Hacker News Reader

Comment by ZenoArrow | Hacker News Reader

>"There are supplementary texts that also discuss the approaches to attain it."

The more interesting question is, why are you trying to attain it? What is it that makes people seek enlightenment?

The initial impetus is not really important. It may have been something as trivial as a book, or a friend, or somebody on TV. People start all sorts of pursuits for all sorts of silly reasons, and usually end up abandoning them for the next-best-thing to come along. Promises of a better life ("the end of suffering!") are tempting to the unfortunate and downtrodden.

A better question to ask is what _keeps_ people dedicated to this quest? And of course I mean the ones who end up fulfilling it or getting close.

Once you see you can't unsee. Once these practices (that are numerous and not constrained to the East) are followed, things happen. You catch glimpses of the absolute. Mystical experiences and synchronicities become common. The intuitive aspect of yourself comes to the foreground and it's the one that drives this process. One gets all the validation one needs, not from teachers or gurus, but by direct experiential knowledge.

Once on that path, it's hard for someone to turn back. He'd have to delude himself by repeating lies often enough that he'd come to believe them (what are beliefs but thoughts you keep having?).

>"One gets all the validation one needs, not from teachers or gurus, but by direct experiential knowledge."

Sure, I have no problem with that. However, if you let your past experiences define who you are, it'll always limit you, even if your past experiences include 'glimpses of the absolute'.

Simply put, the most common mode of human existence is that of a storyteller. If you see connections between event A and event B you're telling a story. There's no harm in that, it's a natural part of who we are. Of course there are moments where the self fades and the story has less of a structured narrative, but we still find ways to tie it together.

I like to ask myself this, if someone achieves enlightenment, what do they do with the rest of their life? Are they going to spend their time maximising their new found connection to their senses? What gives pleasure to someone who minimises personal attachment?

I couldn't say since I'm not living with that realization.

Here are the words of someone who does: http://biroco.com/journal.htm

This is a goof example of what I was referring to...

>"Push the details of life back into the mist and just sit with knowing that 'I am'. Why's that of any great interest? I'll tell you why. Because I didn't know I was, and then I did, and that amazing fact is somewhat skirted over being concerned about anything else."

This is the storyteller considering that 'I am God' makes everything else seem trivial in comparison. Why would you do ordinary human things when you see yourself as a God?

Ultimately it just seems like a waste of time to me, to deny yourself the richness of external experience just to trip on the magnificence of your self-image.

Why bifurcate into the position, all things are god, or the converse position, no things are god, Storytelling, Truth, Falsity. Even after the most profound proof realized, you stop to get a drink of water.

My point is, so called enlightenment does not necessarily lead people to living a richer life. Paradoxically, even though enlightenment is meant to remove burdens, some "enlightened" people treat it as a burden in its own right, even though they wouldn't necessarily admit this.

The answer is simple. A human's life remains unfulfilled regardless of his material gains such as wealth and pleasures. The fear of oldage, death and disease looms large and so does the uncertainty of the future. If one were to examine the world objectively, one would find that whatever I've mentioned above is seen aplenty.

The entirety of a human's life is based on the notion I-am-the-body-and-the-mind. If one were to discover one's true nature and shed these limitations, eternal happiness and peace follow. The path to learning this is fraught with difficulties. The biggest obstacle is to learn things differently from what we already know. A cursory reading of books isn't sufficient. This is where the Upanishads and Gita stand out in comparison to other texts on philosophy. Not only do they describe in great detail the true nature of the Self, but also prescribe many practices on reaching the goal.

There's every reason to pursue Self-realization or enlightenment as the only worthy goal of life. Such a goal never comes in one's way of being employed, raising a family etc.

>"There's every reason to pursue Self-realization or enlightenment as the only worthy goal of life. Such a goal never comes in one's way of being employed, raising a family etc."

What if the only way to understand it was to not pursue it?

You are right. To beginners, self-realization is pointed as a goal worthy of pursuit. As one treads along this path, one realizes that nothing new is to be pursued or attained. If the Self were attainable as an object with the passage of time (and some exertion), it is not a worthy goal since everything within the realm of time will perish. The Self is ever-realized. One only needs to forego incorrect notions and predilections for the Self to manifest in all its glory. This is the method recommended by many teachers of non-duality to know the Self. In fact, there is nothing akin to knowing the Self, for it would then become an object and the division of seer-seen will again appear. To know the Self is to Be the Self.

Then why is it necessary to follow this or that belief system to get to something so obvious? Why is it necessary to read up on this school of thought or another when the only thing they can teach you is they have nothing to teach you?

Because there's a difference between intellectual understanding of the Self or non-dualism as a concept, and actually manifesting that "truth" by living it. Or as someone once wrote: Philosophical truths are transmitted through "praxis", not like pieces of eight. You've spent years conditioned to think a certain way, decades building that self-model you call "you". These associations will not be destroyed easily, just by someone saying so.

The Hindu/Vedantic systems emphasize self-enquiry and the importance of having a teacher guide you, which may look like pushing belief systems to outsiders, but it's really a process.

The western mystical tradition is more explicit in how important process/techniques are rather than dogma.

Well said.

Let's put it like this. The main benefits of self-inquiry are not tied to one school of thought. To observe the change in ones thoughts and senses with equanimity does not require anything from old scriptures.

The reason Hindu/Vedantic systems and other systems of spirituality have extra merit is not in what they teach per se, but in the sense of pleasure we get from their poetic expression, and from feeling connected to other practitioners.

That's not to say schools of spirituality have no merit, they do have merit as a social construct, but in terms of self-exploration all you really need is the basic technique and some time to do it.

There is no need. Note that every person has a different conditioning of the mind and not everyone reacts in the same manner to a philosophical statement. Consider several pieces of firewood, each with a varying degree of dryness. Each of them will react differently when ignited with a spark.

The process of understanding the Self requires a teacher, at least in the beginning stages. There are exceptions to the norm, as always. Ultimately, an individual is best equipped to decide what's best for him. Contemplation on the wise sayings of seers may be suitable for some, whereas studying scriptures under a teacher and practicing austerity might be appealing to others.

>"The process of understanding the Self requires a teacher, at least in the beginning stages."

My question is, why? What does the student gain from this when the path is one of self-study?

How else would a person learn or hear about the Self? It is not a solid thing that can be perceived by the senses. Neither is it as abstract as nothingness. It is one's real nature and the source of the notion "I am". Further, it is that which makes it possible for the mind and senses to function.

You may argue that all this information can be gleaned by reading a book. At best, this will remain in the realm of theoretical knowledge. Only a person who has treaded along this path can offer some insights into what the Self is and how it may be realized. If you don't like to label this person as a teacher/preceptor, feel free to give him any other name you like.

To tell a person that he's the body and mind requires no knowledge. Further, such ignorance is well established in every individual. The knowledge of the Self is something a person has to discover after being introduced to it via some medium.

a Buddhist would say that just in the same way that a rock evolves into a human, a human evolves into a Buddha.

In the sense that a rock remains a rock, and a human remains a human.

Does the direct answer gets someone to the truth just as easily as speaking in riddles?

I believe only Chinese Chan (which evolved in to Japanese Zen, and similar Korean and Vietnamese traditions) uses the dramatic "mental conundrum provides sudden enlightenment" approach. The rest of Buddhism apparently generally considers needlessly verbose or obtuse speech to be unskilled and counter to progress. Indeed, it could be argued that speech - with some exceptions - is generally discouraged.

Indeed, it could be argued that speech - with some exceptions - is generally discouraged.

This is inline with the absolution of the self... If Buddhism believes that the self doesn't exist it's hard to use language that directly engages with the idea of self (subject).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com