Self-actualization = Enlightenment?

[liquidharmony]

Would you consider Maslow's hierarchy of needs to be a more scientific approach to reaching enlightenment.Hierarchy of needs (http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.html)

[Trevor Salyzyn]

No, although the principle is correct. A person needs a limitless supply of idle time to understand philosophy and spirituality in the proper senses of the terms. This is only achieved once all their basic needs are met.

However, Maslow's self-actualized individual, and hence the pyramid, is a fantasy. It is his idea of the perfect person. Some of the values he presents, although they sound wonderful, are actually contrary to enlightenment (and some are indifferent).

Creativity, for instance, is useful when trying to find ways to grasp a concept. But it is actually detrimental to an enlightened person, who needs to be quite uncreative and clear-thinking. Enlightened people are not spontaneous, nor do they spend their time solving problems (the biggest problems already being solved).

Moving down the pyramid, we see many irrelevant things: self-esteem, respect for and from others, achievement, plenty of sex, solid friendships, family... good health, secure property, and morality.

Basically, self-actualization is not the same thing as enlightenment. For enlightenment, you need a healthy mind, an obsession with learning truths about reality, and a willingness to change your life to accomodate that truth.

[Starry_Canopy]

Would you consider Maslow's hierarchy of needs to be a more scientific approach to reaching enlightenment

No, Maslow's heirarchy of needs pertains pretty much to the egoistic state of existence, beyond which we need to go for reaching enlightenment, in the sense of being one with universal consciousness.

But it (creativity) is actually detrimental to an enlightened person, who needs to be quite uncreative and clear-thinking. Enlightened people are not spontaneous

It depends on what being elightened is defined as, I suppose, for, to me, the above two statements, about creativity and spontaniety not being characteristics of enlightened people, are patently wrong. This is because God or universal consciousness is inherently creative and spontaneous, having absolute freedom of knowledge and action. In fact, all this universe and the knowledge (ordered intelligence) it rests on and the way it functions depends, for its existence, on the creativity and spontaniety of That. If one becomes one with That, I wonder how that person can not be creative and spontaneous along with That.

[liquidharmony]

I realize that the example in the link I supplied my be slightly modified from most examples of maslows pyramid. however the final stage 8) Self-transcendence: to connect to something beyond the ego or to help others find self-fulfillment and realize their potential. Seems to me to be a non spiritual form of enlightenment. Maybe his pyramid could aid in finding enlightenment. I see it as baby steps to enlightenment. One may have to take it one step further than maslow stated, perhaps he was unaware of that possibility. I think in my quest for enlightenment I am going to take a step back on listen to maslow on this one. I see a particular stage where I may have rushed through. The buddha found his own way, maybe Ill find my own. :think:

[Trevor Salyzyn]

lh, then sc, then psyche

8) Self-transcendence: to connect to something beyond the ego or to help others find self-fulfillment and realize their potential.
That's not enlightenment. Connecting to something beyond the ego is still an attachment, and hence egotistical. It is much different than dismantling the ego.

From the literature, it does not appear that self-actualized people are more spiritual than the average person, nor happier. What they actually are, without resorting to the theory, is nothing particularly special. They are people who do a bunch of things that he thinks healthy people do.

One may have to take it one step further than maslow stated, perhaps he was unaware of that possibility
I don't think Maslow's hierarchy has much to do with enlightenment. If you take another step in that direction, you'll just make the problem worse. Enlightenment is not a matter of gaining points and moving up a pyramid.

Remove all delusions. That is all.

It is a long process.


Starry_Canopy,
It depends on what being elightened is defined as, I suppose, for, to me, the above two statements, about creativity and spontaniety not being characteristics of enlightened people, are patently wrong.
Unless you are enlightened, you have no business defining it. Your belief in inherent existence, and the fact that you mentioned your conviction that the world must be created intelligently (which is one of two scenarios that are both irrelevant to enlightenment), assures me that you are not. Your proof is irrelevant.

However, I assure you that the only creativity necessary for enlightenment is very basic: being able to understand logic and causality, for instance. That, by being enlightened, you become "creative" in the sense of being more creative than the average person is false. When Maslow refers to creativity, it can only mean in that sense: a self-actualized person is more creative than other people. Enlightened people are not; in fact, they are often less creative (as so often happens with logical people).

Spontaneity can mean more than one thing. That is a word that depends on how you define it. Judging by his occupation, I highly doubt that Maslow meant it in any profound spiritual way. More likely, he means that self-actualized people are always able to find ways to keep their brains occupied: there's always a party going down at the self-actualized person's house.



psyche,
me: enlightened people are not spontaneous

you: well i would not know since i am not enlightened but it seems a contradiction in terms

if one has no delusions nor errors in thinking one is in the position to be perfectly spontaneous and creative since one can do no wrong - no 'blame' as the i ching would say
As I indicated to Starry_Canopy, there is a profound, spiritual, sense in which enlightened people are going to always be spontaneous. It comes from knowing the nature of reality, and that there is really no alternative.

I do not think Maslow intended spontaneity in that sense. He was using it comparatively, as he used creative: "self-actualized people are more creative and more spontaneous than others." In that sense, enlightened people are actually less creative and spontaneous than the average. They think logically, and usually act according to well-thought out habits. Think Buddha, who after he became enlightened lived in one place, and walked into the same village once a day to beg for his meal. He was neither creative nor spontaeous. Creative, spontaneous people think illogically (artistically) and never develop structured habits.

[Starry_Canopy]

Unless you are enlightened, you have no business defining it.

Then you have no business to either as I can assure you with equal certainty that you are not enlightened. And I don't care if my proof is irrelevent to a misguided person.

However, I assure you that the only creativity necessary for enlightenment is very basic: being able to understand logic and causality, for instance.

For one thing, Maslow talked about self-actualization and not enlightenment.

For another, you had better assure yourself about your cock-eyed views first than others.

I have no more interest to carry on a discussion with a stubborn moron like you. I'm not calling you names, by the way. I mean by moron a person who thinks he knows everything while still arguing with others on the verbal plane. The very fact you think you can define elightenment through words should show you the fallacy of your thinking.

Trust you were delighted to receive as much shit and animosity as you dish out! :)

[Starry_Canopy]

Thanks psyche and sorry Trevor.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

SC
For one thing, Maslow talked about self-actualization and not enlightenment.
Did you read the topic of this thread? He was asking if self-actualization and enlightenment were the same thing. I gave many reasons why they are not.

For another, you had better assure yourself about your cock-eyed views first than others.
I am perfectly assured of my views. That you are not is only evidence that you do not think as clearly as I do.

I have no more interest to carry on a discussion with a stubborn moron like you. I'm not calling you names, by the way. I mean by moron a person who thinks he knows everything while still arguing with others on the verbal plane. The very fact you think you can define elightenment through words should show you the fallacy of your thinking.
I never claimed that I know everything. I merely said that I'm enlightened. Knowledge and wisdom are vastly different things.

Anyway, wouldn't the moron be the person who knows nothing about the subject at hand (namely, enlightenment... since you have also implied you are not enlightened) and continues to argue? I think I know everything about enlightenment because I have strong reasons for believing myself enlightened. I think I'm more than qualified to speak about this subject.

You, being neither self-actualized nor enlightened, have no basis for making a comparison between the two. A self-actualized person, I assure you, would also realize that it is not the same thing as enlightenment.

Now, I have never once defined enlightenment. I can see how you might have misconstrued what I wrote to be saying that I was about to define it: however, what I really said was that if you are not enlightened, you have no business trying to define it. You can't even point in the correct direction. Nothing you say on the topic will be correct.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

psyche, you are incorrect. What I say is enlightenment is the same as what Buddha said is enlightenment. It is the perfection of wisdom within the Diamond Sutra.

Bringing up my mental illness was "ad hominem", since the illness is medicated and hence unrelated to the claim. This is not left-over delusion from my last episode, but a reasoned belief.

Being enlightened is hardly grand. It only seems that way to the unenlightened. I am not claiming I'm the Pope, or Jesus, or any famous historical figure. I'm not saying I can do magical things. I don't think I'm a maestro, nor an especially pursuasive or skilled writer. I merely claim enlightenment, which is something any person can achieve in a single lifetime. I have the advantage of a nearly unlimited amount of idle time. Besides having had an entire year off after highschool -- the entire latter half devoted to meditation -- I don't work, and rarely go to school.

The only reason enlightenment is so rare is because very few people have as much idle time as I do, and those that do tend not to use it wisely.

[bito]

Enlightenment, as per Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)

–noun 1. the act of enlightening.
2. the state of being enlightened: to live in spiritual enlightenment.
3. (usually initial capital letter) Buddhism, Hinduism. prajna.
4. the Enlightenment, a philosophical movement of the 18th century, characterized by belief in the power of human reason and by innovations in political, religious, and educational doctrine.

[Origin: 1660–70; enlighten + -ment]

*******************

–noun Buddhism, Hinduism. pure and unqualified knowledge.

Also called Enlightenment.

[Origin: < Skt prajñā]

********************

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source en·light·en·ment (n-ltn-mnt) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. a. The act or a means of enlightening.
b. The state of being enlightened.
2. Enlightenment A philosophical movement of the 18th century that emphasized the use of reason to scrutinize previously accepted doctrines and traditions and that brought about many humanitarian reforms. Used with the.
3 Buddhism & Hinduism. A blessed state in which the individual transcends desire and suffering and attains Nirvana.

******************

WordNet - Cite This Source
enlightenment

n 1: education that results in understanding and the spread of knowledge [ant: unenlightenment] 2: (Hinduism and Buddhism) the beatitude that transcends the cycle of reincarnation; characterized by the extinction of desire and suffering and individual consciousness

[Fool Zero]

Now that bito has posted those dictionary entries, will we need to decide how enlightened the people were who wrote them?

That first one from dictionary.com especially, looks sloppy and circular:2. the state of being enlightened: to live in spiritual enlightenment.
[insert nonexistent :thumbsdown: smilie here -- I'll substitute .NOT. :thumbsup: ]

Editor's note: the :thumbsdown: above is addressed to dictionary.com, not to bito, whom I thank for posting this example of the limitations of dictionary definitions.

[bito]

Editor's note: the :thumbsdown: above is addressed to dictionary.com, not to bito, whom I thank for posting this example of the limitations of dictionary definitions.

The question then begs asking ...

If no one can come up with the definitive term for enlightenment, does this then mean ... God forbid ... that the concept of enlightenment is subjective?

[Fool Zero]

does this then mean ... God forbid ... that the concept of enlightenment is subjective?

(I just checked with God and she says that would be just fine with her.) ;)

I think it's something like a paradox or dialectic:

In one way it's subjective, in that it refers to something you experience.

It's also objective in that we can compare notes on our respective experiences and in some cases even agree that this person tends to sound relatively enlightened while that one has his head in a dark, confined space and is merely wearing a miner's lamp.

Or else (I'll have to sum this up hastily; more later, maybe): enlightenment is not a thing or even an experience per se, but a context in which to hold things, experiences, and even contexts.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

FZ,
Or else (I'll have to sum this up hastily; more later, maybe): enlightenment is not a thing or even an experience per se, but a context in which to hold things, experiences, and even contexts.
That is closer to the truth than any of those dictionary definitions (definitions that were written by unenlightened people). When you call enlightenment a spiritual experience (as the dictionary does), you leave too much open to the imagination -- there are lots of experiences which are mistaken for spiritual, or are spiritual but are not enlightenment.

Enlightenment is not an experience, feeling, activity, or state of mind. Anyone who suggests that it is one of those is dead wrong. You don't feel enlightened: you reason it out. You do not experience enlightenment: you realize that you've been enlightened for a while. It is not an activity: meditation is an activity; enlightenment is more passive than any meditative practise. And enlightenment is certainly not a state of mind: you are not any more or less enlightened when tired, hungry, dreaming, or under the influence of drugs.

A "context" is much closer to the truth. It is the context in which ego and emotions are irrelevant, and are seen as illusory and delusional respectively. That is a far cry from a definition, but it is an arrow in the right direction.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

bito,
If no one can come up with the definitive term for enlightenment, does this then mean ... God forbid ... that the concept of enlightenment is subjective?
No, enlightenment is certainly not subjective. Everyone who is enlightened refers to the exact same thing to the best of their ability. Defining enlightenment is similar to defining sight, which is probably the reason the word contains the word "light".

A person with vision can define vision to a person without vision. But he cannot make the person without vision see. Now, if a blind man walks among other blind men, he can pretend that he has vision, and quote the words of the people with sight. That does not mean he can actually see: he just pretends.

It is, however, obvious to a man with vision that the blind man is lying. Not only is he just copying what other people say, when he ceases to copy, he makes up his own interpretation. His interpretation will be wrong. Furthermore, watching him walk down the street or trying to track a ball with his eyes will easily prove him a liar.

With enlightenment, there are many of these blind people who pretend to have sight, or seem to have sight because they are very talented at moving around blind. But this does not mean that when someone does have sight (is enlightened), they are suddenly having experiences that no other person with sight ever has, or that, talking about sight differently than their peers, they are talking about something entirely different.

They all refer to the same thing. It is as objective as any experience can be (although, at a deeper level, even sight is subjective).

[Starry_Canopy]

Anyway, wouldn't the moron be the person who knows nothing about the subject at hand (namely, enlightenment... since you have also implied you are not enlightened) and continues to argue? I think I know everything about enlightenment because I have strong reasons for believing myself enlightened. I think I'm more than qualified to speak about this subject.

It's ok, Trevor. Peace be with you and wish you all the best for whatever you want.

[...]

Enlightenment is not an experience, feeling, activity, or state of mind. Anyone who suggests that it is one of those is dead wrong. You don't feel enlightened: you reason it out. You do not experience enlightenment: you realize that you've been enlightened for a while. It is not an activity: meditation is an activity; enlightenment is more passive than any meditative practise. And enlightenment is certainly not a state of mind: you are not any more or less enlightened when tired, hungry, dreaming, or under the influence of drugs.

..i agree with this. We tend to make it alot more complicated than necessary, and that's the reason why it eludes most of us. Sorry guys and girls, Trevor's right :P

[Michael]

I'll buy one of those

[Trevor Salyzyn]

psyche,
well since it is so easy then there seems no need to spend so much broadband on the subject
It's the most misunderstood philosophic concept of all. It's often ignored, discarded, misinterpreted, or lied about. I think it's incredibly important that anyone who values philosophy takes the time to perfect his or her wisdom.

Time and time again I mention the Diamond Sutra, because I think that there is more value to be found in those 20-odd pages than there is in most other texts; in fact, one "four-line gatha" of it in particular summarizes the entire path to enlightenment.

THREE: The Buddha said to him, "Subhuti, those who would now set forth on the bodhisattva path should thus give birth to this thought: 'However many beings there are in whatever realms of being might exist, whether they are born from an egg or born frmo a womb, born from the water or born from the air, whether they have form or no form, whether they have perception or no perception or neither perception nor no perception, in whatever conceivable realm of being one might conceive of beings, in the realm of complete nirvana I shall liberate them all.* And though I thus liberate countless beings, not a single being is liberated."
It's more long-winded than is necessary because it is so key to understanding enlightenment. It cuts to the heart of reality. I paraphrase it thus: "I may not know what's out there, but no matter what's out there, I shall be able to liberate all of whatever they are, so powerful is my reason. But because anything that's out there is part of reality, there is nothing to liberate them from; hence, nothing will be liberated when I am done."

It is simultaneously empowering and nihilistic: the power to do anything with the realization that nothing is ever done.

[bito]

We cannot say what light is.

We cannot say what whole is.

We cannot say what love is.

We cannot say what reason is.

We cannot say what God is.

We cannot say.

But we are compelled to speak this unspeakable knowing.

Sharing relative wholes.

Seeing beyond the imaging.

Seeing beyond the words.

Singing and declaring the silence.

[Fool Zero]

Albert Einstein was asked by his hostess at a social gathering to explain his theory of relativity. He said,
"I was once walking in the country on a hot day with a blind friend. I said I would like a drink of milk.
"Milk?" said my friend, "Drink I know; but what is milk?"
"A white liquid," I answered.
"Liquid I know; but what is white?"
"The colour of a swan's feathers."
"Feathers I know; what is a swan?"
"A bird with a crooked neck."
"Neck I know; but crooked?"
I lost patience and straightened his arm. "That is straight," I said; and then I bent it at the elbow. "That is crooked."
"Ah. Now I know what you mean by milk." said the other.
I don't know if/how this applies to our discussion of enlightenment but Trevor's example, several posts back, of a person with vision defining vision to one without, happened to remind me of it. I found it here (http://oaks.nvg.org/rubaiyat2.html) -- well after I'd used the "this soup is too hot" story in another post, let me note.

[______]

The only reason enlightenment is so rare is because very few people have as much idle time as I do, and those that do tend not to use it wisely.
Are you trying to say that having more free time is the key to Enlightenment? Or how you spend what free time you have is?

Just having a ton of free time and spending it in meditation will not lead to Enlightenment. You must interact with other beings and put into practice what meditation develops and cultivates. Finding time to meditate is definitly conductive (if not entirly necessary) towards attaining Enlightenment, but you shouldn't have to sacrifice your education and material needs to get there. HHDL has even agreed that material progression as well as spiritual progression are equally important (extremism to either side leads to delusion).

[...]

..hate the game, not the playa...

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Dalai Lama face,
Are you trying to say that having more free time is the key to Enlightenment? Or how you spend what free time you have is?
Having free time is essential to enlightenment, but also how the time is spent.

Just having a ton of free time and spending it in meditation will not lead to Enlightenment. You must interact with other beings and put into practice what meditation develops and cultivates.
I meant meditation in the broadest sense of the word. I do not do ridiculous, anti-thought practises such as the removal of all thought from my mind. When I meditate, I am often going for a walk while thinking about some matter.

Interaction with other beings is not necessary, and may actually foil attempts at enlightenment. To become enlightened, a person must cloister himself for a period of time. I cannot imagine enlightenment without a period of solitude.

Finding time to meditate is definitly conductive (if not entirly necessary) towards attaining Enlightenment, but you shouldn't have to sacrifice your education and material needs to get there.
Meditation is completely necessary. Again, it is not sitting still and clearing the mind of all thoughts, which is fruitless. Meditation is quiet time used to think. Someone who never has a moment to himself to think will never be enlightened: hence, it is necessary.

I am lucky in that I am not sacrificing any education or material needs to become enlightened. The upside to having a mental illness is that you can get money from the government; besides, my family members are more than happy to keep me around. I easily meet all my material needs. As for education, how long I take to complete my major is my business alone. I'd rather go to school twice a week and have five days to myself -- and finish in six years -- than have to constantly deal with classes, teachers, students, and homework, and finish in four.

HHDL has even agreed that material progression as well as spiritual progression are equally important (extremism to either side leads to delusion).
Material progression is mindless once you have all your basic needs accounted for. However, I do agree that it is bad to neglect food and shelter in favour of spirituality. Such behaviour serves no purpose.

[liquidharmony]

ha ha, dalai lama face.

Trevor, and everyone I think that arguing the correct path to enlightenment is wasteful of time. Just because one reaches enlightenment one way doesnt mean it is the only correct path. certainly trevor, you did not follow the exact path of the buddha. Also , this is a new thought for me, could seeking enlightenment foil the possibility of attaining enlightenment. For that is a desire. The Buddha did not not know what he was searching for until he found it. he was trying to end suffering and stumbled upon enlightenment. I believe I have felt enlightenment but was unable to grasp it. I achieved this taste many times when I was unaware of buddhism but when the world does not wait it is hard to maintain. Now Im struggling to find it again. I know many of you want to say this is not possible, but I dont care, I know where ive been. Its a simple switch in the mind but its difficult to find.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

lh,
I agree, there are many ways to achieve enlightenment. Anyone, given enough time and dedication, can become so. When I speak of things on the path, understand that I'm talking in large generalities. A person needs to meditate: how they meditate is up to them, so long as they understand that meditation is not a passive activity. You don't sit back and relax and clear the mind of thought (although sitting back, or lying down, or being relaxed, does not make meditation impossible). You think about things.

Further, a person needs to cloister himself for a time. This does not mean go to a monastery, as many people go to monasteries and fail. Your own bedroom is enough. Gotama allegedly sat under a tree. Chances are, if you are on a philosophy forum, you have already cloistered yourself. It's also likely that you have spent countless hours in meditation.

I believe I have felt enlightenment but was unable to grasp it. I achieved this taste many times when I was unaware of buddhism but when the world does not wait it is hard to maintain. Now Im struggling to find it again.
Enlightenment is not a feeling. What you are describing is a feeling. David Quinn calls these feelings "peak experiences", and they are common. If you confuse that feeling with enlightenment, you will have difficulty becoming enlightened.

When you are enlightened, you will give up peak experiences. You will realize that they are helpful on the path, because they keep people interested in learning things. But they are not enlightenment: you are no more wise while feeling mystical than while feeling normal. One of the characteristics of enlightenment is that, discounting severe brain damage, it is permanant. States of mind, experiences, and feelings are not permanant.

Seeking the peak experience can be a red herring that eventually makes you give up in frustration, or they can keep you interested enough in philosophy to keep going until you no longer need them to inspire you.

Also , this is a new thought for me, could seeking enlightenment foil the possibility of attaining enlightenment.
Yes, for the reasons I have already stated. It is difficult to seek something that cannot be easily compared to anything else in your awareness. It is better to meditatate on causality (karma) than to meditate on enlightenment. Since you must understand the necessity of causality to be enlightened, it is a more productive use of time; furthermore, it can also lead down many avenues of discovery.

Lastly, I can almost guarantee that there is a peak experience involved when you first comprehend the absolute nature of causality.

[______]

...having a mental illness...
You don't sit back and relax and clear the mind of thought (although sitting back, or lying down, or being relaxed, does not make meditation impossible). You think about things.
*sigh* I finally understand you, Trevor. I no longer need to disprove or prove your enlightenment. It took some time, but I can read you like a book now.

A lotus to you, friend. :)

[Trevor Salyzyn]

A lotus to you, friend.
:)

[clyde]

Trevor;

I have read some of your posts and while I agree with much of what you write, I disagree with this:
One of the characteristics of enlightenment is that, discounting severe brain damage, it is permanant.
It is a pleasing thought, but not true. The dead are not enlightened, neither are they unenlightened. Where is your enlightenment when you are asleep?

Do no harm <http://donoharm.us/>,
clyde

[clyde]

Trevor;

On further reflection, there is a sense in which enlightenment is permanent: awakening, as an event, is rather like losing one’s virginity; i.e., one is forever more non-virginal, even when one is not engaging in sex.

Do no harm <http://donoharm.us/>,
clyde

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Link: A description of self-actualization (http://personcentered.com/selfact.html)

What, in addition to the attributes listed in the above link, would you consider to be characteristics of enlightenment?

[sahyo]

are asking for guessing?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Just opinions.

Actually, I disagree with this part, for either the enlightened or the self-actualized:
6. Autonomy, independence of culture and environment. Self-actualizing persons, though dependent on others for the satisfaction of the basic needs of love, safety, respect and belongingness

I don't think the enlightened would have the "need" for love, safety, respect and belongingness. Sometimes in persuit of the ultimate goal of truth and ethics, one must sacrifice love, safety, respect and belongingness - but IMO, righteous action would be sufficiently satisfying that these things are no longer particularly important.

[sahyo]

opinions so can discuss?




IMO, righteous action would be sufficiently satisfying that these things are no longer particularly important.



opinion cloud

[onemld]

How true, but for some, enlightment is in the eye of the beholder :) :lol:

[Starry_Canopy]

Everything is in enlightenment and enlightenment is in everything... infinite merges with infinite and yet does not merge... I just understand these intuitively and not experientially, but believe that they hold the key for what state one is in when enlightened...

By the way, Happy New Year, everybody! :)

Happy New Year to _______ aka 'Dalai Lama Face' also, wherever you are, dear friend...

[Ryker]

I haven't been back here in quite some time. I miss the place. :)


A person needs to meditate: how they meditate is up to them, so long as they understand that meditation is not a passive activity. You don't sit back and relax and clear the mind of thought (although sitting back, or lying down, or being relaxed, does not make meditation impossible). You think about things.I agree & yet disagree. Just as streams & rivers eventually pour into larger bodies of water, there are many different paths towards spiritual "heightening". The vehicle for this heightening is meditation (and in essence reflection). That being said, would it not be logically sound to say that while there are multiple paths to enlightenment, each path must in some way share a common thread?

For me, this common thread is the fundamentals of meditation - which includes the ceasing of thoughts. The way I understand it, one must train themselves to be able to cease unskillful thoughts ("Did I take out the trash?"; "My back hurts"; etc., etc.) so as to make their mind more conducive to actual skillful thinking. When one has sufficiently trained themselves, then the meditation of ceasing thought becomes superfluous & stops having a practical function - continuing with it would essentially waste more time than necessary.

I think of it as I do writing - a sentence is made up of words, which are made up of letters. I cannot write a sentence without having first learned words, & I cannot write words without having first learned letters. But now that I have learned both of these things, I don't spend days upon days practicing letters or words - I practice sentences.

It's an extremely dumbed down analogy to be honest, but I think it - in a round-a-bout way - gets the general message across.

[Taeguk]

Hi!

Ryker, you wrote:


For me, this common thread is the fundamentals of meditation - which includes the ceasing of thoughts. The way I understand it, one must train themselves to be able to cease unskillful thoughts ("Did I take out the trash?"; "My back hurts"; etc., etc.) so as to make their mind more conducive to actual skillful thinking. When one has sufficiently trained themselves, then the meditation of ceasing thought becomes superfluous & stops having a practical function - continuing with it would essentially waste more time than necessary

A most interesting premise! :)

But tell me, Ryker, what exactly constitutes "skillful thoughts" as opposed to "unskillful thoughts"? What's the difference between the two?

And while you've given examples of unskillful thinking, what exactly makes the examples you've given "unskillful"?

Once you've attained "skillful thoughts", what should you do from there? Are these thoughts means to a further end, or would you consider them ends in themselves?

And finally, have you tried meditation yourself, and if so, what kind? :)

[Ryker]

Hello there Taeguk. :)

A most interesting premise! :)Thank you.

But tell me, Ryker, what exactly constitutes "skillful thoughts" as opposed to "unskillful thoughts"? What's the difference between the two?

And while you've given examples of unskillful thinking, what exactly makes the examples you've given "unskillful"?I think I would loosely liken it to being "industrious". I equate the two because I feel as if they both vary by degree.

For example, if there is a cotton field that is ready to be picked, it would be skillful (industrious) to pick that cotton to use or to give away/sell, but it would be unskillful (not industrious) to let it sit until the plants die. You could pick the cotton by hand & still be skillful; however, you could use a machine & be more skillful. In this example, both of the people who picked the cotton were skillful; however, the one who used a machine varied by degree of skillfulness.

Does that make sense? :huh:

As far as what makes something unskillful - I believe it to be relative to the person & their circumstance. The way I understand it, meditation is the way in which we are able to change the way our mind is used. However, the ego is perfectly content with the status quo (so I would assume that the seemingly random thoughts that often arise during meditation are a result of the ego saying, "Whoa! Stop! Don't do that!"). The meditation of ceasing one's thoughts is basically a big "shut up" to the ego. You're supposed to be in a quiet place for meditation so as to keep you from being distracted; likewise, your mind can be a big distraction to you. If your head is clear, it cannot keep you from something that is skillful (like meditating on the laws of karma, etc., etc.).

I think that answers the question. If not, just smack me. :lol:

Once you've attained "skillful thoughts", what should you do from there? Are these thoughts means to a further end, or would you consider them ends in themselves?You know, I don't believe I've ever really thought about it before. Thinking on it now, I believe it can be both. They can be a means to a further end - enlightenment, if that is what you seek - or they cab be an end in themselves - as in lessening the suffering one would have to endure.

And finally, have you tried meditation yourself, and if so, what kind? :)Basic mindfulness (ceasing one's thoughts), Basic awareness (becoming aware of little things that we don't notice - i.e. walking), loving kindness (a means to replace negative and/or dismissive thoughts with ones of compassion), & the laws of karma.

[Taeguk]

Hi, Ryker! :)

On the subject of thoughts and their purpose, you had this to say:

You know, I don't believe I've ever really thought about it before. Thinking on it now, I believe it can be both. They can be a means to a further end - enlightenment, if that is what you seek - or they cab be an end in themselves - as in lessening the suffering one would have to endure.

If I understand correctly; it seems that meditation is a process of seperating skillful thoughts from unskillful thoughts, yet you have also described it as the "ceasing of thought". But how can we seperate skillful thoughts from unskillful thoughts, except through a specific thought process geared toward seperating one from the other? Either way, it seems like it's an awful lot of thinking for something geared toward the cessation of thought! <_<

If we mean "enlightenment" in the traditional, Buddhist sense of the word, I don't think enlightenment is something that can be attained through intellectual thought. In fact, intellectual thought is often perceived as a hindrance to enlightenment!

About skillful thoughts, you said:

For example, if there is a cotton field that is ready to be picked, it would be skillful (industrious) to pick that cotton to use or to give away/sell, but it would be unskillful (not industrious) to let it sit until the plants die. You could pick the cotton by hand & still be skillful; however, you could use a machine & be more skillful. In this example, both of the people who picked the cotton were skillful; however, the one who used a machine varied by degree of skillfulness.

Fascinating! :) It seems to me that another way of saying "skillful" in this context, would be simply attending to 'what is'. Would you agree with this?

I'd suggest, though, that maybe dividing up one's thoughts into "skillful" and "unskillful" is not so productive in the context of meditation! :unsure:

You also write:

....The meditation of ceasing one's thoughts is basically a big "shut up" to the ego. You're supposed to be in a quiet place for meditation so as to keep you from being distracted; likewise, your mind can be a big distraction to you. If your head is clear, it cannot keep you from something that is skillful (like meditating on the laws of karma, etc., etc.).

In my experience, meditation isn't about ceasing thought as much as it's about awareness!

This also applies to thoughts. If in the course of meditation, if thoughts arise---and chances are, they will! ;)---you acknowledge their presence (thinking) without identifying with the thought. The problem isn't "skillful thoughts" vs "unskillful thoughts"---it is attachment to any thought! Regardless of the skillfulness of your thoughts, attachment is attachment.

Another aspect of awareness is simple mindfulness---without judging. This means not labeling things as "good" or "bad", or as "skillful" or "unskillful"!

This doesn't, of course, mean that you should suppress your thoughts (i.e., telling you ego to shut up)! This sounds like averrsion, which is just another form of attachment!

All Buddhism is aimed at liberation from attachment. There's an old Ch'an story that illustrates this better than I possibly could:

A monk said to Ma Tzu: "Why do you teach 'mind is Buddha'?"

Ma Tzu replied: "To stop a child from crying."

The monk asked: "And when the child has stopped crying?"

Ma Tzu said: "Not mind, not Buddha."

"And if you met somebody unattached to either?"

"Not beings."

"And if you met somebody unattached to all things?"

"Then I would say nothing, and simply let him experience the great Tao."

[Ryker]

If I understand correctly; it seems that meditation is a process of seperating skillful thoughts from unskillful thoughts, yet you have also described it as the "ceasing of thought". But how can we seperate skillful thoughts from unskillful thoughts, except through a specific thought process geared toward seperating one from the other? Either way, it seems like it's an awful lot of thinking for something geared toward the cessation of thought!

If we mean "enlightenment" in the traditional, Buddhist sense of the word, I don't think enlightenment is something that can be attained through intellectual thought. In fact, intellectual thought is often perceived as a hindrance to enlightenment!My words were muddled. I apologize. I agree with what you're saying, but the words I chose to express that were far too vague.

For me meditation is like a vehicle. There are many brands & styles & there are even ones that are better suited to do a specific task - you normally carry construction equipment in a pick-up truck. There is a "vehicle" for ceasing thought, yet there are also various other vehicles useful for other things. I tend to think of the cessation of thought as that first car you save up money for when you turn 16. :lol: Does that make better sense?

Also, my apologies for the bit about Enlightenment. I should say what I mean, eh? Even The Buddha said that intellectual thought alone wouldn't save us. Just knowing these things doesn't help at all. He told us it had to be something that we experienced. However, which comes first - knowledge or experience? :huh: Can one truly experience something without having first the knowledge to perceive it?

I've confused myself it seems.

Fascinating! It seems to me that another way of saying "skillful" in this context, would be simply attending to 'what is'. Would you agree with this?More or less, yes. :)

This also applies to thoughts. If in the course of meditation, if thoughts arise---and chances are, they will! ;)---you acknowledge their presence (thinking) without identifying with the thought. The problem isn't "skillful thoughts" vs "unskillful thoughts"---it is attachment to any thought! Regardless of the skillfulness of your thoughts, attachment is attachment.Again, I didn't choose the best words. The way I understand it, acknowledging the presence of a thought without identifying with it, in essence, is the cessation of thought. Does that make sense? I'm sure there's a better way to put it.

Another aspect of awareness is simple mindfulness---without judging. This means not labeling things as "good" or "bad", or as "skillful" or "unskillful"!From my studies, "skillful" & "unskillful" were the terms used to emphasize the idea of varying degrees. I don't believe it was meant to be a replacement for "good" & "bad", so much as it is meant to show a degree of "productivity" if you will.

This doesn't, of course, mean that you should suppress your thoughts (i.e., telling you ego to shut up)! This sounds like averrsion, which is just another form of attachment! I understand.


Also, I'm quite interested in what you have to say. I've been studying Buddhism for the better part of a year & a half, yet I've only put the path to practice for a little less than a year. I feel as if I have come a long way from where I once was, yet even as I look at the progress I've made, I feel as if I've gone nowhere. All I've learned about Buddhism, I've learned through the various books I've read cover to cover & the various translations of The Buddha's life. I've caused my own undoing from my feeling like I'm in a rut; yet, this short conversation I've had with you has been most enjoyable, as well as enlightening. :) Thank you.

[Taeguk]

Hi Ryker!

As I somewhat suspected, we were saying very similiar things but using very different language. Words can be so constricting sometimes! Thank you for your paitience in responding to me.

You wrote:


My words were muddled. I apologize. I agree with what you're saying, but the words I chose to express that were far too vague.

For me meditation is like a vehicle. There are many brands & styles & there are even ones that are better suited to do a specific task - you normally carry construction equipment in a pick-up truck. There is a "vehicle" for ceasing thought, yet there are also various other vehicles useful for other things. I tend to think of the cessation of thought as that first car you save up money for when you turn 16

That is an excellent way of putting it (and hilareous, too)!

I think your analogy of meditation as a vehicle is especially apropos since ideally a vehicle is used for getting somewhere---it's a means, not an end in itself. I think there's sometimes a tendency to get especially attached to meditation itself, or to certain states of conciousness.

Oh, and there is no need for apologizing! It's very difficult to talk about these sorts of things. I'm constantly muddling my own thoughts, ask anyone around here :lol:

You go on to say:

Even The Buddha said that intellectual thought alone wouldn't save us. Just knowing these things doesn't help at all. He told us it had to be something that we experienced. However, which comes first - knowledge or experience?

That is an excellent question, and one well worth considering!

I think that while it's possible to "know" something like this intellectually, it doesn't completely connect until it's experienced.

It's sort of like playing a sport! You can memorize all the rules of the game, know all kinds of little tricks, know about the sport's history, know all the major players, and know all sorts of things---but you do you really know the sport until you go out there and play? :)

In the Kalama Sutra, the Buddha says:

Do not go by oral tradition, lineage of teaching, by hearsay, by a collection of scriptures, by logical reasoning, by inferential reasoning, by reflection on reasons, by the accetance of a view after pondering it, by the seeming competence of a speaker, or because you think 'the ascetic is our teacher.

But when you know for yourselves "these things are wholesome, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, if undertaken and practiced, lead to welfare and happiness." Then you should engage in them.

This seems to favor a sort of "hands on" approach!

You also wrote:

The way I understand it, acknowledging the presence of a thought without identifying with it, in essence, is the cessation of thought. Does that make sense?

Perfectly. Thanks! :)

Finally, you conclude by saying:

Also, I'm quite interested in what you have to say. I've been studying Buddhism for the better part of a year & a half, yet I've only put the path to practice for a little less than a year. I feel as if I have come a long way from where I once was, yet even as I look at the progress I've made, I feel as if I've gone nowhere. All I've learned about Buddhism, I've learned through the various books I've read cover to cover & the various translations of The Buddha's life. I've caused my own undoing from my feeling like I'm in a rut; yet, this short conversation I've had with you has been most enjoyable, as well as enlightening. Thank you

Don't let being new to Buddhism feel intimidating! I'm hardly an expert myself. In fact, it's often said (especially in the Zen school) that "beginner's mind" is the ideal state to have! Emptiness is an advantage.

Suzuki Roshi of the Kyoto School said once:

You should be rather grateful for the weeds you have in your mind, for eventually they will enrich your practice...

When we reflect on what we are doing in our everyday lives, we are always ashamed of ourselves. One of my students wrote to me saying, "You sent me a calander, and I am trying to follow the good mottoes which appear on each page. But the year has barely started, and already I have failed!"

Dzogen-zenji said: "shoshaku jushaku." Shaku generally means "mistake" shoshaku jushaku means "to follow (or continue, or succeed) wrong with wrong", or "one continuous mistake." One continuous mistake can also be Zen. A Zen Master's life could be said to be shoshaku jushaku---one, continuous, mistake. This means many years of one, single-minded effort.

You have everything you need already. Just realize it, realize your true nature. :)

Thank you, Ryker, for having this conversation with me :) I look forward to continuing it with you and starting new ones with you in the future!

[Noway2Zero]

i hope not to intrude but if i may..
Ryker you stated..

From my studies, "skillful" & "unskillful" were the terms used to emphasize the idea of varying degrees. I don't believe it was meant to be a replacement for "good" & "bad", so much as it is meant to show a degree of "productivity" if you will.

what is 'productivity'?
if not good/bad
what is being produced?
if not good/bad
after production, then what?
more production or the end of production?
(what does this mean for the producer)
sounds tricky eh.. mabey a trap?

Welcome to the board btw it is good to hear you've been able to pull yourself out of a(if i may use your wording) "rut", hope you like it here

[Ryker]

As I somewhat suspected, we were saying very similiar things but using very different language. Words can be so constricting sometimes! Thank you for your paitience in responding to me.No, no; thank you for being patient with a beginner like me. :P

I think that while it's possible to "know" something like this intellectually, it doesn't completely connect until it's experienced.

It's sort of like playing a sport! You can memorize all the rules of the game, know all kinds of little tricks, know about the sport's history, know all the major players, and know all sorts of things---but you do you really know the sport until you go out there and play?Interesting. And you know, I should have caught onto this sooner since I am a fan of the "empty sky" idea. Basically, I can tell you that the sky is blue & I can even tell you why it appears blue, BUT if you're blind & have never seen the sky what was actually accomplished? So I can conclude that intellect cannot substitute experience. But that moves me to question - How can I experience what I know through my intellect?

This seems to favor a sort of "hands on" approach!Very interesting! I remember reading that the Buddha told his followers not to accept what he said because it met with their circumstance or because they respected him. He wanted them to accept what he said because they went out & tested it for themselves. I think he likened it to using heat to test for real gold. So basically, I get the idea that the less I know the more chances I have to learn & experience, correct? So in essence, it's not really the end result that is "enlightenment" but more so the journey? <- That could be worded better.

You have everything you need already. Just realize it, realize your true nature.I'll try my hardest.

Thank you, Ryker, for having this conversation with me. I look forward to continuing it with you and starting new ones with you in the future!Thank you & same to you. :)

what is 'productivity'?
if not good/badHmm, I think of it as "more productive" or "less productive", not "good" or "bad".

what is being produced?
if not good/badPerhaps "skillfulness" or "unskillfulness". I think I'm talking myself in circles here. :P

after production, then what?
more production or the end of production?
(what does this mean for the producer)
sounds tricky eh.. mabey a trap?I think perhaps one can always better themselves; I'm sure there's something to improve upon. If you run a factory that produces 300 cars a day, there must be a way in which you can produce more & be more "productive", right?

Welcome to the board btw it is good to hear you've been able to pull yourself out of a(if i may use your wording) "rut", hope you like it hereThank you for the welcome & yes, I'm glad as well. I really like it here, since the people seem to be very friendly & helpful, whereas most other philosophy communities I've been to have been - if I may speak bluntly - snobby. So, I think I'll be sticking around for a while. :)

[Noway2Zero]

so.. producing skills ? skills to do what ? skills to produce ? <_<

..a circle indeed :)

by not doing all is done ;)

[Taeguk]

Hello Ryker! :)

You wrote:

No, no; thank you for being patient with a beginner like me.

Oh, not at all! I'm very much a beginner myself :)

You went on to say:

Interesting. And you know, I should have caught onto this sooner since I am a fan of the "empty sky" idea. Basically, I can tell you that the sky is blue & I can even tell you why it appears blue, BUT if you're blind & have never seen the sky what was actually accomplished? So I can conclude that intellect cannot substitute experience. But that moves me to question - How can I experience what I know through my intellect?

I think it was Aristotle who suggested that "There is nothing in the mind that has not first been experienced through the senses." I don't think that's absolutely true, but in many cases, I do think that's the case!

Think back to what you "intellectually know" without having experienced: Didn't you have to either

a ) Experience it yourself?

b ) Have somebody tell you about it? Isn't the act of listening to this conversation an "experience"? And very probably, the teacher themselves experienced it, or their teacher experienced it, or somebody further down the the line eventually experienced it. Isn't teaching a sort of "mediated experience"?

As to experiencing what you intellectually know, it depends! Some intellectual knowledge is probably too abstract to be "experienced".

But for intellectual knowledge that can be experienced, you have to do it.

Or, as Noway2Zero has suggested, "not doing" is ultimately the way through which everything gets done. ;) (are you familiar with wu wei, Ryker?)

So basically, I get the idea that the less I know the more chances I have to learn & experience, correct? So in essence, it's not really the end result that is "enlightenment" but more so the journey? <- That could be worded better.

The journey is the destination, which I think is what you're suggesting! :)

You concluded by saying:

Thank you for the welcome & yes, I'm glad as well. I really like it here, since the people seem to be very friendly & helpful, whereas most other philosophy communities I've been to have been - if I may speak bluntly - snobby. So, I think I'll be sticking around for a while.

This has also been my experience with other philosophy boards! :lol: Yes, people are very friendly around here. See? You fit right in already, Ryker!

[Ryker]

by not doing all is done:P Too true. Too true.

Oh, not at all! I'm very much a beginner myself You must have a photographic memory. LOL

I think it was Aristotle who suggested that "There is nothing in the mind that has not first been experienced through the senses." I don't think that's absolutely true, but in many cases, I do think that's the case!

Think back to what you "intellectually know" without having experienced: Didn't you have to either

a ) Experience it yourself?

b ) Have somebody tell you about it? Isn't the act of listening to this conversation an "experience"? And very probably, the teacher themselves experienced it, or their teacher experienced it, or somebody further down the the line eventually experienced it. Isn't teaching a sort of "mediated experience"?

As to experiencing what you intellectually know, it depends! Some intellectual knowledge is probably too abstract to be "experienced".

But for intellectual knowledge that can be experienced, you have to do it. Interesting. This makes a lot of sense.

Or, as Noway2Zero has suggested, "not doing" is ultimately the way through which everything gets done. (are you familiar with wu wei, Ryker?)I know a little bit about it, but I don't know a great deal. I know that it is the idea that the universe already has harmony & our will acting against it is the source for disharmony.

The journey is the destination, which I think is what you're suggesting!Yes, very much so. :)

This has also been my experience with other philosophy boards! Yes, people are very friendly around here. See? You fit right in already, Ryker!Thank you. It is a shame though that so many philosophical boards are like that. You'd think they'd be the most open community to be. Live & learn though. LOL