Besides, enlightenment has long been overrated since the CD player and some would argue color TV. — Outlander

We’ll don’t know about that but the TV sure has made the cave wall a whole lot more entertaining.

We’ll don’t know about that but the TV sure has made the cave wall a whole lot more entertaining. — Wayfarer

Nicely done. Far more vivid than some piss poor shadow puppets.

The unattainable is attained through its unattainment' — Wayfarer

That's a quote with a lot of potential uses.

I’ve found the book on archive.org, I’m going to read it again as it went quite over my head the first time.

the idea is to free oneself from forms of attachment which enslave, not from those which liberate. — Janus

Good point. Human consciousness can’t jump from "enslavement" to "liberation". At least in normal circumstances, there must be a lengthy process of emancipation in which, as Socrates says, consciousness must gently detach itself from ordinary experience and attach itself to higher realities.

So, the idea is not to immediately achieve non-attachment, which is beyond ordinary human capacity, but to progress to increasingly liberating forms of attachment until the state of absolute non-attachment has been attained.

Even imagination, which is usually contrasted with reality, can play a role in this process. For example, if we think of ourselves as free consciousness instead of self-identifying with the physical body, emotions, and thoughts, then there is a good chance of achieving a degree of detachment from ordinary experience and of opening new doors of perception that eventually lead to the desired goal.

This is also the idea behind certain visualization techniques as practiced in Indian traditions:

Mandala - Wikipedia

Even reading a book about higher states of consciousness can, at least temporarily, lift us out of ordinary experience engrossed in material things.

Essentially, this amounts to consciousness using itself as a ladder to ascend to higher states in the same way it uses itself as a ladder to descend to the lower states of ordinary experience.

(Or, as I said earlier, consciousness oscillating between states of different degrees of subtlety or wakefulness, such as waking, dreaming, and dreamless, deep sleep, and back again.)

And if pure, unconditioned consciousness is the ultimate goal, then it is necessary to acquaint ourselves with the nature of consciousness in the first place. For example, we need to realize that consciousness, i.e., that which is aware of our thoughts, is more subtle than even the more abstract and refined thought.

The situation seems to be less clear in Buddhism, though, at least in those schools that deny the ultimate reality of consciousness and of self.

...from the analysis found in Wittgenstein. You know, philosophy. Like some do on the philosophy forum. — Banno

The thread topic is enlightenment. Since when does philosophy concern itself with enlightenment or should have the final say over it?

The situation seems to be less clear in Buddhism, though, at least in those schools that deny the ultimate reality of consciousness and of self. — Apollodorus

This requires very careful interpretation as it is easily misconstrued. Please see this brief sutta. It comprises a question and answer between Ven. Maha Kotthita ('maha' means 'great' meaning a senior monk) and Sariputta (a.k.a. Sariputra, one of several senior teachers who often articulates the wisdom teachings in the texts.)

Kotthita asks Sariputta:

With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?

This is a reference to the jhana/dhyana states of meditative absorption. Kotthita is asking, if all the activities of the sense-gates are suspended, is there anything else?

Sariputta responds with 'Don't say that, my friend'.

The Q&A continues in the formulaic style of the early Buddhist texts, but each variation of the question elicits the same response: 'Don't say that, my friend'.

Then comes to the typically Buddhist fourfold negation of alternatives:

[Maha Kotthita:] "...is it the case that there both is & is not anything else?"

[Sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend."

[Maha Kotthita:] "...is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?"

[Sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend."

(an example the 'Catuṣkoṭi' logic later associated with Nāgārjuna.)

By this time, thoroughly baffled, Kotthita asks for clarification. Sariputta responds:

"The statement, 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?' objectifies non-objectification. The statement, '... is it the case that there is not anything else ... is it the case that there both is & is not anything else ... is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectifies non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes. However far objectification goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of objectification. — Sariputta

This phrase 'objectifying non-objectification' (rather an awkward translation I suspect) is key here.

The translator comments

“Objectification” is a translation of papañca. Although in some circles papañca has come to mean a proliferation of thinking, in the Canon it refers not to the amount of thinking, but to a type of thinking marked by the classifications and perceptions it uses. As Sn 4:14 points out, the root of the classifications and perceptions of objectification is the thought, “I am the thinker.” This thought forms the motivation for the questions that Ven. Mahā Koṭṭhita is presenting here: the sense of “I am the thinker” can cause either fear or desire for annihilation in the course of unbinding. Both concerns get in the way of the abandoning of clinging, which is essential for the attainment of unbinding, which is why the questions should not be asked.

So what this is getting at, I think, is that Ven Kotthita is asking, if all perceptions are suspended, what do I see? Or do I not see anything? The 'allaying of objectification' is the cessation of all of the volitional and affective activities associated with creating the thought-world which the imagined self inhabits. So the cessation of such activities is also the melting away of the 'I and mine'.

So I think the Buddhist response to your objection is that the purported 'ultimate reality' is itself a projection of the self, a way by which the self seeks security through an imagined continuity comprising existence in some imagined ultimate or higher state. Which all too easily then becomes simply more conjecture, speculation and verbiage which in no way severs the root of afflictive emotional entanglement at the root. But this is often met with furious cries of 'nihilism!'

(See also comparisons with Wittgenstein's Ladder.)

not being notified of responses — Janus

AFAIK, the system sends out notification based on the post as it is first posted. If the post is later edited, and new mentions of people added, they are not notified.

The nature of attachment is connection or binding, and there’s no escaping the fact that we’re all connected and bound, so reason demands that we accept this enslavement. — praxis

:up: Yes accepting the inevitable is a substantial part of non-attachment.

That could be it, or it could be a "software glitch" as Wayfarer suggested.

Not that religious talk needs to make sense, and in fact it's better if it doesn't, but it sounded like you just said that attachment is part of non-attachment.

'The unattainable is attained through its unattainment'. A very Buddhist formulation, I felt. — Wayfarer

This kind of succintness is what makes Zen so easy to exploit and pervert, and to assume more familiarity with it than one actually has.

Not that religious talk needs to make sense, and in fact it's better if it doesn't, but it sounded like you just said that attachment is part of non-attachment. — praxis

Not being attached to the fact that, when thought about in a certain way, some attachment seems inevitable, is a substantial part of non-attachment. Does that make it any clearer?

Clear as mud, as I suppose it must be.

Clear as mud, as I suppose it must be. — praxis

That's odd; it seems crystal clear to me. Try this: attachment in this context we are discussing means reactivity; or better, it means being invested in your reactions, being attached to them.

I don't see how you can say that it's odd, you're not even sure that non-attachment is possible, or so you've said in this topic.

I don't see how you can say that it's odd, you're not even sure that non-attachment is possible, or so you've said in this topic. — praxis

You should read more closely and try not to think in black and white. I said I don't know if complete non-attachment is possible. We all know that we can let go of attachment to things when we need to.

You should read more closely and try not to think in black and white. I said I don't know if complete non-attachment is possible. We all know that we can let go of attachment to things when we need to. — Janus

Inconceivable!

Since when does letting go of attachments mean non-attachment? Never.

We all know that we can let go of attachment to things when we need to. — Janus

People whose car gets stuck in the rails while they're crossing the railroad not rarely die in the collision with the train, because they refuse to leave their car. Even though they had enough time.
Or they get shot or stabbed by robbers after they refuse to give up their briefcase or purse.
Or they keep on smoking, even after they had a tracheostomy.

Clearly, not everyone knows that they can let go of attachment to things when we need to.

But maybe being on collision course with a train is not an objective clue for letting go ...

Since when does letting go of attachments mean non-attachment? — praxis

So not being attached is not non-attachment? Perhaps you are joking, being ironic; if not you're beginning to look like a troll. :roll:

Clearly, not everyone knows that they can let go of attachment to things when we need to. — baker

You're being pedantic; the fact (if it is a fact) that a few fuckwits cannot let go of their attachments even when the alternative is dire is not relevant. It could be said that the alternative to being non-reactive is always dire; and that it is coming to see that that constitutes the greatest difficulty we face.

So not being attached is not non-attachment? — Janus

In order to let go of something you need to first be holding it. As you say, we all know that we can let go of attachment to things when we need to. Even our strongest attachments will eventually fade in time. Non-attachment is like a teflon pan that nothing gets stuck to, not even yesterday's reheated four cheese spaghetti sauce. Ya feel me?

You're being pedantic; the fact (if it is a fact) that a few fuckwits cannot let go of their attachments even when the alternative is dire is not relevant. — Janus

Except that pretty much everyone is, to use your word, such a fuckwit about one thing or another.
Some people refuse to abandon their broken cars that are on collision course with a train. Some stay in dysfunctional, destructive relationships. Some maintain a religious affiliation even though they don't believe the tenets anymore and only pretend to do so, which is making them miserable.

It could be said that the alternative to being non-reactive is always dire; and that it is coming to see that that constitutes the greatest difficulty we face.

One can only give up a lesser happiness when one has sight of a bigger one.

But so far, your theory doesn't seem to offer any such bigger happiness. Per your theory, one tries to become as unattached as possible, but if one's life is cut short by, say, a bus, well then, tough luck, that's it. With such prospects, what can possibly motivate a person to give up their attachments, when they've got nothing higher to live for?

The thread topic is enlightenment. Since when does philosophy concern itself with enlightenment or should have the final say over it? — baker

The OP specifically identifies enlightenment as discussed in both eastern and western philosophies.

Okay. But why should the Western ones have the final say? Because we're at a "Western" forum?

Okay. But why should the Western ones have the final say? Because we're at a "Western" forum? — baker

I misunderstood you. I'm not sure that's what @Bozo, I mean @Banno, meant to say.

name-calling? Prat.

This kind of succintness is what makes Zen so easy to exploit and pervert, and to assume more familiarity with it than one actually has. — baker

You're right, but what a westerner might call vagueness, mysticism, contrariness, or irony is a real part of eastern philosophies.

Right, so it's only a matter of degree.

Except that pretty much everyone is, to use your word, such a fuckwit about one thing or another.
Some people refuse to abandon their broken cars that are on collision course with a train. Some stay in dysfunctional, destructive relationships. Some maintain a religious affiliation even though they don't believe the tenets anymore and only pretend to do so, which is making them miserable. — baker

Right, but only those who are really fuckwits won't let go once they see that the alternative is unacceptable, or else cannot see the alternative is unacceptable when its unacceptability is staring them right in the face.

One can only give up a lesser happiness when one has sight of a bigger one. — baker

But one can give up a greater unhappiness when one sees that will deliver them to a lesser unhappiness.

With such prospects, what can possibly motivate a person to give up their attachments, when they've got nothing higher to live for? — baker

Being run over by a bus is not a prospect but merely an unlikely possibility. People of course will not be motivated to give up their attachments until they see that their attachments are causing them to suffer, and that if they were less attached they would suffer less.

name-calling? Prat. — Banno

Yes, but it was knee-jerk, pointless, witless, needless, gratuitous, and not funny, so that makes it ok.

The thread topic is enlightenment. Since when does philosophy concern itself with enlightenment or should have the final say over it?
— baker

The OP specifically identifies enlightenment as discussed in both eastern and western philosophies. — T Clark

In my OP, I was wondering if enlightenment means the same thing in different cultures. I guess I was asking if it is the case that enlightenment (if and when it takes place) transcends culture and religion.

I am somewhat surprised that no one yet has said something like 'enlightenment is a myth'.