What Do Enlightened People Know that Others Don't?

[Sunstone]

A truly enlightened person understands the weaknesses of the human condition, and strives to be free himself from its insecurities and doubts..

Is there anything more to enlightenment than that, Don?

 

[siti]

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.

Me neither - and I am playing with words a bit - but only a bit. I truly believe that enlightenment is about becoming comfortable with not knowing - not giving up on learning and inquisitiveness and curiosity (I could never do that even if I wanted to) but knowing that any answer we find to any question will be necessarily incomplete and ultimately unsatisfactory. Its about embracing doubt and uncertainty - because these are far more accurate reflections of fundamental reality than the certain and concrete answers we sometimes think we have found. And in any case, if we really want to attain to a complete knowledge of reality surely that complete knowledge would have to include intimate knowledge of what it is like to be profoundly ignorant about it? It is a paradox - I call it the omniscience paradox - to know absolutely everything one would have to know what it is like to know absolutely nothing. So if enlightenment is about knowing, it is also as much about not knowing. One without the other is not really enlightenment I don't think - but who knows? Exactitude is not enlightenment. Neither is certitude. Enlightenment is probably - like everything else - a process not an objective, a journey not a destination. So - what does an enlightened person know that others don't? Their own path (perhaps?).

 

[crossfire]

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?

Maybe. Some may die before their minds become developed.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Is there anything more to enlightenment than that, Don?

No.It is the goal of all humans to rid themselves of doubts and insecurities. Both are a consequence of our highly evolved forebrain, complex languages, and social interactions. An enlightened person is able to discern what is beneficial for the mind, and what is beneficial for the body. He is aware of the importance of maintaining balance in nature, and balance in the human condition. Don

 

[Vee]

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

That's a very good question. I think it depends on the subject but everyone has a choice to learn more if they really want to.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That's a very good question. I think it depends on the subject but everyone has a choice to learn more if they really want to.

I do not think more learning is a prerequisite for enlightenment. It tends to be an unqualified acceptance of what I already know and all that is in my surroundings more than anything else for me. No denying or presupposing of anything.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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?

I am not suggesting what "enlightenment" (if it existed) would be based on, but only that nothing can be considered "knowledge" (which you suggest, by your question, that enlightenment must be) which is not true, and not capable of being shown to be true. It can at best be a supposition that seems to be working for whoever holds it, and is not suffering because of it.

Could you demonstrate, do you think, that Buddhist "enlightenment" is in any sense more true than the Christian who believes himself saved because he has been "born again?"

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

This is a wildly bigger question than I think you realize. For most humans, we actually do not understand what it is, exactly, that our emotions are. I am going to attempt to give a simple explanation of something immensely complex, but I'm likely to have limited success, so please bear with me.

The first important point I want to make is that everything that we humans do is a response to present conditions: we -- our biology, biochemistry, cognition, all of it -- are essentially an amalgam of algorithms: algorithms for the successful propagation of our species. We have been honed by millions of years of evolution to be thus.

Many of our purely biological and reflex functions are the "output" from algorithms that do not require cognition: our heart speeds up when we use more energy, our bodies and brains produces chemicals, hormones and pheromones without our awareness in response to inputs.

Our emotions -- which are entirely within our cognition -- are another form of "output" from other algorithms responding to other inputs. Very often, perhaps most often, they are the results of an immense amount of computation of probabilities. For example, when a peahen sees the magnificent tail of a peacock, along with the rest of him, she is not aware that she is in fact calculating, based on a vast array of signals perceived through her eyes (and possibly through other chemical signals like pheromones) the likelihood of reproductive success based on the quality of his genes. But she is unaware of this "calculation:" the result is expressed merely as an emotional response that says "come and get me, big boy!" Like it or not, human females (and males, but to a different degree) do much the same thing. Sexual attraction is an emotion, and it is the direct output of algorithms for reproductive success honed by our species over a very long time.

Much the same can be said for our attachments to friends, to social structures, to tribes, societies, "people-like-us," and all the rest -- these are the emotional "outputs" to the algorithms that define what sort of being we are. This is especially important to consider in the "attachment" that children and parents feel towards one another. Because of the kind of being we are, this is utterly essentially to our survival.

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?

I hope, in what I wrote in the previous comments, that I have answered that.

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 am only reflecting what I understand of the idea of "enlightenment" as expressed (as it pretty much always is) in an essentially religious context. I think of knowledge as being quite different. Knowledge (as I pointed out epistemologically) is based on what can be (so far) demonstrated to be both true and justifiable. (By the way, that which is true and justifiable, but which you do not believe, cannot be considered to be knowledge that you possess.)

I allow, by the way, that this knowledge is always contingent -- new information, new observations, new insights, might change it. And that makes another bold point -- because it is contingent, we never consider it to be "enlightenment" which always seems, to me, to contain some suggestion of permanent, never-changing truth. For me, that doesn't exist.

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

My point was that we all, believers, philosophers, scientists and dummies like myself, accept some things as being somehow "true," and those truths inform our other beliefs and actions. But they are -- as anyone can see -- all different. "Enlightenment" in any religious sense is no more demonstrably true than "salvation through being born again" or epicureanism. And therefore, neither the enlightened, the born-again nor the epicurean knows (as in the central question of this thread) "KNOWS" something that the others don't. They accept things, perhaps, that the others don't, but that does not equate to knowledge.

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?

I hope I have just done that.

 

[Sunstone]

I hope I have just done that.

Nope.

Not unless it was your intent to demonstrate that your model of "enlightenment" is at least a wee bit muddled and based on arbitrary definitions of such things as "knowledge". But sincere thanks for making an effort!

 

[Jumi]

So, do you think that mindful breathing and walking are a couple of ways to help reach this threshold?

They can help reach that goal, yes. Like with basic muscle training, it's not always that exciting, but before you notice it you've moved ahead and changed.

Even if you want to go some more difficult route it's no good if lacking basics. Having a steady and safe method that gives results is always good.

 

[Jumi]

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.

I wouldn't call non-attachment enlightenment. It's just an attitude, that's often helpful.

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.

There's no ultimate that can be reached in the universe. We may move infinitely close to something we feel is ultimate, but if we reached that point, forging ahead from our plateau we would notice that there is another ultimate beyond it. The idea that enlightenment is an end state without layers is false.

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.

Groups of experienced people always have exclusive understanding. People who've had sexual experience "know" something that people those without the experience don't. People who are capable of deriving enjoyment from art "know" something that people who don't. It's the same deal with "enlightenment".

 

[Ponder This]

That's a genuinely interesting question to me, PT. Thanks for raising that! I wonder -- sincerely wonder -- whether it's really that way? For instance, is it possible to be enlightened at a non-conceptual or subconscious level and never really become consciously aware that you are enlightened? At least not know you were "enlightened" in an intellectual way? What do you think?

Consider the following:

1. A group of people has an inside joke. Someone else says something and they laugh. He asks to what's so funny and is told. Unfortunately, once the joke is explained... it is no longer funny.​

2. A person comes back from the war. His life goes on and then he encounters someone he never met before who was also in the war. They both see something happen and look at each other. "There it is," one of them says. The other understands. Unfortunately, the other people who weren't in the war don't understand.​

The experiences we have in life shape our understanding of reality. If a bunch of people start talking about enlightenment and no one in the group has had actual experiences that relate to it, then none of them know what they are talking about. It's just a word being tossed around and speculated on, perhaps even being used to refer to someone else altogether.

Yet, two people who don't know each other can communicate in deep ways because they see something they both recognize. What they recognize is not about the specific words they use and they could invent a whole language to talk about their experiences and have meaningful exchanges that other people can't understand even if it is explained to them.

Do they "know" things without "knowing" them? There are two ways of knowing. The ability to articulate knowledge shouldn't be confused with the knowledge itself.

 

[Nakosis]

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?"



Comments? Jokes? Observations? Muddled Rants? Snotty Remarks? Thinly Disguised Efforts to Solicit Nude Selfies From the Other Posters?


HAPPY BONUS QUESTION: Offhand, in what way(s) is the question a trick question (assuming it is one)?

SECOND HAPPY BONUS QUESTION: Can you be enlightened and yet not consciously know you are enlightened?

EDIT: I have laid out some of my own views about the question in post #41 below for anyone who is interested.


Please Note: My opinions expressed in this thread are my own, do not always reflect established wisdom in these matters, and therefore should be taken with extreme caution. However, all reputable and important Zen Masters themselves agree that it is pure folly for anyone to disagree with me.

I suspect enlighten folks would be freed from the normal conviction in ideologies.

Freed to be themselves without having to follow some guideline or 7 step guide of how to be themselves.

Freed from religious, political, moral ideologies that tell them what they need to do to be a "good" person.

 

[Sunstone]

I suspect enlighten folks would be freed from the normal conviction in ideologies.

Freed to be themselves without having to follow some guideline or 7 step guide of how to be themselves.

Freed from religious, political, moral ideologies that tell them what they need to do to be a "good" person.

I suspect you are most likely right about that.

Any ideas what it is about enlightenment that frees them?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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

I know that cheesecake is from heaven.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Consider the following:

1. A group of people has an inside joke. Someone else says something and they laugh. He asks to what's so funny and is told. Unfortunately, once the joke is explained... it is no longer funny.​

2. A person comes back from the war. His life goes on and then he encounters someone he never met before who was also in the war. They both see something happen and look at each other. "There it is," one of them says. The other understands. Unfortunately, the other people who weren't in the war don't understand.​

The experiences we have in life shape our understanding of reality. If a bunch of people start talking about enlightenment and no one in the group has had actual experiences that relate to it, then none of them know what they are talking about. It's just a word being tossed around and speculated on, perhaps even being used to refer to someone else altogether.

Yet, two people who don't know each other can communicate in deep ways because they see something they both recognize. What they recognize is not about the specific words they use and they could invent a whole language to talk about their experiences and have meaningful exchanges that other people can't understand even if it is explained to them.

Do they "know" things without "knowing" them? There are two ways of knowing. The ability to articulate knowledge shouldn't be confused with the knowledge itself.

Nice example.

 

[Nakosis]

I suspect you are most likely right about that.

Any ideas what it is about enlightenment that frees them?

I was always partial to the acceptance of uncertainty myself.

One doesn't need certainty to experience a mountain.

Exploring the world with my grandson, it's a beautiful thing. What else really do I need?

 

[Milton Platt]

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?"



Comments? Jokes? Observations? Muddled Rants? Snotty Remarks? Thinly Disguised Efforts to Solicit Nude Selfies From the Other Posters?


HAPPY BONUS QUESTION: Offhand, in what way(s) is the question a trick question (assuming it is one)?

SECOND HAPPY BONUS QUESTION: Can you be enlightened and yet not consciously know you are enlightened?

EDIT: I have laid out some of my own views about the question in post #41 below for anyone who is interested.


Please Note: My opinions expressed in this thread are my own, do not always reflect established wisdom in these matters, and therefore should be taken with extreme caution. However, all reputable and important Zen Masters themselves agree that it is pure folly for anyone to disagree with me.

First, isn't virtually all knowledge enlightening to varying degrees? Second, after centuries of various "enlightened" religious figures in numerous religions have come and gone, why has nobody bothered to enlighten the rest of the population?

 

[Sunstone]

First, isn't virtually all knowledge enlightening to varying degrees?

Depends on who you're talking to and how they define "enlightening", doesn't it?

Second, after centuries of various "enlightened" religious figures in numerous religions have come and gone, why has nobody bothered to enlighten the rest of the population?

How does your question tie in with the OP?

 

[Sunstone]

And in any case, if we really want to attain to a complete knowledge of reality surely that complete knowledge would have to include intimate knowledge of what it is like to be profoundly ignorant about it? It is a paradox - I call it the omniscience paradox - to know absolutely everything one would have to know what it is like to know absolutely nothing.

That strikes me as just plumb brilliant. Thanks, Siti!

Enlightenment is probably - like everything else - a process not an objective, a journey not a destination.

Some mystics would agree with you there.

 

[Jumi]

Second, after centuries of various "enlightened" religious figures in numerous religions have come and gone, why has nobody bothered to enlighten the rest of the population?

It's not something you can give someone else, and religious figures... not many of them have much to give on this, if they could, IMO.