• Hi, I am the owner and main administrator of Styleforum. If you find the forum useful and fun, please help support it by buying through the posted links on the forum. Our main, very popular sales thread, where the latest and best sales are listed, are posted HERE

    Purchases made through some of our links earns a commission for the forum and allows us to do the work of maintaining and improving it. Finally, thanks for being a part of this community. We realize that there are many choices today on the internet, and we have all of you to thank for making Styleforum the foremost destination for discussions of menswear.
  • This site contains affiliate links for which Styleforum may be compensated.
  • We would like to welcome House of Huntington as an official Affiliate Vendor. Shop past season Drake's, Nigel Cabourn, Private White V.C. and other menswear luxury brands at exceptional prices below retail. Please visit the Houise of Huntington thread and welcome them to the forum.

  • STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

    Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

Is the concept of enlightenment a myth?

MetroStyles

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
May 4, 2006
Messages
14,586
Reaction score
30
Nearly as far back as written history goes, examples of the "enlightened man" have existed across cultures and religions. The two most well-known are Jesus and Buddha, both of which managed to overcome their attachment to material goods, social comparison, and worldly outcomes. While western tradition has not focused on enlightenment, it's important that Christianity's figurehead was what would likely be considered an enlightened being by eastern standards.

In Asia, the concept of enlightenment through Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. has stayed strong. Parables of ancient monks who reached it and elusive masters who experienced satori, or a spiritual awakening, are plenty yet I have yet to come across one of these people in my own life. Modern quasi-celebrities from the villified/venerated such as Osho in the 1970s to the new-age opportunists (Eckhart Tolle) have kept this concept relevant to this day.

The idea of it rings true to me - after all, I've certainly been through the pleasure and pain cycle, the dependence and base emotions that all human beings go through. I know that pleasure exists as a counterpoint to misery, and as such cannot exist without its opposite. It seems that, barring enlightenment, we as humans are destined to bounce back between pleasure and misery as long as we go on living. And what the teachers say about this all rings true:

- That living in the past and future (through nostalgia, grudges, dreams, expectations, hopes, anxieties) is not living at all. Yesterday is the past, and today was once the future, but if you do not live in the moment you never live a moment at all.
- That meditation is the vehicle for freeing our minds of the endless inner chatter (the ego) that dominates our thoughts. This one is hard to argue with, as anyone that tries to stay aware of their thoughts for thirty seconds will realize the haphazard and often negative inner voice that won't shut up. True inner silence is hard to find without practice. To be enlightened is to be fully aware in the moment - to truly live without the mind being preoccupied in some other dimension.
- That happiness conditional on others (others' love, others' approval) and on materiality (money, possessions, objects) is happiness that can be taken away at any moment. This realization breeds anxiety, fear, and despair in the rich as well as the poor.
- That a resistance to whatever is is a recipe for suffering. Unless one can accept whatever happens and flow with it, one will be in despair unequivocally. This includes major life events such as divorce, infidelity, death, etc. To be enlightened, we are told, is to go with the flow.

As I said, all of these things genuinely make sense to me. But of course I have plenty of doubts. Why do these teachers rarely provide concrete exercises for reaching this inner peace? Why do they avoid the subject of how to operate within the confines of a materialistic society while living in an enlightened state? Why are their teachings always so metaphysical and hypothetical?

Why are there not more "enlightened people" in the world? Is it because transcendence of our base nature is really only possible in fleeting glimpses? Is it because as humans we are destined for a life of pleasure and misery, flickering from one to the other? Is it because our materialistic, "efficiency-obsessed" society has created a model in which this sort of higher thinking just doesn't work - and if so, does it matter whether it's society's fault or our nature? The end result may be the same - that the idea of enlightenment is an idealized dream that sounds nice and makes sense, but just doesn't work because of who we are.

Any thoughtful points of view?
 

redcaimen

Bigtime
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Messages
6,787
Reaction score
552
Interesting poast. You are an interesting young man, Metro. Let me know when you open the floor for non-thoughtfull responses.
 

oman

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2006
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
3
you can't see the forest for the trees, my son
 

dusty

Distinguished Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
4,780
Reaction score
20
Is it really better to detach yourself completely from the things that make us human? How is that being 'enlightened'? And how can you even conceive of a person who lives an otherwise normal life attaining such a state? Of course Zen Buddhism and Hinduism contain plenty of wisdom that is applicable to everybody's lives, but the idea of total enlightenment is pretty far-fetched.
 

Bhowie

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
14,692
Reaction score
6,633
Originally Posted by dusty
Is it really better to detach yourself completely from the things that make us human? How is that being 'enlightened'? And how can you even conceive of a person who lives an otherwise normal life attaining such a state? Of course Zen Buddhism and Hinduism contain plenty of wisdom that is applicable to everybody's lives, but the idea of total enlightenment is pretty far-fetched.

I agree with this. It seems one of the most beautiful aspects of humanity is our duality. When you go too far to one extreme it seems things become warped and ugly. Examples: People who treat humans as numbers and are very disconnected from emotions / People who live for pure pleasure (drugs, sex, etc) Iammatt/Teger.
 

MetroStyles

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
May 4, 2006
Messages
14,586
Reaction score
30
Originally Posted by dusty
Is it really better to detach yourself completely from the things that make us human? How is that being 'enlightened'? And how can you even conceive of a person who lives an otherwise normal life attaining such a state? Of course Zen Buddhism and Hinduism contain plenty of wisdom that is applicable to everybody's lives, but the idea of total enlightenment is pretty far-fetched.
Well dusty, those are the same things I am asking. I'd reply to your first question, if I may be the mouthpiece for those who those who teach enlightenment. There is a big difference between ascetism and enlightenment. Enlightenment does not require detaching yourself from all things that are human. Enlightenment is about detaching our egos from our selves. Once the ego is "removed", one can experience life with joy and can feel love for all things unconditionally - i.e. not as something that is removed as soon as a lover does something that makes you angry. One accepts what is, and while he certainly feels emotions (sadness, joy, anger), those emotions are accepted and pass quickly. Because when one lives in the moment, it is hard to be angry. Anger for the most part exists as a reaction to something in the past. Wouldn't you be excited by a life that allows you to love everyone and all things, that necessitates that you feel joy in whatever you are doing, that an inner energy brings you inner peace and allows you to walk through life without undue stresses or cravings, and that allows you to detach yourself from the worst aspects of "love" such as jealousy and possessiveness while still feeling a real human connection with people? Anyway, that's the idea. I'm not saying it is attainable. But I wouldn't say to be theoretically enlightened is to be inhuman. Edits in bold.
 

Big Pun

Distinguished Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
896
Enlightenment isn't taught in a concrete way because its path is different for everyone.
 

MetroStyles

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
May 4, 2006
Messages
14,586
Reaction score
30
BTW, more about the ego idea. The ego is something that craves importance. It wants self-aggrandizement. It needs to get bigger lest it disappear.

The ego can feed itself through several ways, including:

- Attention from others
- Possessions, material and human (a nice car, clothes, a beautiful girlfriend)
- Joining causes (like a parasite attaching itself to a large animal, the ego can become bigger by attaching itself to a larger cause - a political movement, nationalism, a religious movement, etc.)
- Feeling sorry for oneself (why does drama always find me?, why do terrible things always happen to me?, I can't believe he did that to me again, etc. etc.)

Importantly, the ego is always relative. The ego is always comparing itself to others. It is the puppetmaster behind our ambition, our insecurity, and many of our cravings (not all - for example sexuality at its purest really has nothing to do with the ego).
 

r...

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
666
Reaction score
0
Enlightenment goes against every grain of being human contained within the parenthesis of society. Gregariousness, a prerequisite for the survival of any of the dominant species brings about a host of hierarchies both for self and self within the group. Becoming enlightened separates one from both those roles.

Think for moment what it would be like to meet a person with no id, no desire, existing in the ether of equanimity, someone absent from the vicissitudes of life. Could you relate to this person in any way? Could you picture yourself as that person?

- That living in the past and future (through nostalgia, grudges, dreams, expectations, hopes, anxieties) is not living at all. Yesterday is the past, and today was once the future, but if you do not live in the moment you never live a moment at all.
Its impossible to truly live in any given moment. How you experience the moment is a culmination of your life until that point in time. No moment is separate from what was and will be until the moment you die.

- That happiness conditional on others (others' love, others' approval) and on materiality (money, possessions, objects) is happiness that can be taken away at any moment. This realization breeds anxiety, fear, and despair in the rich as well as the poor.
Happiness is always conditional. What can you replace the concept of happiness with that wont have a reciprocal? This is a sales pitch; a better happiness does not exist.

I tend to think of enlightenment like a humanistic detachment with spiritual connotations. I just wonder if the end goal is to feel fulfilled or empty.
 

Big Pun

Distinguished Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
896
Sounds like the path to true happiness is to stop deep thought, not brooding on past mistakes, worrying of the future, being self concious etc.
 

MetroStyles

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
May 4, 2006
Messages
14,586
Reaction score
30
Originally Posted by r...
Enlightenment goes against every grain of being human contained within the parenthesis of society. Gregariousness, a prerequisite for the survival of any of the dominant species brings about a host of hierarchies both for self and self within the group. Becoming enlightened separates one from both those roles.

I agree with some of this, but I don't think that enlightenment goes against the hierarchy of the group. Enlightenment implies acceptance of circumstances. An enlightened being would either accept being lower on the hierarchical chain of a society, or would find a way to leave those confines (in the animal world, a non-alpha monkey leaving his pack to live alone or find another). Not that I am implying animals are enlightened, but merely giving an example.

Think for moment what it would be like to meet a person with no id, no desire, existing in the ether of equanimity, someone absent from the vicissitudes of life. Could you relate to this person in any way? Could you picture yourself as that person?
Meeting a person with no id is not really possible, nor is it implied by enlightenment. The id should be accepted - it is the denial of the id in ourselves and others, in the form of jealousy, suppression of instincts/puritanism, and pent up frustration that often leads to the negative feelings that we all view, perhaps incorrectly, as being "par for the course" of being human. The enlightened being, as I understand it, has no ego and is fully aware of the superego, but does not ignore the id. Full awareness of the superego lends itself to being able to operate within the confines of society without being dominated by its influence.

I could relate to a woman who would love me freely without possessiveness and without inhibition. I could relate to a woman who wanted to make love to me for the sake of making love, not for the sake of ego validation, possessiveness, or insecurity. I definitely could. It would be rare and weird at first, but in the end it would be the better arrangement.

Its impossible to truly live in any given moment. How you experience the moment is a culmination of your life until that point in time. No moment is separate from what was and will be until the moment you die.
Of course. But getting less theoretical for a moment, I think you know what is meant by living in the moment. It means living fully aware without actively thinking about the past or future. It makes no sense to do this all the time - when planning needs to happen or when we meet an old friend and think back to our previous conversation, it is unavoidable. The idea is to be able to live in the present whenever one wishes. If you want to know what I mean, try brushing your teeth in the morning or evening for two-three minutes without your mind wandering from the act of brushing your teeth. It is nearly impossible, but it demonstrates what is meant by avoiding the past or the future. It really means avoiding an internal monologue from your ego.

Happiness is always conditional. What can you replace the concept of happiness with that wont have a reciprocal? This is a sales pitch; a better happiness does not exist.
It might be a sales pitch. That's what I wonder myself. I hope it isn't but I can't help but feel it may be. That said, happiness' reciporcal is misery. Joy's reciprocal does not exist. It is something that comes from within, not outside.

I tend to think of enlightenment like a humanistic detachment with spiritual connotations. I just wonder if the end goal is to feel fulfilled or empty.
Agreed - it is a detachment from the ego and its control over the human self. I think the end goal is fulfillment, but whether it works out that way practically speaking is another matter.

You have some really interesting thoughts though. Thanks for posting.
 

Connemara

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
38,384
Reaction score
1,827
Stop trying to sound smart you are still a feg
 

r...

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
666
Reaction score
0
Originally Posted by Connemara
Stop trying to sound smart you are still a feg
Hey, shouldn't you be out collecting raccoon pelts to barter for some Serbian's portly son?
 

r...

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
666
Reaction score
0
Originally Posted by MetroStyles
I agree with some of this, but I don't think that enlightenment goes against the hierarchy of the group... An enlightened being would either accept being lower on the hierarchical chain of a society, or would find a way to leave those confines...
I think of this as the often depiction of the traveler seeking knowledge having to travel high into the remote mountains to find some hidden temple where an old monk will answer him 3 questions. This happens outside of the group all together.

Meeting a person with no id is not really possible, nor is it implied by enlightenment. The id should be accepted... The enlightened being, as I understand it, has no ego and is fully aware of the superego, but does not ignore the id.
The ego mediates between the id and the super-ego. The culprit in pure self regard is the id. Without the ego you could not relate to a group.

I could relate to a woman who would love me freely without possessiveness and without inhibition. I could relate to a woman who wanted to make love to me for the sake of making love, not for the sake of ego validation, possessiveness, or insecurity. I definitely could. It would be rare and weird at first, but in the end it would be the better arrangement.
laugh.gif
The love making would be great for sure. Afterward what would you talk about?


You have some really interesting thoughts though. Thanks for posting.
I think there exist an universal consciousness, a transcending aggregate. A duality in the Platonic sense, in my limited understanding of a vaguely remembered drunken conversation I once had.But I don't think anyone yet, enlightened or not has reconciled it.
 

Featured Sponsor

How important is full vs half canvas to you for heavier sport jackets?

  • Definitely full canvas only

    Votes: 55 35.5%
  • Half canvas is fine

    Votes: 60 38.7%
  • Really don't care

    Votes: 17 11.0%
  • Depends on fabric

    Votes: 27 17.4%
  • Depends on price

    Votes: 28 18.1%

Forum statistics

Threads
505,195
Messages
10,579,243
Members
223,906
Latest member
alphadriveusa
Top