For Plotinus, man "is in some sense divine, and the object of the philosophic life is to understand this divinity and restore its proper relationship with the divine All and, in that All, to come to union with its transcendent source, the One or Good". Plotinus's philosophy is difficult to elucidate, precisely because what it seeks to elucidate is a manner of thinking that precedes what one terms 'discursive thought'. — Plotinus, Lecture Notes

And yet man being thought as in some sense divine, the philosophic life being thought of as consisting in understanding this divinity and restoring its "proper relationship with the Divine All", and "coming into union with its transcendent source", the One or Good" is either nebulous, even vacuous, or else discursive, and not a manner of thinking that precedes discursive thought; or perhaps it is both not thinking which precedes discursive thought and it is vacuous.

So, the question is whether all this conceptualization of a "goal" is necessary or whether it is all not just one of the many fancy ways of talking about the radically different disposition of one who has realized a state of non-attachment.

fancy ways of talking — Janus

a.k.a. 'philosophy'.

Not sure I will ever fully understand Parmenides or Plotinus or comprehend idealism, but I take it from all this that an empiricist will never find the soteriological release of nirvana.

Philosophy consists in different ways of thinking about many different things; it is not merely "fancy ways of talking", not if that is taken to indicate vacuity at least. We have philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, philosophy of language, logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, phenomenology, Perhaps the best philosophy is not high-falutin' vacuous talk but is descriptive of our practices and experience, that is elucidative and insightful, and even creative and beautiful in the sense that poetry can be.

but I take it from all this that a empiricist will never find the soteriological release of nirvana. — Tom Storm

I don't see why not if nirvana is though of in a deflationary way as being nothing more than realizing the state of non-attachment. Soto Zen conceives of enlightenment or nirvana precisely in this way as practicing zazen; that is transcending the body and mind in maintaining perfect sitting posture. Dogen equates this with enlightenment because it is impossible to sit this way while being attached to the body and mind.

I hear you. I'd be interested in what Wayfarer says to that. In my worldview I can also achieve a state of non-attachment by shooting myself.

"Capital E" Enlightenment is manifesting whatever desirable and useful truths a specific doctrine is able to produce be it contentedness during hardship, solid faith in life (or afterlife) and its rewards, just living a good life independent of stature, etc. Simple enlightenment is simply discovering something unknown. For example learning how to ride a bike or tie your shoes.

The "Age of Enlightenment" commonly referred to as "The Enlightenment" was, allegedly, the idea that prevailing religious systems and beliefs caused men to grow intellectually feeble and too easily domineered by alleged "men of God" who may easily become corrupt and act against the best interests and advancement of a given society or nationhood. They saw the wonders and scientific advancements, at least the drive toward these things that perhaps men or societies with a little less dogma produced and possessed. They thought, perhaps, we're in the wrong boat, so to speak. That's one theory at least. Sapere aude.

"Enlightenment thinkers sought to curtail the political power of organized religion, and thereby prevent another age of intolerant religious war."

Of course, this could merely have been just another political party aimed in changing very little other than who controls the reigns. Nothing has changed much in political philosophy since its inception. "You're missing out on this, here's why. Other people will surpass us and we will miss opportunity and/or possibly suffer and/or perish, here's how we can fix it." Etc. It's cookie-cutter psychology. Not calling it ineffective. People like simple ideas that trigger parts of their brain they can't simply understand, at least "it sticks".

The common thread defining the state of consciousness referred to in the various traditions as enlightenment, seeing the truth, becoming the real self, becoming free, seeing the true nature of things, becoming authentic and so on, seems to be non-attachment to the ego, the opinions of others and the things of this world in general. — Janus

So a fantasy, in other words.

Not sure I will ever fully understand Parmenides or Plotinus or comprehend idealism — Tom Storm

None of these things are easy to understand or practice. But it doesn't mean they're unreal.

The very ultimate form of enlightenment is the realization that one's own worldview, objectively true as it might be, is just one amongst many, with the addition not to take it too seriously. This truth will set free.

I can also achieve a state of non-attachment by shooting myself. — Tom Storm

I think the idea is that it should be a living non-attachment.

You've tried and found it impossible?

You've tried and found it impossible? — Janus

You have no attachment to anything or anyone, including yourself?

You have no attachment to anything or anyone, including yourself? — praxis

I wouldn't claim that. I also wouldn't claim it is not possible for me, and even less would I be inclined to claim it is impossible per se.

Neither [Parm & Ploti] rely on or espouse empirical or sensory knowledge but aim at an insight into a 'higher truth' through visionary or non-ordinary states. — Wayfarer

It is meaningless to say that anyone doesn’t rely on sensory knowledge because minds are built on it. No sensory input, no mind.

It is meaningless to say that anyone doesn’t rely on sensory knowledge because minds are built on it. No sensory input, no mind. — praxis

Is it the senses that tell you that?

I will simply state I have been in a state where if someone walked up to me with a gun and said they were going to shoot me I wouldn't have felt scared at all. I would have been overwhelmed by the path that led them to that point and been tearful and ... no words ... about it.

I would not call this having 'no attachment' but the opposite to 'no attachment' is the same as 'no attachment'. What seems to happen in these extreme altered states of consciousness is that lines of distinction fade away (or are realised as merely 'lines of convenience' rather than 'reality').

Note: I don't think such states are necessarily termed as 'enlightenment' but what I experienced is certainly something that drew me more towards an understanding of what certain historical people are said to have experienced.

@Tom Storm I think Jung is a great guide to understanding the possibilities of the human psyche. His term of 'Individuation' has something in common with 'enlightenment'. Individuation is about assimilating unconscious content with the ego to form the Self.

Jung was generally against (not the best method of approach) Western cultures reaching out for Eastern mythos as he viewed it as pointless given that Western mythos had enough immediate impact and ease of relation to get to where Westerners need to get without relearning a whole new history.

I wouldn’t claim that it’s impossible either. It is a rather dreary goal though, to be an uncaring zombie.

What makes you think that non-attachment would make you "an uncaring zombie"?

It is what I imagine. What do you imagine it’s like?

Kind of obvious?

I imagine it's a state of equanimity in which thoughts and feelings arise and are clearly seen and felt but are not indulged in. Think about pain; as long as you are embodied pain cannot definitely be avoided. But as, I think it was, @Tom Storm told us in another thread recently, his father was able to switch pain off, undergo dental procedures without anaesthetic and said "It only hurts of you let it".

To a mind lacking nuance perhaps.

It is meaningless to say that anyone doesn’t rely on sensory knowledge because minds are built on it. No sensory input, no mind.
— praxis

Is it the senses that tell you that? — Janus

Minds require (are completely dependent on) sensory input to simply exist.

Is this a game of people going back and forth asking no no, you first . What do you think?

I will go first. It is fairly clear that someone "not attached" could be interpreted as "not caring" because they cannot care about something they have no attachment too. In opposition to this we could also state that having a degree of non-attachment will help us draw a more objective conclusion.

IF however we are saying COMPLETE non-attachment then what does this mean. That needs to be settled first I feel. Agree?

:up:

It is fairly clear that someone "not attached" could be interpreted as "not caring" because they cannot care about something they have no attachment too. — I like sushi

I don't understand it that way. I think it's possible to feel care, love, grief, pain, whatever to the fullest and yet be unattached to the feeling.

Minds require (are completely dependent on) sensory input to simply exist. — praxis

That, even if true, is not the point. Is it the senses that tell you that minds require and are completely dependent on sensory input simply to exist, or is it not a modern cultural presumption?

Fair enough. You do appreciate that language is a barrier here though so we're kind of in a position where to be more explicit parenthesis is required and/or some distinction made clear bewteen two uses of the the same word.

As an example it is not possible to feel pain and not feel pain at the same time (assuming it is the same 'pain'). Not that I believe that is what you were saying. It is problematic to get our words around some things though.

Is it necessary that to feel something, pain, love, grief, happiness or whatever, that I be attached to the feeling? What does it mean to say I am attached to a feeling as opposed to simply being aware of the feeling? If I feel love for someone, do I need to be attached to that love in order to act lovingly towards them?

That, even if true, is not the point. — Janus

I know that my objections are off-point. Regarding how true it is, how long do you think your mind would last without any sensory input? Maybe a few months or a year?