The Renaissance began a few centuries ago, and we've since seen the Industrial age and the "Enlightenment", the triumph of scientific reason. But what does that mean? Is being enlightened being intellectually aware? Does enlightenment follow from reason, or does reason follow from enlightenment? Eastern philosophy has states, of mind or being that correlate with "levels" of enlightenment, which don't follow from reason - reasoning is unavailable to the "experience", of being; an enlightened mind understands that reason exists because of experience, not the other way around. Who knows what samadhi or nirvana is? What does either have to do with reason and/or intellect, or emotion. Is self-awareness a philosophy or a science?
The term "the age of enlightenment" is a different usage of the word from "the Buddha's enlightenment." Even when discussing enlightenment as it is used just in Buddhism (in come up in many other yogas and religions), the various sects and cultures and periods have sometimes very divergent understandings and representations of what it means. When asked what it all meant the Buddha said: I'm awake. That seems as good as anything until you know for yourself.
Enlightenment is reached neither through science nor philosophy. We think that just because we have all agreed to use a particular name for something and to use another set of created and agreed on words to describe it, we can somehow come to understand the essence of 'what is reality?'. That's absurd, don't you think. We have grouped together a number of sensations and experiences and thoughts and bunged them all together to call them body-mind. We move then from this group consensus reality to assume that because we can describe it (even though we have divided it up and named it ourselves) we understand reality. Another absurdity. Therefore, enlightenment is about seeing what reality is outside of this 'consensus reality' - to examine what is reality if there is no thought or no belief in the language we have created to describe reality. What is there then? Is there a 'there' and a 'here' if we do not think. Is there a 'me' if I do not recollect the words created in our 'consensus reality'? And whatever we think that we have seen when the mind comes in to analyse and postulate on what reality is after this moment of silence - what is must also be inclusive of this language and the play of life.
I disagree that the Eastern kind of enlightenment does not follow from reason. Reason is the exact method that is used, even though the final product is indescribable. The master engages in a discussion with the student, they pose a question and demand a reasonable answer. It is only through reason that a student learns the limit of reason.
It is only through discussion that it is finally seen that what is being looked for in 'enlightenment' cannot be found with the mind. The mind is used to eliminate itself as the master of the show - that is the only function of reason - 'the student learns the limit of reason' to quote you. It is like using a thorn (the mind) to eliminate another thorn (more mind) and then both thorns are thrown out. Some people appear to need a lot of convincing, others just stop looking for reasoning to explain that which is preconceptual - that which must already be there for any 'reasoning' to appear. That life energy or presence awareness preceeds all thought - you do not have to think 'I am thinking' to know you are thinking. That knowingness is always there. That is what you are, not the content of mind. That is what is being pointed to again and again in non-dual thinking. But some people want the process and the levels and 'I am better than you' shit because that is what we have all done habitually.
Yet there are those who can reach it through either of those practices. Remember enlightenment is just a placeholder word until you personally have something to go on. Sure if that's what hangs you up. Certainly thoughts like "me" are only there when you think them. We use them to refer to objects, but they are not tied to anything. Because they are thoughts we can make them effortlessly as many time as we care to. This is why fighting your ego is so silly. You create ego, destroy it, create it ... its just a thought game. The only way to actually win is to know how not to play. See it for a distraction. Go on about your life. Reason is just a tool. The answer is just a tool. If you just look at the tools, you can't see the blue prints. If you just look at the house, you don't know the people building it. If you are really good with a hammer, you drive a nail with one stroke. It used to drive my grandfather crazy to hear people who are bad with a hammer wailing away trying to drive a nail in. He had mastered a tool, but it became a hang up. Because it was a hang up it could have become an insight. That could have become realization and the cessation of hangups.
But these questions often do not have reasonable answers. So one is not reasoning one's way to something - a conclusion or information or a belief - the questions are functioning - at least in say the Zen koan context - as non-rational tools. Further much of the practice is decisively NOT encouraging reasoning. One might note the reasoning, but one does not engage in it. Often one is encourage to disidentify with thoughts. My experiences also indicates that one does not end up sitting around reasoning and not identifying with the reasoning. Minds tend not to fuss around with a lot of deductive reasoning when you keep coming back to the breath or disidentify. It is about as much a reasoning process as floating on your back in a lake, however reasonable it may be to 'do' so.
What else but 'mind' can hang anyone up. Not that it has in anyway really hung anyone up. Even to say that one must 'disidentify' with thought is not correct for who is there to stop the identification but the ego which is nothing but mind?
Questions and answers may indeed be asked and answered. But enlightenment is not a function of reasoning. How often does reason cause you to draw a breath, or go to sleep at night, or wake up again? Reason is a requirement for existence, but so is a pair of lungs. That may be true, but the limit of reason(ing) doesn't matter. Enlightenment doesn't care. It isn't like winning a prize, either. More like seeing how little it matters what you think it is, or what you think about anything, though of course you do think about all kinds of things. It's a journey, not an arrival. You don't have to reason with a journey, you just travel.
I agree with all that you say in your last post, but not with this last sentence quoted here. The notion of 'travel' has implied in it the idea of time. And in non-duality, there is no time, there is no process, and there is no 'you' to travel it. Everything that is appearing in the manifestation is it but not how it is appearing. We are the knowing of everything that is appearing - that knowing never changes, no matter what theories we are expounding or whether we are alseep or in some higher 'state' of consciousness. What we are is that which never changes - and what never changes? The body has changed (well mine has anyway) and so has the mind - ideas never stay the same. What does stay the same is the knowingness of everything that plays.
The mind was and is already present in that silence. Mind being more than just the strings of words and concepts. I am not just being fussy;I think we can even achieve silence, but not remotely have escaped cultural bias, habits of mind, suppression of noticing certain phenomena and so on. So much of our biases we enforce via unconscious and non-verbal (including non-verbal mental) activity. I do think this can be slowly stopped, but that is another topic.
Simon, we take what arises in the mind to be 'me' - whether we define these arising thoughts or conditioning as subconscious or conscious is not important. Look at your thoughts and see if you can see from where they arise. Can you find a locality anywhere for these thoughts? What makes you think that you are the thoughts and that you are thinking the thoughts? Isn't it just the way we have explained reality - could what we are not fit any defined reality? Could what we are be there prior to any notion at all. Doesn't there have to be some awareness there for any thought or appearance to be noticed? Couldn't we just be this awareness and the body-mind be appearing in this awareness rather than the body-mind having the awareness? How can we see if this is so? Answer: We see all mind as conditioning appearing on what we might be or we see if we are actually thinking or if thinking is just arising. What conditioning or cultural bias could be there if it is not being thought about? The mind is not present in the silence for it is only a thought that would make the mind appear to be in the silence. There is nothing in silence and then the mind arises. And even when mind does arise, it is nothingness arising.
You are focusing on the identity issue. I am focusing on what is experienced. People don't even notice what they are told does not exist. There is so much that we are unaware of because of 'thinking' that is non-verbal and unconscious. You can notice these things when you wake up after a time or notice how you explain away things. If you are lucky or investigate, etc. And to me you are confusing mind with 'thoughts'. But mind, and filtered mind at that, is altered by non-verbal bias much of it culturally instilled but also via the family, etc. Even awareness of what science approves of as 'real' affects what is perceived by many. The mechanisms which do not allow gestalts to form are very fast and easily missed. Avoidance of emotions, also culturally trained, and even the admonishment to disidentify with emotions, also culturally biased, radically affects what one is willing to notice. I could do a good regurgitation of neo-buddhist thought also.
You are getting caught up in the words, but it is the actual process of doing it which gives the answer. Once you are doing it then the words make better sense, or you can use other metaphors and analogies. A hang up, any hang up/suffering, is just the most visible point of reference to grab a hold of the process of suffering and change it to the process of not suffering.
Suffering - physical or mental pain or distress. That's what's supposed to make us question the meaning of existence (why is it painful as well as enjoyable - why both?), suffering to an enlightened person, is in fact a cause to rejoice, to see how it leads you to deeper insights into your place in the world (it's insignificant in the big view), and what personal existence signifies (it matters to just one person, in the big view). Pain and suffering can be cathartic, or just distressing. A person who is dharma, welcomes all experience - there is no "good" or "bad" experience - just existence.
You sound like you take the mind way too seriously - it is nothingness - yes it was regurgitation in the first instance when I read your reply but now it is nothingness - for if I ask with the mind 'Do I really know what I am?' and I ask the mind to absent itself while I considered if I had some sense of what I was when there was no mind and then came to tell what that might be - there is no answer, there is nothingness there - thank you for calling my bluff and making me raise to the challenge. We have all looked to the mind for some ultimate answer when there is no answer that will satisfy the mind and lead us to some even moderate contentment.So no point to look for Enlightenment via mind. Enlightenment is about being free of the bondage of the 'body-mind' construct and cannot therefore be seen with this construct in mind. So, if there is no 'you' in the story - what is there?
