4 ms·
In math, every answer is made by a question. In practical reality, every result is made by clear causes in problems. One problem that we have as human beings is
In math, every answer is made by a question. In practical reality, every result is made by clear causes in problems. One problem that we have as human beings is that we cannot see the causes that we keep inside ourselves. That's why it's not easy to recognize what makes the results we get in life. For this reason, a good teacher can be compared to a mirror – they simply show us ourselves, just as we are. Without such a mirror, how could we see ourselves?
That's why, in order to change the kind of results you can get in life, you first of all need to change your problems. Good problems have good results; bad problems have bad results. To change your life into one where you continuously get good results, you need to find out how to formulate problems, and then you need to start making good problems for yourself.
It's not easy, but even though you were born with your existent consciousness, it is certainly possible to change your consciousness so that you can guide your life to a better "destiny". However, in order to do so, you need to obtain an enlightenment (realization), and then you need to study what exists in the reality that you can see through your enlightenment. Be careful of falsehood. No religions have any helpful teachings when it comes to enlightening yourself.
Good and well-written advice.
I would also suggest that the OP think of the steps taken towards any particular goal as planting seeds. If one plants enough seeds, a certain amount is bound to bear fruit. A former sales manager of mine called it "the pipeline", and he told me to always have several leads in the pipeline (ie, always be planting seeds). Not being a natural salesman, I found the same advice could be applied to life.
Thanks for the feedback. It's nice to find a person who recognizes what I had to say.
I also find farming to be one of the best systems to help us understand how to lead our lives. I don't know how you'll understand this, but I want to tell you that there's a fundamental principle by which the world exists and operates. If we can really open our eyes to this principle, we can recognize everything in the world, and we can also find the way to whatever result we want. I like the practical, living example of doing farming because the process in which plant life reproduces and can be cultivated is a very distinctive example of this principle. In the world, something that exists once has its will to keep existing, and it tries to make itself keep existing through its own activities. As a matter of fact, things in the world exist on the basis of what they keep inside of themselves. We can see this fact clearly through a simple plant, like a bean. A certain bean came from a previous bean. If we try planting a bean, whether or not it can sprout and yield new, viable beans depends on both the integrity of the bean we plant (the nature of which was made by past activities of the ancestor plants), and the environment (the quality of the farmland, and the care provided by the farmer). When we closely study how changing these two factors changes the quality of the result (fruit) we get, we can approach complete understanding of the system. I just wanted to say that farming is a great example because the same principle inside farming also exists in every other aspect of life. The problem is how we can improve our ability to see what exists in front of us in any given case. As you may already know, understanding something rationally is completely different from being able to see it with one's own eyes.
Your answer was brilliant. It made my day :-)
“Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.” - Voltaire
“There are no right answers to wrong questions.” - Ursula Le Guin
“Successful people ask better questions, and as a result, they get better answers.” - Tony Robbins
All good words, but my opinion is that in order for them to have been complete teachings, they need to have also included the clear and concrete criteria of good and bad, right and wrong. Otherwise, judgement of good and bad are bound to be made arbitrarily by those who do not know the world, leaving your good quotes with too much possibility to be misused by others.
+1 to that.
"No religions have any helpful teachings when it comes to enlightening yourself."
So you've studied them all and know with certainty that none could possibly be useful to the poster? Blithe anti-religious sentiment like this abounds on HN and it drives me crazy.
> So you've studied them all and know with certainty that none could possibly be useful to the poster?
Having looked at every one of them is not a necessary criterion for having proof that no religions have helpful teachings for enlightening yourself. We don't need to input every possible number into an equation in order to make true statements about the nature of the equation. My claim about the reality of religions is due to the fact that there is a fundamental disagreement between religious teachings and teachings from a real enlightened being.
How about looking in the most likely of places for a religion which should have some teachings from an enlightened being? After all, we can be quite certain that Gautama Buddha attained a perfect enlightenment. Only someone who did attain such a level would have been able to see what he could tell others about how the world operates. However, Gautama warned people about religions for a reason. Organizations and bodies of knowledge become religions when those who are not enlightened try to teach others what they do not actually know. The result is that they put their own words into the texts/scriptures, but use the name of the one who was enlightened in order to convince others and propagate their own words. Because they are just ordinary people, the only thing they can do is tell others their own knowledge (answers), but they cannot give others guidance on the basis of problems in the living reality. As a matter of fact, in order for something to be a teaching, it must include a problem/question. But religions only have answers that lack questions. The moment we have the questions, we do not need to remember or tell others to learn the answers. So it is certainly not the religions which have the helpful teachings, and the activities of the religions are not in any way contributive to the activities of the one who could see the reality, as they only contribute to mislead adherents.
That's why I'm quite certain that no religions properly transmit teachings that can enlighten people. People only engage in religions because they do not have the correct teaching. That's why anyone who can recognize what religions really are would never want to be tied to them and would never recommend the possibility that they can enlighten people.
> Having looked at every one of them is not a necessary criterion for having proof that no religions have helpful teachings for enlightening yourself.
Agreed, analytical proofs are possible without exhaustive examination. But you haven't provided one.
> My claim about the reality of religions is due to the fact that there is a fundamental disagreement between religious teachings and teachings from a real enlightened being.
The fundamental flaw -- well, at least a fundamental flaw, its not the only one -- in this argument is that it is about "teachings from a real enlightened being" but provides no justification for applying that to "helpful teachings for enlightening yourself."
It may be the case (though you have done very little to establish it) that no religion contains "teachings from a real enlightened being", but even if one assumes that is the case, it provides little support for your claim that no religions has "helpful teachings for enlightening yourself".
> However, Gautama warned people about religions for a reason.
But this warning has been transmitted -- through religions. And clearly this warning is a teaching that must be viewed as useful for enlightenment.
> That's why I'm quite certain that no religions properly transmit teachings that can enlighten people.
A stronger form of this -- that the things that must be understood for enlightenment cannot be properly transmitted -- is also a religious teaching. (see, e.g., the opening of the Tao Te Ching.)
> That's why anyone who can recognize what religions really are would never want to be tied to them and would never recommend the possibility that they can enlighten people.
There is a difference between arguing that religions enlighten people (an argument many active in religions I have known would oppose) and arguing that religions transmit teachings that, however imperfect, can be useful in the process of a person attaining enlightenment.
I'm guessing you've already made up your mind that you don't agree with me. But I've learned that it's important to defer belief and judgement until after having made a confirmation. So I'll answer as if you might be interested in a sincere discussion.
> The fundamental flaw -- well, at least a fundamental flaw, its not the only one -- in this argument is that it is about "teachings from a real enlightened being" but provides no justification for applying that to "helpful teachings for enlightening yourself."
That's incorrect. What you're missing is the fact that only an enlightened being knows how to make others be enlightened and only an enlightened being can give a teaching which can be practiced in order to obtain enlightenment.
Let's say you want to learn how to fix cars… how can you learn such a thing? There are only two possible sources of the necessary information. One of them is much faster: learn from mechanics. The second one is not usually possible for ordinary people to undergo: learn from the world. In both cases, you'll be looking at the principle and problems concerning cars.
Is it possible to learn how to fix cars from people who /only/ like cars but do not know anything about them? No. The best they can do is encourage you to find someone who really does know about how cars work and what kinds of problems and causes of problems they have. But encouragement from those who do not know anything is not an essential cause for enlightening oneself. If it were, wouldn't we have more than just one or two enlightened masters in our history? Please note my usage of the term, "cause".
To me, it's quite clear that people hear what they want. There were different types of people that had interest in Buddha while he was alive, but few of them were genuinely interested in his teaching, itself. Most people had their own, individual aims for associating with him, like curing their diseases or becoming wealthier.
You suppose that those who adhere to religions might know perhaps a small percentage about enlightenment. But if they did, they would be able to tell me what the basic teaching of the enlightened being is. That's like learning the number 1 when you start learning math. But the reality is that the only answers they can give are those they read in books written by others who are not enlightened. It's hard for you to believe me unless you travel with me and meet people. Unfortunately, if you have no intention to confirm the veracity of my words, I don't think you'll be interested in judging those cases with your own eyes either.
> But this warning has been transmitted -- through religions. And clearly this warning is a teaching that must be viewed as useful for enlightenment.
Have you ever heard of the telephone game? If not, have you ever tried to make photocopies of a photocopy? The fidelity of the signal degrades due to the inclusion of noise.
The level of any monks and religious adherents has not been high enough to preserve the quality of truth which was in the teaching of the real enlightened being. As a matter of fact, most of the teachings have been completely changed, and intentionally so.
In reality, spiritual teachings are rather like food for the consciousness. A fresh apple is quite nourishing, no? (Well, it used to be, a hundred years ago!) But if the apple goes bad, to eat it would be quite bad for you. Like eating a poisonous substance. Similarly, learning and practicing the deteriorated teachings will damage your consciousness. Perhaps if you've got quite a strong will, it will take up to a year. But those of weaker will fall into danger much more quickly upon contact.
So the problem is not that a person of sound spirit can't recognize that a rotten apple probably used to be a fresh apple and can then have a fair opportunity to judge whether or not they want to eat it. The problem is that a person of sound spirit can be harmed into losing their own consciousness through contact with religious teachings and they are not informed that such things are even bad for them. If you have a connection with religious teachings that claim to be about enlightenment, it is a direct cause to damage your ability to see and transmit the truth. They make you go in the exact opposite way of enlightening yourself and only generate more bad 'karma', rather than diminishing the influence of that karma. But it is absolutely imperative to be able to stop your karma in order to achieve an enlightenment, because you cannot enter samadhi if your karma can act. Its habit is to control you. Just because you do not want to have bad karma doesn't mean that it will disappear. Karma can only be suppressed by correctly learning and making yourself aware of 'what is' at all times. It cannot be suppressed by an escape into fantasy, nor by making attempts not to think about anything, regardless of how temporarily peaceful you feel after having done so. It constitutes an intentional lie on the part of monks that they leave out the result of practicing meditation when they borrow Buddha's name and teach meditation to others. Suppose that a living Buddha came to the world? Those who would be the most afraid of him are the monks. But they're comfortable with a Buddha's statue within their temple because a dead Buddha doesn't speak, and cannot make any critique of their behavior. He just smiles at them. This only reinforces and is interpreted of encouragement of their hypocrisy.
I mention modern Buddhism as an example. I hope that you can catch my meaning through the example, so that, suppose you're really interested, you can apply it to other cases which you think may exist in the world and check for yourself whether they do or do not have the same fundamental kind of problems.
> A stronger form of this -- that the things that must be understood for enlightenment cannot be properly transmitted -- is also a religious teaching. (see, e.g., the opening of the Tao Te Ching.)
I'm sorry to say that I can't verify whether Lao-tzu actually said or meant that. I would need his exact words, or closer to them, in order to check. But to tell you the truth, it's not the case that the things for understanding enlightenment can't be properly transmitted, as you have suggested.
It's quite simple for me to do it. I can prove it anytime, on the spot. However, even if I tell you the truth or teachings about enlightenment right here, can you understand them? Only a truthful person can recognize and understand the truth. Those who are untruthful don't want the truth revealed.
Have you heard of Lao-tzu's explanation on the three levels of people? He said that their level of cultivation of virtue can be seen through how they react when they hear the truth. Only those of a high level of cultivation of virtue react with delight when they hear the truth and try quite a lot to put it to practice. Those of the middle level seem to understand, but as a result, they don't really apply it. Meanwhile, those of low level can only ridicule the truth.
> I'm guessing you've already made up your mind that you don't agree with me. But I've learned that it's important to defer belief and judgement until after having made a confirmation. So I'll answer as if you might be interested in a sincere discussion.
I don't agree with the specific claims you've articulated as they are articulated, but that's not an immutable fact, merely a contingent one. But I think the discussion has value, even if we disagree. And I think we might agree on the substance more than is apparent through the disagreement on the particular expression.
> What you're missing is the fact that only an enlightened being knows how to make others be enlightened
Taking, for the sake of argument, this is true (I don't think that it has been justified, however), it doesn't follow that a teaching from another source might not be useful in the course of enlightenment, only that the source couldn't know that the teaching was useful.
> and only an enlightened being can give a teaching which can be practiced in order to obtain enlightenment.
Assuming that enlightenment comes from practicing something that can be reduced to a teaching, if any being achieves enlightenment, they must do so on the basis of a practice they engaged in prior to achieving enlightenment, which they could also have provided to others as a teaching at that time. Even if they could not have known, for whatever definition of knowledge you are using, that it was a practice that would lead to enlightenment.
So, the specific argument you make here is unconvincing.
In general, and in wider scope, your broader argument seems to conflate the essential truth of enlightenment with practices which are useful along the path from where people are to enlightenment, and to conflate the inability to fully and accurately relate the former with an inability to relate anything about the latter. I do not disagree with the claim that no religion can communicate what enlightenment essentially is. I do disagree with the claim that no religion can communicate practices which are useful to those seeking enlightenment on that path. (I would also disagree with the claim that such useful information is the exclusive domain of any one religion.)
And I'd also say that many of the observations you make are things that many religions already teach, and which are among the teachings that they teach which are useful to enlightenment. (Its also true that while they are in the body of teachings of many religions, they are also teachings that are also often de-emphasized by religious authorities, and that that is a real problem. But that fact, too, is often among the teachings of the same religions.)
Wonderful answer - thank you so much!
No, I'm not enlightened: I was wondering what it means. While I do think my "world view" is remarkably complete and accurate, I am aware that I purposefully deceive myself (I enjoy building mental pictures of fantasy reality futures, like, "what if I invented an anti-gravity device", and the corresponding fun I'd have building fake space-ships to prank people; some of these get so intricate and awesome that I don't want to look too deep at the seed of the idea (anti-gravity)... )
I have what I call my inbuilt "bullshit filter", and I no doubt annoy rather a lot too many people by not simply swallowing their ideas. Unfortunately, reality is not something that many people seem able to grasp. By way of quick example: global warming (now called "climate change", on account of the "warming" not actually being "global"). Everyone worships one side or the other of this debate - there are few, if any, people in the middle. The problem, is that there are 7+ billion of us. Whether or not global warming is true is utterly irrelevant, because there is simply nothing possible that can be done about changing the overall direction of all those people that could make any measurable difference. Now - take that "truth", and apply it to local problems:
Should I put my plastic in the recycling bin?
Should I pay more for electricity?
Should I suffer the annoying blueness of LED lights, instead of the nice warm glow of incandescent?
Why should I do what all those lunatics are telling me, and all these new "green" laws are forcing down my throat, when it's all just a 100% waste of time?
Same goes for conservation (aka: the "fun police"), road rules (would it be more, or less, safe on the roads, if all rules were abolished? And no, I don't mean immediately, I mean after the inevitable carnage that takes place between the "end of rules" and the point where drivers understand about using their brains when they drive. We don't have "how not to bump into people on sidewalk" rules, do we?), religious rules (many which make it into real government rules), and so on...
So, back to my point: "totally enlightened master" - that's the bit that triggered my bullshit-alarm.
I'm doubting any such thing is possible, or at least, not in our modern world anymore. Knowledge is so vast, nobody could become "finally enlightened" without cutting themselves of from it all. [amusingly, seems I've worked out form 1st-principals the idea behind monasteries?]. Even if you do master enlightenment in one part of your life, that's going to conflict with the "stupid people" you inevitably have to interact with, so you then have to somehow master the manipulation and/or tolerance of them, and being, as there are, so many people out there, not all of whom you can reach or influence, and indeed, many of them running media empires or otherwise swamping the conscience of others with bogus crap, you are basically screwed. You now have to deal with "knowing", but also "tolerating" those who do not, who also make rules and laws for you.
This seems a majorly thorny meme.
I am though, super-interested in your "some questions about very simple terms". I wonder what you'd ask?
You're right that there exist some flaws in my method of explanation and attempt to form a convincing argument for you. I'd like to thank you as I've learned something from you. However I would like to propose that any logical unsufficiencies in my explanatory efforts thus far do not at all implicitely indicate any diminishment of degree of truthfulness of my words. In plain words, I didn't try to tell others what I do not actually know, and I maintain that all my claims here are true and that anyone can verify these truths by proof that exists in reality. As a consequence of these qualities of what I've said, no proof will be found to contradict my claims, and yet my claims, to my knowledge, should be quite easily theoretically "falsifiable". My question for you is whether you would have an interest in the truth and try to verify these matters or maintain your existing knowledge and level of understanding.