The Vanity of Enlightenment

Originally posted by Serdgiam
reply to post by InTheLight

 

I am not sure I understand, would you mind explaining it a bit more?

What is available to the monk that is not available to you or me? I could see it maybe being an "easier" environment in some ways, but beyond that I am not sure I see any real obstacles other than what we choose to put in the way.

edit on 22-2-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)

The life of a monk is devoted to poverty, prayer, reflection and is basically uncluttered with the struggles and obligations most of us find ourselves having to face every day. Not to mention that alot of people have to deal with all manner of physical, emotional, addiction, and psychological problems - these cannot easily be put aside or ignored.

Originally posted by InTheLight
The life of a monk is devoted to poverty, prayer, reflection and is basically uncluttered with the struggles and obligations most of us find ourselves having to face every day. Not to mention that alot of people have to deal with all manner of physical, emotional, addiction, and psychological problems - these cannot easily be put aside or ignored.

I understand the life of a monk.

Why is a monk not susceptible to physical, emotional, addiction, and psychological problems?

I agree that they are not easily put aside or ignored. In my mind, that would be about the worst thing we can do. I much prefer acceptance, then growth. The monk will have to handle these exact same issues though, just in a slightly different manifestation. They exist in the same universe as all of us, and it would seem that everything that is available to "them" is also available to "us."

For me, I made many excuses as to why I personally could not achieve such things continuously. As it turns out, I was completely wrong. Wasnt the first time, and it certainly wont be the last!

Once upon a time, I attempted to quantify every single process that was happening at a specific moment. I used the arbitrary time scale of one second.

After I got "done" with the room I was in, I stopped.

Everything from the capacitors and resistors in my monitor and computer to the atomic and molecular structure of the desk and the house to the bio electrical processes happening in my brain, heart, and CNS to the light refraction and reflection just in my glasses alone.. put me in a state of awe. Even more powerful to me was the fact that it is happening continuously, and has been. Even if we add in the factors of how things got to where they are now (i.e. trees being cut down, milled, constructed, and treated for the desk, which includes weather patterns, and even the proper nutrition of those involved) we start to get an amazingly complex structure. And this is just on one planet!

For me, that was the moment I realized that those other moments which I perceived to be so "special" were just a sign of the limitations of my own perspective. The specialness was always there, in every thing, all the time. I just chose to see it differently.

Originally posted by Serdgiam

Originally posted by InTheLight
The life of a monk is devoted to poverty, prayer, reflection and is basically uncluttered with the struggles and obligations most of us find ourselves having to face every day. Not to mention that alot of people have to deal with all manner of physical, emotional, addiction, and psychological problems - these cannot easily be put aside or ignored.

I understand the life of a monk.

Why is a monk not susceptible to physical, emotional, addiction, and psychological problems?

I agree that they are not easily put aside or ignored. In my mind, that would be about the worst thing we can do. I much prefer acceptance, then growth. The monk will have to handle these exact same issues though, just in a slightly different manifestation. They exist in the same universe as all of us, and it would seem that everything that is available to "them" is also available to "us."

For me, I made many excuses as to why I personally could not achieve such things continuously. As it turns out, I was completely wrong. Wasnt the first time, and it certainly wont be the last!

edit on 22-2-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)

I believe a monk is less susceptible to these problems because they lack most of the stressors. So, what is available to them, yes, is also available to us. The only difference is that their main purpose is to focus on the path of prayer, enlightenment and the enjoying the luxury of spending most of their time on contemplation.

Originally posted by InTheLight
I believe a monk is less susceptible to these problems because they lack most of the stressors. So, what is available to them, yes, is also available to us. The only difference is that their main purpose is to focus on the path of prayer, enlightenment and the enjoying the luxury of spending most of their time on contemplation.

I see where my confusion is brought in! Thanks for sticking through it with me

I see prayer, meditation, enlightenment, contemplation, and Ill throw mindfulness in there, to be a continuous process. Not necessarily one that is to be done under the "perfect" circumstances, as all circumstances are seen as technically perfect in this regard. When things are made more difficult, even if its only in our own perspective, it just puts us into a position where we have to learn and grow.

Thank you for the enlightening conversation..

Originally posted by Serdgiam

Originally posted by InTheLight
I believe a monk is less susceptible to these problems because they lack most of the stressors. So, what is available to them, yes, is also available to us. The only difference is that their main purpose is to focus on the path of prayer, enlightenment and the enjoying the luxury of spending most of their time on contemplation.

I see where my confusion is brought in! Thanks for sticking through it with me

I see prayer, meditation, enlightenment, contemplation, and Ill throw mindfulness in there, to be a continuous process. Not necessarily one that is to be done under the "perfect" circumstances, as all circumstances are seen as technically perfect in this regard. When things are made more difficult, even if its only in our own perspective, it just puts us into a position where we have to learn and grow.

Thank you for the enlightening conversation..

Thank you too. I have the luxury of having the week off work and, so I treated myself to forum discussions, and luckily happened upon this thread, but more importantly the unique people contributing to this thread. So, I think we are all in agreement, that enlightenment is ever present in each moment. As for the ego and vanity being present in the moment as well, anything is possible.

reply to post by InTheLight


Locke's concept is that we are born with a blank slate, and from their build our own version of reality based on our own particular perspective based on our own life experiences.

If you consider that there is more to this life than you could ever know, then it only seems reasonable to me that no one has true perspective on reality. Everyones truth, is different. Everyone knows only that portion of the truth with which they have developed a relationship.

In your quote of Locke, and do you have a link?

It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth.

I don't think you are getting what he is saying. It would not be Locke's truth, but the truth that the man would discover, that would be his own truth.

If you are interested in Celtic Shaman, I suggest you look into Gnosticism and get yourself a copy of "The Mabinogion."

reply to post by poet1b


I only posted that reply for your interest, not mine. I believe the OP is done with this thread.

Originally posted by InTheLight


Well, I was thinking about this John Locke quote:

It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth.

But, he would be putting people in possession of his truth, not 'the truth'. Again, this is the question, is there one, or 'the truth', or is there only individual perception?

John Locke is not saying that he or anyone can put anyone in possession of truth. In the quote he is not claiming that he knows the truth or can put another in possession of it..
So no it would not be 'his truth'.

reply to post by InTheLight


But that doesn't mean the thread should stop.

Consider this, an idea is like a genie in a bottle, once released, it has the power to change the world.

I often consider this to the field on which the battle between good and evil is fought.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by InTheLight


Well, I was thinking about this John Locke quote:

It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth.

But, he would be putting people in possession of his truth, not 'the truth'. Again, this is the question, is there one, or 'the truth', or is there only individual perception?

John Locke is not saying that he or anyone can put anyone in possession of truth. In the quote he is not claiming that he knows the truth or can put another in possession of it..
So no it would not be 'his truth'.

edit on 24-2-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

If he wanted to make it clear he should added "their" truth. The way is reads is "the truth", so this would allude to there being only one truth. It's a quote open to interpretation.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by InTheLight

 

But that doesn't mean the thread should stop.

Consider this, an idea is like a genie in a bottle, once released, it has the power to change the world.

I often consider this to the field on which the battle between good and evil is fought.

Nice, but as per the specific topic of vanity, I think we are all done, right?

reply to post by InTheLight


Not at all. There is a whole east verses west discussion taking place, at least that has always been my perspective of the discussion.

I would say we have only scratched the surface.

reply to post by InTheLight


But your interpretation adds words that are not the original quote, leading to the misinterpretation.

If you knew more about Jonathan Locke, you wouldn't have made that misinterpretation.

reply to post by poet1b


Interesting. So, could it be mused that vanity with enlightenment is a natural occurrence with the Eastern self-proclaimed enlightenment finders that have followers; after all they have had a lot more experience at this than Westerners - 5,000 years more experience) of enlightenment.

Whereas the inexperienced Western seekers (who suggest they don't know how to find it, they will never find it, or they will never attain complete enlightenment) cannot be vain about that which they cannot attain in any degree, or at all?

So, perhaps we should use the Eastern model as that which is correct, in that, vanity always comes with the attainment of enlightment, which will attract followers to him/her due to their vanity/confidence/claim to enlightenment.

Riddle me that.

reply to post by InTheLight


I would say 5,000 years of pursuit of the wrong thing.

Is it about followers or doers?

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by InTheLight

 

I would say 5,000 years of pursuit of the wrong thing.

Is it about followers or doers?

Only those that claim they have done it. Or, could the vanity factor come in to play only if the self-proclaimed doer has followers? However, viewing the very experienced in life Dalai Lama in this interview, I would say it depends on the individual.

reply to post by InTheLight


You can't fake being a doer.

Either something got done, or it didn't.

And getting things done ussuly involves a sacrifice of ones vanity.

Originally posted by InTheLight

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by InTheLight


Well, I was thinking about this John Locke quote:

It is one thing to show a man that he is in an error, and another to put him in possession of the truth.

But, he would be putting people in possession of his truth, not 'the truth'. Again, this is the question, is there one, or 'the truth', or is there only individual perception?

John Locke is not saying that he or anyone can put anyone in possession of truth. In the quote he is not claiming that he knows the truth or can put another in possession of it..
So no it would not be 'his truth'.

edit on 24-2-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

If he wanted to make it clear he should added "their" truth. The way is reads is "the truth", so this would allude to there being only one truth. It's a quote open to interpretation.

Truth does not belong to anyone. The truth is singular.

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by poet1b

 

Interesting. So, could it be mused that vanity with enlightenment is a natural occurrence with the Eastern self-proclaimed enlightenment finders that have followers; after all they have had a lot more experience at this than Westerners - 5,000 years more experience) of enlightenment.

Whereas the inexperienced Western seekers (who suggest they don't know how to find it, they will never find it, or they will never attain complete enlightenment) cannot be vain about that which they cannot attain in any degree, or at all?

So, perhaps we should use the Eastern model as that which is correct, in that, vanity always comes with the attainment of enlightment, which will attract followers to him/her due to their vanity/confidence/claim to enlightenment.

Riddle me that.

Confidence is not vanity.

No one can have 5,000 years experience in enlightenment. Enlightenment is the realization of presence. Timeless being.