Spiritual enlightenment

[theVOID]

What you described as 'spiritual' i call appreciation for reality - As for 'Enlightenment', it does not exist, it is the foolish idea that one can achieve some profound understanding of the universe which is quite frankly impossible given our current situation and impossible entirely in the sense that most people try to achieve it, they believe that it is from inner contemplation alone - in reality they are deluding themselves.

You seem sure. One question though. How do you know they are deluded?

What isn't deluded about convincing yourself of something you have absolutely know way of honestly knowing is true? People are free to speculate about and contemplate whatever possible scenario they want without my criticism, but when they take their purely internal contemplation and treat it as if they have discovered some universal truth from no other place than their own minds then i will rightly call them a fucktard.

The only truth you can garner from your own mind is a personal truth, a statement of intent or action that you the individual control - the idea that knowledge about an external event can be obtained solely through the mind is blatantly retarded, all knowledge outside of ourselves can only be obtained from observing outside ourselves, no exception.

[Purple Rabbit]

What isn't deluded about convincing yourself of something you have absolutely know way of honestly knowing is true? People are free to speculate about and contemplate whatever possible scenario they want without my criticism, but when they take their purely internal contemplation and treat it as if they have discovered some universal truth from no other place than their own minds then i will rightly call them a fucktard.

If you cannot read their minds, your claim that it is total nonsense will be pretty much your own personal unsubstantiated truth. Why not ask for their arguments first?

The only truth you can garner from your own mind is a personal truth, a statement of intent or action that you the individual control - the idea that knowledge about an external event can be obtained solely through the mind is blatantly retarded, all knowledge outside of ourselves can only be obtained from observing outside ourselves, no exception.

You presuppose that the personal knowledge is obtained exclusively by an internal personal mystical assessment. But there is no formal restraint like that for becoming enlightened. A scientist could become enlightened. In the process of becoming enlightened all his scientific background would be input. Also there is the fact that science itself can give no absolute answers. IMO we should be skeptical in all circumstances of ultimate truth claims, but we cannot dismiss such claims beforehand with simply yelling “your claim is bullshit!”. The crucial point is that scientific claims require falsifiability, ie the claims must be stated in a way that makes clear hoiw it can be falsified. So the question is, are these claims of enlightenment falsifiable. Is it possible to put those claims to the test. If the enlightened one refuses to share arguments and verifiable facts, then I agree with you such claims can alltogether be dismissed, like the claim of the christian who has a personal hotline with god but fails to demonstrate this.

Question: Is atheism a level of enlightenment, a personal truth garnered from our own mind?

[theVOID]

What isn't deluded about convincing yourself of something you have absolutely know way of honestly knowing is true? People are free to speculate about and contemplate whatever possible scenario they want without my criticism, but when they take their purely internal contemplation and treat it as if they have discovered some universal truth from no other place than their own minds then i will rightly call them a fucktard.

If you cannot read their minds, your claim that it is total nonsense will be pretty much your own personal unsubstantiated truth. Why not ask for their arguments first?

I can rationally rule out by default the idea that one can arrive at understanding of anything other than their own toughs through self reflection, it would matter not what they had claimed, you can only find yourself in you own mind, or imagine something all your own.

The only truth you can garner from your own mind is a personal truth, a statement of intent or action that you the individual control - the idea that knowledge about an external event can be obtained solely through the mind is blatantly retarded, all knowledge outside of ourselves can only be obtained from observing outside ourselves, no exception.

You presuppose that the personal knowledge is obtained exclusively by an internal personal mystical assessment. But there is no formal restraint like that for becoming enlightened. A scientist could become enlightened. In the process of becoming enlightened all his scientific background would be input. Also there is the fact that science itself can give no absolute answers. IMO we should be skeptical in all circumstances of ultimate truth claims, but we cannot dismiss such claims beforehand with simply yelling “your claim is bullshit!”. The crucial point is that scientific claims require falsifiability, ie the claims must be stated in a way that makes clear hoiw it can be falsified. So the question is, are these claims of enlightenment falsifiable. Is it possible to put those claims to the test. If the enlightened one refuses to share arguments and verifiable facts, then I agree with you such claims can alltogether be dismissed, like the claim of the christian who has a personal hotline with god but fails to demonstrate this.

Question: Is atheism a level of enlightenment, a personal truth garnered from our own mind?

No no no, personal knowledge is obtained by thinking about things, that's simple, you don't need to be the type of mystical dick-head i utterly despise to get that, it's a natural process. What i am saying is utter bullshit is the idea that anyone can obtain information about a great universal truth from solely inside their own heads!

Someone could make a claim, i would consider it. But if that same person said their claim about enlightened knowledge came entirely from their own internal perspective i would immediately call their bullshit. There is no way of knowing something you don't already have the ability to know in the mind - all the real truth is outside us and existed long long before us.

Since when has an 'enlightened' person EVER given facts about what they think they know? They arrived at a conclusion that they absolutely can't know and stuck to it. That's just plain bad thinking!

[Purple Rabbit]

If you cannot read their minds, your claim that it is total nonsense will be pretty much your own personal unsubstantiated truth. Why not ask for their arguments first?

I can rationally rule out by default the idea that one can arrive at understanding of anything other than their own toughs through self reflection, it would matter not what they had claimed, you can only find yourself in you own mind, or imagine something all your own.

Again, this answer is much to easy for me. I take it you know what solipsism is? You can't rule out by reason the possibility that all that exists somehow arises from your own mind. This would mean that there exists nothing besides you and your statement looses all meaning. Also, if you mean plain denial with 'ruliing out by default' you're not really using reason.

No no no, personal knowledge is obtained by thinking about things, that's simple, you don't need to be the type of mystical dick-head i utterly despise to get that, it's a natural process. What i am saying is utter bullshit is the idea that anyone can obtain information about a great universal truth from solely inside their own heads!

Things like cogito ergo sum?

Someone could make a claim, i would consider it. But if that same person said their claim about enlightened knowledge came entirely from their own internal perspective i would immediately call their bullshit. There is no way of knowing something you don't already have the ability to know in the mind - all the real truth is outside us and existed long long before us.

Then where do mathematical truths reside?

Since when has an 'enlightened' person EVER given facts about what they think they know? They arrived at a conclusion that they absolutely can't know and stuck to it. That's just plain bad thinking!

An example would help. You seem to respond to some image of the enlightened that arises exclusively from your internal perspective. Practice what you preach.

[Violet]

Again, this answer is much to easy for me. I take it you know what solipsism is? You can't rule out by reason the possibility that all that exists somehow arises from your own mind. This would mean that there exists nothing besides you and your statement looses all meaning. Also, if you mean plain denial with 'ruliing out by default' you're not really using reason.

You also cannot rule out by reason the possibility that your mind is not arisen from other factors. So even 'you' might not exist.

[Purple Rabbit]

You also cannot rule out by reason the possibility that your mind is not arisen from other factors. So even 'you' might not exist.

Yes, and even those other factors may have popped into existence like virtual particles. Then it could be a great mistake alltogether, and even the word meaning would loose its meaning.

[Violet]

You also cannot rule out by reason the possibility that your mind is not arisen from other factors. So even 'you' might not exist.

Yes, and even those other factors may have popped into existence like virtual particles. Then it could be a great mistake alltogether, and even the word meaning would loose its meaning.

Existence is subjective... 'God' exists as something 'real and tangible' in the mind of a Christian... to me he is but a ridiculous idea.

Some people may think me to exist as the queen of the universe... I might think myself to exist as but a pathetic worm at the mercy of the elements... to some creator who might think of me as just another character in a video game... to a rock that does not think about 'me' at all: Reality is based upon point of view.

[Purple Rabbit]

I think you mean "point of view is based upon point of view". But now I'm beginning to wonder whether this holds in your reality or mine. Maybe this is what enlightenment feels like.

[Violet]

I think you mean "point of view is based upon point of view". But now I'm beginning to wonder whether this holds in your reality or mine. Maybe this is what enlightenment feels like.

Actually... I think I mean 'Perception of one's reality is based upon circumstance' (Who's/what's location, when they are there, what 'who/what' is to begin with (and what they can perceive/how able they are to perceive, etc.)). 'Why' and 'How' are questions a being can ask of the circumstances. 'If' is a hypothetical that suggests if the circumstances were different.

[Purple Rabbit]

Enlightenment Or The Dark Path To Nausea

The motive for me starting this thread has been the book Spiritual Enlightenment - The Damnedest Thing by mystery writer Jed McKenna (I've read the dutch version, not because I like a handicap, but because I have a handicap: being dutch). Surfing the web I stumbled on it. Intrigued as always by wild claims on the nature of reality and some vague wish at the back of my head to some day delve deeper into claims of spiritual enlightenment that eastern philosophies seem stuffed with, I decided to purchase the book and read it.

The identity of the author behind the name Jed McKenna is not known and on the internet there is some speculation about this. My first idea about the book when I read the cover was that it covertly was a skepticism on enlightenment. That idea stuck with me to the end of the book. It certainly is a skepticism on the New Age types of spiritual enlightenment that necessarily involve feelings of oneness with the cosmos, nirvana, mini gardens, incense, transcendental meditation, guru's and the like. McKenna strongly argues that true enlightenment has nothing to do with all of that, that it is very plain and basic. It is nothing but knowing the Ultimate Truth. What that Ultimate Truth is in plain english is never fully revealed however. The kind of enlitghtenment McKenna describes is IMO best described by trancendental dillettantism: see how I enlightened and deeply intangible I am for you silly unenlightened ones, while I am simply riding my mountain bike and doing all kinds of regular stuff that regular guys do.

The claim that Jed in this book makes is that normal people are really in a state of sleep, that they are in grand role playing game and are unaware of it, that the normal things people bother about (culture, family, science, society, motherhood, fatherhood, emotion, moral values, institutionalized religion) are totally irrelevant and essentially without any meaning. Even identity, the self, is without meaning. Destruction of the idea of self and of all the convictions that make up the self is therefore essential to become enlightened. This observation that nothing matters leads to a strong feeling of utter detachment. IMO it is a totally indigestible concept. But of course the writer has anticipated these feelings of his readers. He counters this with the mysteriousness of becoming enlightened. All his disciples wrestle with the idea to give up identity (if they are far enough to see that this is what has to be done) but he feels compelled to 'help' them on the way to nothingness with the promisse that reality in its ultimate nakedness is at the end of this dark tunnel. The carrot always just out of reach. At no point one is able to test the validity of his claim or to assess if the price to be paid outweighs the sacrifice. The claim of Jed being enligthened and enlightenment in general is a non-falsifiable one and never it is fully clear what is meant with that elusive state of enlightenment, what is meant with Ultimate Truth. However a few things shed some light on that. It is clear that Jed is a relativist, there is no absoluteness in what we can know, and from this he concludes that since meaning has no absolute basis in reality, the only absolute is that reality does not really exist. Central to this is the idea of non-dualism, one has to strip all perception from that what is not absolutely true to reach oneness with reality.

Yet in the book he describes how he is enjoying the jacuzi, playing tomb raider, biking, eating and other very eartlhy pleaures. Procrastination is his thing. This certainly feels like a big fraud and an overt denial of the non-dualism he proclaims. I was apalled by the seemingly naive responses that Jed encounters in the dialogues with the various people (mostly followers living on his ranch) he deals with. They all at some point in the discussion are confronted with his downright denial of any meaning in their lives whatsoever, including denial of their identity. Throughout the book his arrogance and self-love shines through. He 's the man, he is the enlightened one, most if not all others are asleep or in a fake zombielike state living fake lifes. At the end of this book this got me to the point were it indeed induced strong feelings of nausea. No I am not the emotional type, but still this feeling overtook me.

While I am an relativist regarding knowledge myself (absolute knowledge is unattainable for humans) I do not think the conclusion from that is therefore that nothing has meaning. Being imperfect does not equate to absolute nothingness of all that exists. It seems a mix up of knowledge of reality and reality to me. Indeed in a deterministic universe relative meaning may be the only kind of meaning that ever will have meaning. Of course Jed will easliy do away with this kind of reasoning as the struggle of self for survival, and I am incapable to ultimately refute that on reason alone as I am ultimately not capable of refuting the possibility of some god existing somewhere.

I am curious whether any of you wants to share his/her expriences with spiritual enlightenment. I think it is a kind of claim that is even harder to get rid of than traditional religion involving one or more gods. When all the cartoon religions with hells, heavens, angels, virgin, snakes and apples have dwindled into oblivion, this may be the kind of religion we will stillbe left with.