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

Yes, like being a little pregnant.

Or a little stupid.

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'. — Tom Storm

My take is that enlightenment in its non-deflationary sense is a culturally mediated phenomenon. but since there are many cross-cultural commonalities of human nature there will be commonalities in the ways in which the experiential attributes of enlightenment are and have been described or evoked.

In it's deflationary sense, I think (in case you haven't noticed :wink: ) that it is simply the most radical state of non-attachment or non-reactivity possible for an embodied human being..

In it's deflationary sense, I think (in case you haven't noticed :wink: ) that it is simply the most radical state of non-attachment or non-reactivity possible for an embodied human being.. — Janus

Yeah... doesn't really roll of the tongue and it sounds kind of dull.

Or a little stupid. — Janus

That was unnecessary harsh, and you still haven’t adequately explained non-attachment. You’ve described how people get stuck on something and then let it go. This is pretty much what we all normally do, in some cases effortlessly. Non-attachment indicates no further attachment and therefore nothing to let go of once one is non-attached.

Yeah... doesn't really roll of the tongue and it sounds kind of boring. — Tom Storm

Is that relevant to whether it is the best way to understand what enlightenment is? Should philosophers only be interested in, only take seriously, ideas that "roll of the tongue" and don't sound boring?

That was unnecessary harsh, and you still haven’t adequately explained non-attachment. You’ve described how people get stuck on something and then let it go. This is pretty much what we normally do, in some cases effortlessly. Non-attachment indicates no further attachment and therefore nothing to let go of once one is non-attached. — praxis

What do you mean "harsh"? I'm using stupidity as an analogy to attachment; unlike pregnancy there are degrees. I don't believe that you don't understand what it means to be attached to things; people, desires, places, possessions, ideas, or whatever. I don't believe that you cannot see that some attachments enslave while other liberate. And I don't believe that you don't accept that enslaving attachments (at least some) may be relinquished.

Or think of it in terms of reactivity if the idea of attachment doesn't suit you. If something is not as I would wish, or is inconvenient, or is hard to bear, or is painful, unpleasant, or whatever; the more I react to that obstruction of my desire, inconvenience, pain, unpleasantness or whatever, the more I will suffer from it, no?

You don't seem to be attempting to engage with the discussion, you seem to be more intent on dismissing it with inapt objections or feigned misunderstandings. I can't tell if you are serious or just trolling.

Is that relevant to whether it is the best way to understand what enlightenment is? Should philosophers only be interested in, only take seriously, ideas that "roll of the tongue" and don't sound boring? — Janus

Who mentioned philosophers? Just making an observation as a bystander to religion and philosophy.

Who mentioned philosophers? Just making an observation as a bystander to religion and philosophy. — Tom Storm

Well this is a thread started by you on a philosophy forum titled "what is it to be enlightened".

sounds kind of dull. — Tom Storm

OK, you've edited that, and now it seems that you mean that to be radically non-reactive would be "kind of dull". That's not the way it's portrayed. It's portrayed as a state of serenity and absorption in which there could be no question of boredom. Have you never experienced such times, or have you ever taken an hallucinogen? Do you remember when you were a child and you could play happily without any "props" other than your own creative imagination for hours?

Just move on, it was a throw away line. :wink:

I've already moved on. What were you throwing away?

What were you throwing away? — Janus

Probably my attention span which is preternaturally short.

Probably my attention span which is preternaturally short. — Tom Storm

I don't think mine is much different.

What do you mean "harsh"? I'm using stupidity as an analogy to attachment; unlike pregnancy there are degrees. — Janus

I never disagreed that there are degrees of attachment or reactivity. I would disagree that there is such a thing as non-stupidity, at least in regard to human beings. I'm sure that God-fearing folk would say that God is non-stupid, similar to how Buddha-loving folk would say that Buddha realized non-attachment. Easy to claim, not easy to show.

Everything you've been claiming appears to be 'less' and not 'non'. Less can be great, but less is not non. 'Non' may not even really be desirable since we need to live in this world, and if we don't want to live in this world, a well-aimed bullet is an expedient solution.

One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. The latter procedure, however, is disagreeable and therefore not popular.” — Tom Storm

But then, all this talk about light and darkness itself is an imposition of thought upon the world, as if the world possessed something of their values and we had access. Putting metaphors aside and there you are looking, say, in your back yard looking at trees and houses: where is this enlightenment supposed to have a place? It's not as if you have to climb a mountain as sit with Swami Rama on some rock. No, there is something about the structure of experience itself that, were you climb that mountain, you would carry with you. I think the matter goes here: when one simply opens one's eyes, one faced with familiarity instantly; always, already, if you like. Discover the nature of this familiarity and you will know what it is that stands between you and enlightenment.
The awful truth of this is that, this familiarity is the world, and to be enlightened, in the deepest sense of te term, one has to give up living in the world.

I'm sorry I'm not sure I entirely follow you. Phenomenology perhaps?

The quote, as you probably know, is Jung's - his model of human consciousness incorporated the 'shadow side' or darkness. Pretty sure he is saying that to be enlightened means to integrate all elements of your conscious being (including your evils) in the process he called individuation. When complete, you are enlightened... I guess. I think this says a lot about Jung's notions of attachment, and he is probably saying too that everyone is on a path to enlightenment but only some 'complete' this individuation process. However, I don't think he is saying that we are all partly enlightened. That sounds suspiciously like being partly pregnant. But who knows?

echoes and whispers :death:

silences and spaces :flower:

The quote, as you probably know, is Jung's - his model of human consciousness incorporated the 'shadow side' or darkness. Pretty sure he is saying that to be enlightened means to integrate all elements of your conscious being (including your evils) in the process he called individuation. When complete, you are enlightened... I guess. I think this says a lot about Jung's notions of attachment, and he is probably saying too that everyone is on a path to enlightenment but only some 'complete' this individuation process. However, I don't think he is saying that we are all partly enlightened. That sounds suspiciously like being partly pregnant. But who knows? — Tom Storm

Forget about Jung, even if Jung said some excellent things. The measure of their excellence begins with what can be affirmed in the structure of the manifest and familiar encounter with the world. If there is such a thing as, call it foundational level philosophical enlightenment (questions begged here are obvious; but then, getting beyond this takes argumentative work), and I am sure there is, it is going to be about foundational questions/assumptions and the knowledge relationship we have with all things. It is going to be about the epistemic structures that deliver the world to us, but, and this is rather a big point, unlike philosophical business as usual which seeks answers IN the talk itself, as where, say, Wittgenstein showed apriori that logic cannot explain what logic is and dismissed all the "hurly burly" of human entanglements as unanalyzable, here, the desideratum is revelatory: One is being invited to experience an alteration in the perceptual act itself.
So in this matter, the reason why you and others are skeptical about revelatory enlightenment is, it seems, because you are too fixated on a propositional conclusion that requires no foundational alterations in the act of perception itself.

in my language community "enlighten" has to do with knowledge. "Let me enlighten you as to the right way to blah blah blah". There's a connotation of preceding delusion.

So if you ask me if I'm enlightened and I say no, then I would be saying that I know I'm delusional. Delusional people don't usually know it, tho.

If I say yes, that's exactly what you'd be expect a delusional person to say.

Having said that, I'm the only enlightened person here. I'm pretty sure about that.

This requires very careful interpretation as it is easily misconstrued. — Wayfarer

I agree that things can get easily misconstrued, especially when we are dealing with ancient texts.

The “melting away of I and mine”, etc., seems fairly clear. But this doesn’t answer the question of what remains in the end. In Western traditions like Platonism and Hindu ones like Advaita Vedanta, the answer would be “consciousness”.

The Buddhist answer seems less clear. The assertion to the effect that “everything is impermanent, everything is painful, everything is not-self” isn’t quite what is seems at face value.

The original text as given at the Dhammapada 277-279 actually refers to “all conditioned phenomena (samskaras)”, NOT to “everything” (sarvam) in an absolute sense.

The Dhammapada: Verses and Stories

So I don’t think this sounds like nihilism. On the contrary, it seems to suggest that after all there may be something that is “permanent, blissful, and self”, to which conditioned phenomena are contrasted as “not so” (cf. the Upanishadic “neti”/”na iti”, “not so”).

And that “something” may well be consciousness, exactly as in other systems. On the other hand, if consciousness is denied, this tends to raise a number of problems, for example, relating to cognitive phenomena like memory.

Memory (smrti or sati) is defined as “not letting go of the object [of past experience]” (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya 54.22–23).

What is unclear is who is holding on to the object and how, what that object is, where it is located, what happens to it when you let go of it, etc., in the absence of consciousness.

I think the matter goes here: when one simply opens one's eyes, one faced with familiarity instantly; always, already, if you like. Discover the nature of this familiarity and you will know what it is that stands between you and enlightenment.
The awful truth of this is that, this familiarity is the world, and to be enlightened, in the deepest sense of te term, one has to give up living in the world. — Constance

It is not the same form of familiarity with all objects that we encounter. Familiarity can take the form of dread, confusion , hatred or enlightenment. If we gave up living on the world we would have to give up any and all forms of familiarity , since familiarity implies world. So it’s not a question of giving up living in the world , but of how we live in it. Attaining a richly enlightened state requires utilizing all that the experience of world can provide in order to transcend the experiences of confusion, despair, chaos and hostility.

in my language community "enlighten" has to do with knowledge. "Let me enlighten you as to the right way to blah blah blah". There's a connotation of preceding delusion. — frank

I think this has been stated elsewhere in this discussion. To western philosophy, "enlightenment" generally means applying reason to answer questions and solve problems. In eastern philosophy, it means something different. There has been a lot of back and forth about what exactly that something different is.

Having said that, I'm the only enlightened person here. I'm pretty sure about that. — frank

When I get in conversations about this subject from an eastern perspective, sometime during the discussion I'll usually say "I'm much closer to enlightenment than you are." For some reason, no one seems to find that as funny as I do.

Everything you've been claiming appears to be 'less' and not 'non'. Less can be great, but less is not non. 'Non' may not even really be desirable since we need to live in this world, and if we don't want to live in this world, a well-aimed bullet is an expedient solution. — praxis

No, we can enjoy non-attachment to some things, it is just questionable as to whether we could realize non-attachment to all things, and in any case that is not what is being claimed for the enlightened ones, since they are acknowledged to be attached to their practice if nothing else.

Also, you keep ignoring my suggestions that you might see it more favorably if you think in terms of 'reactivity' instead of attachment. Anyway if it's not for you it's not for you. It's not entirely for me: I have no intention of becoming a Buddhist monk or even an avowed lay practitioner, but I think the idea has practical merit. It is found in the Epicureans, the Pyrrhonian Skeptics, the Stoics and Spinoza, as well.

In eastern philosophy, it means something different. There has been a lot of back and forth about what exactly that something different is. — T Clark

The east west thing was big back in the 19th Century. I think most people realize now that there's nothing to the division. Mysticism is mysticism wherever it comes from and actual Asians laugh at buddhism.

I'm much closer to enlightenment than you are — T Clark

Disciples have no sense of humor.

"What is it to be Enlightened?"

To know that the best way to keep a secret is by telling everyone.

Having said that, I'm the only enlightened person here. I'm pretty sure about that. — frank

I've always thought of you that way too, Frank. Yes, I pointed out in my OP that the 17th-18th Century Enlightenment is hostile to ideas of enlightenment. The secular vs the religious.

So I don’t think this sounds like nihilism. On the contrary, it seems to suggest that after all there may be something that is “permanent, blissful, and self”, to which conditioned phenomena are contrasted as “not so” (cf. the Upanishadic “neti”/”na iti”, “not so”). — Apollodorus

This was the subject of my MA thesis in Buddhist Studies. The two 'extreme views' are nihilism, which is that at death, the elements return to the ground, there are no 'fruits of actions'; and eternalism, the view that there is a permanently enduring self which persists life after life, forever. (Bhikkhu Bodhi, a scholar-monk, comments that modern Western thought tends towards nihilism, as some Western philosophers have also observed.)

The view of 'eternalism' is harder to understand, but makes sense in the context of a culture where there is acceptance of the idea of re-birth and the idea that seers can recall their past lives. I said in my thesis that what is being criticized as 'eternalism' is the belief that the aim of the religious life is to secure an unending series of lives - to live 'forever after' in propitious circumstances (which is somewhat similar to some popular ideas of heaven). That is not what Nirvāṇa means - it means the complete cessation of the process of rebirth. As to 'what remains', that is the subject of this sutta, where the Buddha says of the Tathāgata:

Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathāgata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. ‘Reappears’ doesn’t apply. ‘Does not reappear’ doesn’t apply. ‘Both does & does not reappear’ doesn’t apply. ‘Neither reappears nor does not reappear’ doesn’t apply.”

('Vaccha' is Vacchagotta, a figure in the Pali texts whose role is the asking of difficult philosophical questions.)

The problem is, if you name this as 'consciousness' or as anything at all, then you're once again engaging in the process of objectification. And the exact meaning of 'neti, neti' is 'don't do that'! I said in my thesis that the Buddha outplays the Brahmins on their own terms. They said, 'of this ātman nothing can be said' - but they then go on to say a great deal more.

In Western traditions like Platonism and Hindu ones like Advaita Vedanta, the answer would be “consciousness”. — Apollodorus

This is where the Buddha eschews theories. Theories are dṛṣṭi, 'dogmatic viewpoints' - about consciousness or an eternal self or anything of the kind. The word 'consciousness' was only coined in the 17th century, and besides it's something you can loose. If you start to qualify it, 'ah, that's not what I mean by "consciousness"' then you're already 'tangled in thickets of views', to quote the Aggi-Vaccha sutta again.

Of course, there's a lot more that could be said, but this is a very long post already. Suffice to say that this criticism of 'objectifying' is fundamental to Buddhist philosophy, and really understanding it is to understand a 'stance' or way-of-being which is unique to Buddhism. Few do.

So in this matter, the reason why you and others are skeptical about revelatory enlightenment is, it seems, because you are too fixated on a propositional conclusion that requires no foundational alterations in the act of perception itself. — Constance

Thanks for potentially diagnosing my situation, C. You may be right but your use of language is somewhat indirect and jargonistic to me - are you a denizen of academe perhaps?

What do you mean by - "too fixated on a propositional conclusion that requires no foundational alterations in the act of perception itself." Can you provide an example of a foundational alteration in the act of perception. And yes, I see how you referred to Wittgenstein earlier.

You are adding the word revelatory to enlightenment - can you spell out an example of such a phenomenon? Are you referring to the sudden attainment of higher consciousness?

You say 'forget about Jung' do you have reasons for dismissing him or is it just personal taste?

Also, you keep ignoring my suggestions that you might see it more favorably if you think in terms of 'reactivity' instead of attachment. — Janus

Being nonreactive sounds even less alive than being non-attached.