Talk:Enlightenment (concept)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Religion. This project provides a central approach to Religion-related subjects on wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. | |
Contents |
[edit] simpleton
I fully expect the note about Krishnamurti to be reverted as it does not fit the POV of most Westerners. It should be noted that the Enlightenment episode for Krishnamurti is documented in his biographies and that it was hardly spiritual, but physiological. Krishnamurti called it The Process and apparently had bouts of it his entire life. Outside The Process he was a simpleton, but within it, he was inspired. Apparently this is the reason that huge numbers of Californians would come to hear him. --- The author of the previous comment seems to be biased against Krishnamurty(simpleton!). I agree with his observation that it is controversial to say that any XYZ was enlightened. In fact the concept of (enlightenment)eludes precise description.
As found in the definition, I was not aware that enlightenment had anything to do with 'resisting.' Contrary, I thought it was about letting go. It should be updated with a better definition.
The correct definition should be as simple as "constant self awareness and growth"
I find the statement that Krishnamurti was 'a simpleton' rather extraordinary as well. Does the poster want to explain what he means? Was K a half-wit who bumped into lampposts when he wasn't 'enlightened'? What on earth does he mean? Further, there was considerably more to Krishnamurti than hanging out with Califormian hippies. ThePeg 2006
Does anyone else find the links to the "Matrix", "Truman Show" and "Vanilla Sky" pages under the 'see also' heading inappropriate? Perhaps there should be a "depictions of enlightenment in fiction" page? --Betterliving 02:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Physiological correlates of enlightenment
Any discussion of enlightenment without mentioning the meditation research done by the Transcendental Meditation researchers is silly. Fred Travis, Kieth Wallace, Alerik Arenander and company have established quite interesting physiological correlates of what is defined in TM theory as the beginning stage of enlightenment: constant witnessing during waking, dreaming and sleeping states of consciousness. Try doing a pubmed search on Travis F for more info. There are published physiological studies on people who have reported constant witnessing during all normal states of consciousness over a period of many months and years.
PubMed keyword: Travis F
-
- or Kundalini
- but then, any discussion of enlightenment is very, very silly. Twang 07:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thaddeus Golas reference
added
- The author of a popular non-sectarian work, The Lazy Man's Guide to Enlightenment [1], Thaddeus Golas, has been acknowledged by many as an enlightened teacher.
-
- to all ignorant admins, this is not an ad, or for hyping a personal website, Thaddeus Golas is an important figure widely known by all except ignorant admins.
I'm sure that you have all the extrinsic references to back that assertion up? If not, then he's not that notable. Meanwhile, lay off the language. It's inappropriate. --Nlu (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- please lay off the ignorant knee-jerk reverts to a subject you know nothing about, its inappropriate
←==Concept or Experience?==
the title strikes me as inappropriate. Enlightenment is more commonly understood as a mystical / religious experience than a philosophical concept. e.g. some Zen teachers are quite fanatical about denying any conceptual basis to enlightenment.
Probably both, concept for westerners and experience for easterners. Most western philosophers learn/study/understand enlightenment concept. While eastern meditation practioners directly experience enlightenment. That's the basic of it. Monkey Brain 14:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Any mind-state can be conceptualized, but should not be confused with the mind-state itself. This essay [[2]] gives a good overview of enlightenment as simply accomplishing the mature level of consciousness in which the notion of "I" is seen as an illusion. The problem of conceptualizing enlightenment is that the enlightened state is trans-conceptual. See the work of Ken Wilber for a discussion of heirarchies of worldviews, which should be central to any discussion of higher (transpersonal) modes of consciousness.
- An excellent point, Monkeypuss... unfortunate that lots of the words in WP that have to be disambiguated have to have some (word after them in brackets) ... you could change it to enlightenment (experience) but then that'd suggest that If You Come Here You Will Leave Changed. Which probly ain't gonna happen, even if some people treat WP like an Oracle. ;-> ....... To whoever added the reply, thanks for the pointer to Trasi ... someone somewhere suggested that E was a transition to being "fully human", in that compassion replaces selfishness when ego-illusion is relativized by exposure to our fundamental unity. Twang 07:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
How about a separate article for Enlightenment (experience)? -Toptomcat 15:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I have to state, that enlightenment is not only a spirtual transcendance, enlightenment is the advancement of knowledge and therefore can be gained philosophically due to the fact that philosophy is the basis from which all knowledge stems from. To state that one term can only reflect religious or spitual relations when clearly it can hold to much more outside such spheres is quite misleading. makeshifthunter 13:54, 14 December 2006
[edit] Topic Duplication: Age of Enlightenment
Rather than keeping the section on "Age of Enlightenment" on this page which completely ignores one of the most significant periods in the history of human thought I suggest to replace this paragraph with a link to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Enlightenment
[edit] Enlightenment - Gnosis
I notice that Gnosticism is included in the realted articles sections at the bottom of the page. There surely must be a link between the Western concept of Gnosis and the Eastern concept of Enlightenment. Has anyone written about this? I am very interested in how syncretic religious/spiritual traditions are all over the world. On a profound level: different terminology, same concept, just as the Hindi word for Tree means the same as the French word for Tree only sounds different. We undervalue Western spiritual traditions in favour of Eastern where in fact the esoteric ideas of both are practically identical. If anyone can tell me where I can find comparisons between concepts of Gnosis and Enlightenment I would be very grateful. ThePeg July 2006
- Reply - Spiritual 'Enlightenment', in the very least, is an 'awarenes' of a spiritual realm (something tran-sensory, beyond the senses or transcendental). "Gnosis" is esoteric 'knowledge' that goes beyond faith (Religion) to certainty. "Gnosis" is a subset of "Enlightenment". One can have or 'be' enlightened and yet, not have "gnosis". Enlightenment (awareness), however, can lead to gnosis (knowledge). An 'enlightened' person, for instance, can believe in God or the spirit as an external phenomenon while the Gnostic knows this divine phenomenon exists on an 'inner realm' that can be accessed and cultivated. For instance (additionally), a person who has faith in God can be considered "enlightened" relative to an atheist. However, that 'enlightenment' may be a faith in a "God" that is external/above and/or outside of the self. The Gnostic, on the other hand, recognizes that "God" or the spirit or the soul is also an inner phenomenon and seeks "within" rather than "without". At some (advanced) point in an individual's spiritual evolution both enlightenment and gnosis can form a unity (Self Realization). I am unaware of any (publicly available) reliable comparisons of the concepts of Gnosis and Enlightenment. The reason for this lack of information is because by the time that enlightenment leads to gnosis the 'Gnostic' realizes that 'silence' holds the key to additional spiritual advancement. Thus, (a spiritual adage) "Those who know, do not speak" ('speak' meaning to teach or proselytize). My recommended references are The New Testament (Jesus as possessed of Gnosis and why silence is a good idea) and Autobiography of a Yogi. John Charles Webb 19:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Existence of the concept of Enlightenment
The artical says that Krishnamurti refutes "...any existence of the concept of enlightenment." This means that even though we can think of the concept and meanings of the word 'Enlightenment' it doesn't actually exist. This is like an athiest's approach to the word and concept(s) of God or gods. It is a simplistic and inaccurate statement, whether this character proposed it or not. Every athiest has a concept of God, even though they have rejected the 'reality' of that concept, just as Krishnamurti had a concept of Enlightenment. The concept existed for him also. It's perhaps more useful or precise to put forward that every concept or thought has no real existence, or perhaps no independent or eternal existence. And of course it would need to be followed and clarified in this arguement that every experience, whether intellectual, sensual, emotional, 'high' or 'low', or whatever has no real 'existence' (in the way the word existence is used here). Maybe Krishnamurti was a very muddled thinker. Why is this statement in this important subject? Particularly when it is the last sentence most people will read, and written as a way of ending the whole text. It's a kind of dumbed-down artical, lacking in the precision of most other 'intellectual' subjects in Wikipedia, which is pitiful considering the vast potential of the subject.
[edit] On the people that have been enlightened.
If this section is to remain, a lot of work needs to be done. It seems likely that whoever made this section was biased in some way towards this Nārāyana Guru fellow, then someone came along and wanted Mr. Bucke mentioned as well. How about Osho? Buddha? Etc. --Arthurvandelay 08:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sifting dross
Much of this article reads like a half-baked student assignment. I have never heard anyone seriously use the term "the age of enlightenment" for the acquiring of intellectual maturity, and remain to be convinced that there is any genuine use of this concept in any reputable branch of psychology. The stuff about the transcendent Self (which is a kind of popular boiling-together of Western takes on Eastern mysticism) might make sense if it were backed up with some references. The article as it stands does little justice either to religous views or to the intellectual secular concept, and unless someone with a broad knowledge of the areas concerned can work it over, the whole article seems a waste of space. Ming the Merciless 16:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merging with the page Enlightenment
I would certainly agree to merge, this could simply be a redirect page. I'm not sure though if there is much content in this page that is worthwhile to merge... rudy 14:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
Not sure about the following paragraph re NPOV although have left it in at present. Any comments - I suggest removal. 89.240.7.29 21:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
