| >> | >>207638
>>but then you don't actually explain what enlightenment means, you just keep saying that it can't be translated into English, which can't be true.
I didn't suggest that I was going to explain what enlightenment means, I suggested that it's not a very descriptive word to translate the term 'Buddhahood' with. The term enlightenment in English merely means understanding some deeper truth about reality without specifying what that enlightenment entails. Surely you can see that the 'enlightenment' referred to in the period of history known as the Enlightenment referred to something totally different (in its case, a scientific and cultural revolution) than enlightenment means in the case of trying to describe the enlightenment of Buddha. And that even if it were, it wouldn't be synonymous with perfection.
If you're looking for a thumbnail depiction of what Buddhahood entails within its own context, you can probably find a huge divergence of opinions, but what I would say it primarily references is the continuous ability to act on the awareness that all phenomena are transitory, that all transitory things lead to attachment to them, and thus all attachments will eventually be broken and generate suffering, so all attachment must be extinguished at the source, in one's own consciousness. Bodhisattva-hood is a related state where one who has this awareness is compelled to help others come to this awareness so as to free them from suffering as well.
>>the probability of empiricism and mysticism
Okay, that's fine, you're free to use whatever cognitive tools you like. I'm just saying that you are rejecting an entire branch of knowledge because of the source of that knowledge, and thus correspondingly assign it a low probability, and I'm asking why, since in your typology both empiricism and mysticism are based on subjective knowledge, you accept one and dismiss the other?
>>rewriting Descartes
But your concept of the body includes the brain, which is what you are characterizing as mind, and what you are calling qualia is what Descartes would have called mind, so your problem really arises from trying to applying modern definitions of the hard problem of consciousness (the mind/body problem) to a classical treatment of the problem. Not saying that you're wrong, just that you're not really saying anything different than Descartes was saying, you're just updating the terminology.
>>philosophical shadow-boxing
I haven't articulated a shred of my philosophy, I have just pointed out some factual, historical considerations about what you've said along with suggesting some inherent logical paradoxes in your original post. So most of the last section of your post is you just shadow-boxing with some imagined philosophy.
Everybody who is reasonably intelligent and has taken logic parses all language as logical algorithms, I think, so your approach to evaluating the truth of expressions is I think fairly standard. But you must recognize that all our synthetic knowledge about the world is built upon an unfathomably vast chain of logical postulates, assumptions, various data and biases of human perception all cobbled together. The errors people run into in understanding philosophies based in cultures other than their own, whether it be Western society looking at Eastern society or an empiricist looking at mysticism, is that so much of the actual meaning being imparted is corrupted by misunderstandings of definitions that it becomes increasingly likely that you will see something that initially doesn't make sense, and if you thus become overly skeptical, you might reject something out of hand that has genuine value, simply because you didn't invest enough time in actually comprehending what was being communicated. It happens all the time, in everything.
So no, I'm not asking you to accept that 1 + 2 = 4. I'm asking you how much faith you have that what you're calling a 2 is really a 2, when it might actually be a 3 because of something else you don't know, and thus the expression is actually correct?
Again, to counter your shadow boxing, if you want my philosophy on that slogan, I would prefer 'Have awareness of everything, utilize the synthesis.'
Have you considered there might be considerable wealth in things that seem erroneous to you? Again, I'm not suggesting any particular course of action to you, I'm just pointing out logical counter-arguments. There were a lot of people who thought the idea that people could fly was erroneous, and instead invested their time and wealth in horse-drawn carriages.
Moreover, if what you want is happiness, circling back around to Buddha, you won't be able to find it for long in transitory things. Eventually you will have to get down to the source of your need for happiness, which resides in your own consciousness. Inevitably, we all must deal with 'mysticism', we all must face our own interior self to have any mastery of our self, and not be enslaved by our passions. |
