buddhist concept of enlightenment

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

I was talking to my friends about Calculus,economics, philosophical conservatism and eventually the buddhism concept of enlightenment. What I learned is that enlightenment is not theoretical, but is instead praxis based. Thus it cannot be described and can only be experienced, but my friend provided a very helpful story to make this more clear. It goes like this:

Mary has a TV that only shows her the world in black and white, and a science book that explains everything about the world. She knows everything about the world, but one day she decides to step outside her house. She goes outside and for the first time she experience's the color red. Both the book and the TV can describe the color red, but they can not help someone experience the color red. Now think about how the color red could be enlightenment, and how "experiencing the color red" is almost impossible to describe!

[John Dibble]

So? This isn't unique in religious concepts. It could just as easily be said of the Christian God that he can't accurately be described with human words, and only through experiencing him can you truly have any kind of meaningful understanding of him. It can't be proven to be any more meaningful or useful.

The significant difference between your example and these kinds of concepts is that in your example Mary is actually able to experience color, and even if she couldn't I could find a way to demonstrate that the color red is actually real and that furthermore there's practical use in being able to experience it and see it. Heck, let's actually take away Mary's ability to experience color - let's make her completely colorblind. I could still at least show her that color exists and it's useful through simple experimentation. I could get a few dozen blue boxes and a red box, put an object in the red box, leave the room and let her move the boxes around, come back in and instantly find the box with the object in it no matter how many times we tried.

Compare that to concepts like enlightenment or God which can't even be shown to exist. Can anyone who has claimed to experience them show that the experience is useful or even real?

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

So? This isn't unique in religious concepts. It could just as easily be said of the Christian God that he can't accurately be described with human words, and only through experiencing him can you truly have any kind of meaningful understanding of him. It can't be proven to be any more meaningful or useful.

The significant difference between your example and these kinds of concepts is that in your example Mary is actually able to experience color, and even if she couldn't I could find a way to demonstrate that the color red is actually real and that furthermore there's practical use in being able to experience it and see it. Heck, let's actually take away Mary's ability to experience color - let's make her completely colorblind. I could still at least show her that color exists and it's useful through simple experimentation. I could get a few dozen blue boxes and a red box, put an object in the red box, leave the room and let her move the boxes around, come back in and instantly find the box with the object in it no matter how many times we tried.

Compare that to concepts like enlightenment or God which can't even be shown to exist. Can anyone who has claimed to experience them show that the experience is useful or even real?

All of it is praxis based and thus it can only be experienced. I'll put it in a different light and replace the color red with sex. People often talk about sex,describe sex, and will sometimes see sex, but not everyone has experienced sex. The same could be said of enlightenment, but it can not be described because it goes beyond ordinary experience, and all categories of thought.

I am assuming that in order to become enlightened one must study with Philosophical concept of "being". Why is there something rather than nothing?

[useful idiot]

[John Dibble]

All of it is praxis based and thus it can only be experienced. I'll put it in a different light and replace the color red with sex. People often talk about sex,describe sex, and will sometimes see sex, but not everyone has experienced sex. The same could be said of enlightenment, but it can not be described because it goes beyond ordinary experience, and all categories of thought.

And again I have to say "So what?" - someone who has never had sex can at least find evidence for sex. What evidence is there for this state of enlightenment?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're assuming entirely based on the assumption that this state of "enlightenment" actually exists. You might as well assume that in order to become enlightened one must cause oneself to explode by eating 1000 tacos.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

All of it is praxis based and thus it can only be experienced. I'll put it in a different light and replace the color red with sex. People often talk about sex,describe sex, and will sometimes see sex, but not everyone has experienced sex. The same could be said of enlightenment, but it can not be described because it goes beyond ordinary experience, and all categories of thought.

And again I have to say "So what?" - someone who has never had sex can at least find evidence for sex. What evidence is there for this state of enlightenment?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're assuming entirely based on the assumption that this state of "enlightenment" actually exists. You might as well assume that in order to become enlightened one must cause oneself to explode by eating 1000 tacos.

I never claimed that the state of enlightenment actually exists, and I am not sure as to why this subject seems to irritate you. The State of enlightenment is said to have been experienced by various individuals, but because it transcends categories of thought it is almost impossible to describe. Sex on the other hand can be experienced once one has it, but it can be described because it exists within categories of thought.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

All of it is praxis based and thus it can only be experienced. I'll put it in a different light and replace the color red with sex. People often talk about sex,describe sex, and will sometimes see sex, but not everyone has experienced sex. The same could be said of enlightenment, but it can not be described because it goes beyond ordinary experience, and all categories of thought.

And again I have to say "So what?" - someone who has never had sex can at least find evidence for sex. What evidence is there for this state of enlightenment?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're assuming entirely based on the assumption that this state of "enlightenment" actually exists. You might as well assume that in order to become enlightened one must cause oneself to explode by eating 1000 tacos.

I think it is a noble goal to ascend beyond what are mind and body is capable of. It may never happen,but it is worth the journey.

[John Dibble]

I never claimed that the state of enlightenment actually exists, and I am not sure as to why this subject seems to irritate you.

The topic does not irritate me. The fact that you're presenting something that is rather obvious, not at all unique, and utterly useless as a piece of highly philosophical nugget of info. It's the sheer pretentiousness of it that irritates me. So what if enlightenment is praxis based? Every experience ultimately is - you aren't going to truly know what something is like until you experience it, which again reiterates the point that this isn't a particularly meaningful piece of information.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And to that I again have to say "So what?" - saying somebody has experienced something doesn't make it true. Demonstrating that this state of enlightenment actually exists would be far more valuable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again - "So what?" It doesn't make anything you've said have any value whatsoever. Besides, sex is no different. I can describe the mechanics of an orgasm and generally what it feels like to someone, but they really wouldn't fully comprehend it unless they experienced it. It's no different from what you have to say about this enlightenment stuff - without experiencing it no description will allow you to fully comprehend it, but at least I could demonstrate that sex and orgasms actually exist.

I think it is a noble goal to ascend beyond what are mind and body is capable of. It may never happen,but it is worth the journey.

Nobody said it wasn't.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

I never claimed that the state of enlightenment actually exists, and I am not sure as to why this subject seems to irritate you.

The topic does not irritate me. The fact that you're presenting something that is rather obvious, not at all unique, and utterly useless as a piece of highly philosophical nugget of info. It's the sheer pretentiousness of it that irritates me. So what if enlightenment is praxis based? Every experience ultimately is - you aren't going to truly know what something is like until you experience it, which again reiterates the point that this isn't a particularly meaningful piece of information.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And to that I again have to say "So what?" - saying somebody has experienced something doesn't make it true. Demonstrating that this state of enlightenment actually exists would be far more valuable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again - "So what?" It doesn't make anything you've said have any value whatsoever. Besides, sex is no different. I can describe the mechanics of an orgasm and generally what it feels like to someone, but they really wouldn't fully comprehend it unless they experienced it. It's no different from what you have to say about this enlightenment stuff - without experiencing it no description will allow you to fully comprehend it, but at least I could demonstrate that sex and orgasms actually exist.

I think it is a noble goal to ascend beyond what are mind and body is capable of. It may never happen,but it is worth the journey.

Nobody said it wasn't.

Would you rather have me post something that you consider unique? No offense but I havn't seen anyone in the Philosophy forum post too many high end threads.

[John Dibble]

Would you rather have me post something that you consider unique? No offense but I havn't seen anyone in the Philosophy forum post too many high end threads.

Unique would be nice, but something that's not pretentious would be acceptable. Perhaps something that wouldn't make useful idiot think that you're smoking crack.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Would you rather have me post something that you consider unique? No offense but I havn't seen anyone in the Philosophy forum post too many high end threads.

Unique would be nice, but something that's not pretentious would be acceptable. Perhaps something that wouldn't make useful idiot think that you're smoking crack.

how is this at all pretentious?

[John Dibble]

Would you rather have me post something that you consider unique? No offense but I havn't seen anyone in the Philosophy forum post too many high end threads.

Unique would be nice, but something that's not pretentious would be acceptable. Perhaps something that wouldn't make useful idiot think that you're smoking crack.

how is this at all pretentious?

I've explained the opening's complete lack of substance being presented as if it was so deep and meaningful already, so if you don't get why it's pretentious from that then I'd be wasting my time to explain it again.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Would you rather have me post something that you consider unique? No offense but I havn't seen anyone in the Philosophy forum post too many high end threads.

Unique would be nice, but something that's not pretentious would be acceptable. Perhaps something that wouldn't make useful idiot think that you're smoking crack.

how is this at all pretentious?

I've explained the opening's complete lack of substance being presented as if it was so deep and meaningful already, so if you don't get why it's pretentious from that then I'd be wasting my time to explain it again.

well i don't think it is deep and meaningful at all. I think it helps explain something about enlightenment.

[John Dibble]

Would you rather have me post something that you consider unique? No offense but I havn't seen anyone in the Philosophy forum post too many high end threads.

Unique would be nice, but something that's not pretentious would be acceptable. Perhaps something that wouldn't make useful idiot think that you're smoking crack.

how is this at all pretentious?

I've explained the opening's complete lack of substance being presented as if it was so deep and meaningful already, so if you don't get why it's pretentious from that then I'd be wasting my time to explain it again.

well i don't think it is deep and meaningful at all. I think it helps explain something about enlightenment.

Something which nobody here needed to have explained to them, because it applies to everything.