it still has its source in confusion and time.

The teachings on enlightenment (e.g. by Krishna or Buddha) are given by teachers who've attained it for themselves. And, they give the methodology by which anyone can attain the same degree as them, but only if one is willing to put in the necessary efforts. Western (modern) teachings allow people to wait for scholars to discover things for them. This has a tendency to make people lazy and complacent. It's why we find so many people who're willing to regard spiritual teachings as nonsense without having taken the time to venture into them for the sake of better understanding. — BrianW

I really like this. Hegel basically makes the same point in his preface. He sketches out the journey of consciousness toward its own truth in a self-consciously exoteric way. The reader cannot just take some 'X is Y' proposition and call it a day. Both X and Y (signs in the discourse) change their meaning on the path. Experience is a shifting of meaning, one might say. Heidegger also speaks of a fundamental attunement. An 'eros' directs us toward 'enlightenment. The philosopher or man as metaphysician or seeker responds to a vague call. Philosophy, love of wisdom. 'Philosophy is love.' And real love is manifest in the struggle to get what is love right, to liberate wisdom from confusion.

I remember a phase where I rejected spiritual teachings as nonsense. Eventually I realized that this accusation of nonsense was something that I had got from a spiritual teaching that understood itself mistakenly as the opposite of a spiritual teaching. My rejection of the spiritual was spirituality, its iconoclastic aspect. IMV, the basic conceptual pieces of spirituality tend to be understood. The hater of the spiritual is (without realizing) hating the same idolatry that these spiritual traditions are founded against not on. But idolatrous thinking of one variety can only understand another discourse idolatrously. For instance, the modern thought of the ahistorical isolated subject is almost nakedly a thought of god in heaven, eternal and apart from everything worldly. The problem of an external world is a desiccated thought of incarnation. How can 'God' (the skull-bound ego) know anything but itself? Everything is an illusion or an approximation of the absent real. So this anti-theological skeptical and isolated ego ends up justifying calling everything familiar an illusion in the name of its own nature as...isolated ego. And anti-spiritual discourse is still directed outward at an ideal community, the scientists as saints to be, godlike when assembled in their recognition of one and the same pure reason.

All I can say is, there is a natural tendency, a flow, in nature whereby it seeks to be better realised. This is understood predominantly as the impulse to evolution. The reason or purpose behind it, I'm afraid, still escapes my understanding. But, I recognise it as a part of nature, both internal and external, as a part of me and others, and choose to direct my efforts into venturing further into fields of knowledge in search of whatever truths that may lie within. And, as it turns out, in more ways than one, we're all doing the same, each to their own capability. — BrianW

I like this too. Again I find something like this in Hegel and Heidegger. Phenomenology can be a primal science that doesn't still the flow of life because life is a hermeneutical voyage already on the way to its vivification. This makes sense of 'authenticity' and man as a 'futural' being. I am 'properly' human as I move into my own darkness as a torch that would light it up. Man 'is' enlightenment. Enlightenment eventually lights up this movement you speak of which can be retrospectively projected on the wandering and wondering that preceded it. The oak tree understands what hides in the acorn. But the oak tree can only understand this by remembering the path of its own self-consciousness toward a certain kind of completion (as enlightenment or the torch in the darkness.)

One thing the "anti-guru" approach (for lack of a better word) may be able to contribute is to help the reader clarify their relationship with all these enlightenment related philosophies. — Jake

I agree, and this for me threatens the distinction of guru and anti-guru.

Does the reader see the philosophies as a means to an end? Or are they an end in themselves? — Jake

I some experience them as means to an end. But for me philosophy eventually exists to keep its own flame and praise itself with an infinity of self-descriptions. Their is an ecstasy in enlightenment talk. We have the image of light. I think of a torch. Olympians carry a torch.

What if thinking is a flame that wants to grow? To think bigger and brighter? The anti-guru approach might be summed up as a pointing at the seeking as the very thing it seeks and yet flees. But the seeking is really only potentially the thing sought. The seeking has to somehow recognize itself as the sought, and I think we see this kind of thing in Hegel (and apparently in much earlier traditions.)

But does anyone really need all this grand talk? I wouldn't say so. Some love it and relate to it. Others seem to do well without it, perhaps simply because they have good relationships and a user-friendly situation in the world.

Their is an ecstasy in enlightenment talk. — sign

Well, ok, yes, I have no objection to someone enjoying the talk. Just trying to help clarify what our relationship with that is. If we're talking the talk because it's fun, and we know that's what we're doing, I have no complaints. To the degree I have a complaint, it is with the illusion that the talking will lead to anything other than more talking.

The anti-guru approach might be summed up as a pointing at the seeking as the very thing it seeks and yet flees. — sign

I'm not opposed to seeking, just trying to make such efforts more realistic. If we are seeking to be a bit saner, sounds good to me. If we are seeking for some permanent perfect solution, sounds like a self delusional becoming trip. And I'm not even against that, but, you know, this is a philosophy forum, so...