What Do Enlightened People Know that Others Don't?

[sandy whitelinger]

Okay... so enlightenment is perceiving all things without judgement. Please clarify what you mean by 'accepting things without judgement'. For instance if I 'accept' a rock I come upon am I judging it or not? What is an example of both accepting with judgement and accepting without judgement?

Actually the rock probably is more enlightened than us. I presume it has no pretensions about being or doing anything else but being a rock.

Maybe an example from last week will give a situation you can relate to. Start with 16" of snow. I was also spending 12 hours a day for 7 days setting up, running and tearing down a show. During this time, my washing machine broke, my car broke, and my prodigal daughter returned home. Instead of b*tching and complaining I had a quiet acceptance of this.

It is quite possible that self control can achieve the same result. Yet, my perception was that this is exactly the way things were supposed to be which led to my quiet acceptance of the situation.

 

[Sunstone]

Enlightenment IS ignorance.

Do you think it's possible to be certain of whether or not each of the other posters in this thread are enlightened or not?

 

[Sunstone]

Maybe they do but it must get exhausting. At one point they must ask themselves "is it worth the effort or should I just let go?".

Makes you wonder how many people like Galileo "dropped out" because of this.

So one has a choice whether to be enlightened or not?

 

[Sunstone]

Actually, I think this is a pretty good definition! They have made their unconscious mind conscious, as Carl Jung would put it.

Interesting! I recall Jiddu Krishnamurti used the phrase "fully integrated" -- meaning (perhaps among other things) that a person's psyche was no longer divided between conscious and subconscious minds -- as one of his terms for enlightenment. Carl and Jiddu knew each other. Perhaps they discussed these things.

Why do you suppose most of us are in some sense divided between conscious and subconscious minds?

 

[crossfire]

Interesting! I recall Jiddu Krishnamurti used the phrase "fully integrated" -- meaning (perhaps among other things) that a person's psyche was no longer divided between conscious and subconscious minds -- as one of his terms for enlightenment. Carl and Jiddu knew each other. Perhaps they discussed these things.

Why do you suppose most of us are in some sense divided between conscious and subconscious minds?

Well, because the conscious mind is younger than the unconscious mind. (Id preceeds ego in development.) Sorting out objective reality (ego) is a tough job, and the subjective mind even moreso, imo.

 

[crossfire]

So one has a choice whether to be enlightened or not?

I dunno. Maybe. There is such a thing as willfull ignorance, so it is entirely possible to remain in ignorance.
Would you like the red pill or the blue pill?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So one has a choice whether to be enlightened or not?

Enlightenment is fleeting at times. Subverting the dualism that constitutes our senses requires perserverence.

 

[crossfire]

I dunno. Maybe. There is such a thing as willfull ignorance, so it is entirely possible to remain in ignorance.
Would you like the red pill or the blue pill?

Oh yeah, almost forgot: The blue pill is definitely addictive. I suspect that the red pill might also be addictive as well.

 

[siti]

Do you think it's possible to be certain of whether or not each of the other posters in this enlightened or not?

Of course not - that's the point. To the extent that I think I know how enlightened (or not) another person is, to that extent I show myself to lack enlightenment. I often lack enlightenment, but I console myself in the knowledge that enlightenment being ignorance, I can happily concede that most everyone else is more enlightened than I am.

 

[crossfire]

Of course not - that's the point. To the extent that I think I know how enlightened (or not) another person is, to that extent I show myself to lack enlightenment. I often lack enlightenment, but I console myself in the knowledge that enlightenment being ignorance, I can happily concede that most everyone else is more enlightened than I am.

There's a lot to be said about knowing that you don't know.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

"What Do Enlightened People Know that Others Don't?"

Nothing.

I base this assertion on the epistemic notion of knowledge as (shortening here for convenience) Justified True Belief. If, just for example, you think that "non-attachment" is a higher good then "attachment," then you will have failed to understand some very important truths about the nature of human emotions, and their role in our very existence. And that cannot be considered "knowledge" in an epistemic sense. If you think that there is some sort of human soul that somehow, eventually (in whatever fashion various religions suppose) reaches some final, ultimate state, then you will have failed to know anything at all about what evolution really is, and what a "soul" likewise really is -- and realize that they cannot, in any universe, exist together.

I contend, therefore, that so-called "enlightened people" may suppose that they know something that others don't, but that same supposition is equally true of everybody else, too, and is therefore (through reduction ad absurdum) false.

 

[Willamena]

I am curious about how you, dear reader, would answer a question that I found earlier today on a certain noble and esteemed website::

"What Do Enlightened People Know that Others Don't?"

(I know this one.) How to do laundry.

(Or, perhaps more to the point, when to do laundry.)

 

[Sunstone]

 

[Sunstone]

I base this assertion on the epistemic notion of knowledge as (shortening here for convenience) Justified True Belief.

Are you suggesting that enlightenment, if it existed, would be somehow based on justified true belief ("knowledge")? If so, wouldn't that imply at least the possibility that one could become enlightened, if there were such a thing as enlightenment, simply by reading and understanding the "correct", "right", or "true" theological text or scripture?

If, just for example, you think that "non-attachment" is a higher good then "attachment," then you will have failed to understand some very important truths about the nature of human emotions, and their role in our very existence. And that cannot be considered "knowledge" in an epistemic sense.

Are you suggesting that emotions must somehow be "attached" to function appropriately? If so, why would you suggest that?

Are you suggesting that one could not be enlightened, if there actually were such a thing as enlightenment, unless one made some kind of a value judgement about "non-attached emotions" versus "attached emotions"? If so, why would you suggest that?

If you think that there is some sort of human soul that somehow, eventually (in whatever fashion various religions suppose) reaches some final, ultimate state, then you will have failed to know anything at all about what evolution really is, and what a "soul" likewise really is -- and realize that they cannot, in any universe, exist together.

Are you suggesting that enlightenment, if there were such a thing, would necessarily depend on the existence of a "soul" and/or that souls "reaching some final, ultimate state"? If so, why would you suggest that?

I contend, therefore, that so-called "enlightened people" may suppose that they know something that others don't, but that same supposition is equally true of everybody else, too, and is therefore (through reduction ad absurdum) false.

You've lost me there. Could you re-phrase your point please?

You seem to be basing your rejection of the notion that enlightened people know something that others don't on some model of enlightenment I'm not familiar with. Could you expand on just what that model is, please?

 

[Sunstone]

There is such a thing as willfull ignorance, so it is entirely possible to remain in ignorance.

That implies to me that -- in the absence of willful ignorance -- we might all become enlightened, at least eventually. I do not wish to debate the point: If that's what you meant, that's fine. But I'm just checking to see if I understood you. Have I?

Would you like the red pill or the blue pill?

I really have to see that movie some day! Everyone keeps referring to the pills and I never remember which pill does what. Thank goodness there's google!

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think enlightened people know anything more than other (non-enlightened) people with similar experiences and education. However, enlightened people do have access to more than what they know. For instance, Ramkrishna Paramhansa the Indian mystic was not an educated man, but whenever people asked him a question, he would see the answer in a vision right there, and he would describe the vision to the questioner.

Do you have an opinion, SoulSurvivor, about the question of whether or not enlightenment in any way crucially depends on some measure of non-conscious, non-symbolic knowledge?

 

[Sunstone]

Of course not - that's the point. To the extent that I think I know how enlightened (or not) another person is, to that extent I show myself to lack enlightenment. I often lack enlightenment, but I console myself in the knowledge that enlightenment being ignorance, I can happily concede that most everyone else is more enlightened than I am.

I'm not sure I follow. I mean, if as you've said earlier, "Enlightenment IS ignorance", and some folks in this thread have in effect said, "Enlightenment is knowledge", then can't you and I be sure that they are not enlightened? At least, not enlightened in your own meaning of the word?

I'm just curious, Siti. It's the middle of the night, I'm bored, and I'm idly trying to occupy myself. But I'm not looking for any debates.

 

[siti]

I'm not sure I follow. I mean, if as you've said earlier, "Enlightenment IS ignorance", and some folks in this thread have in effect said, "Enlightenment is knowledge", then can't you and I be sure that they are not enlightened? At least, not enlightened in your own meaning of the word?

No - it means they are ignorant and therefore enlightened - they just don't know it yet!

 

[Sunstone]

No - it means they are ignorant and therefore enlightened - they just don't know it yet!

Oh, I see! Thanks for the clarification!

 

[Sunstone]