Sudden enlightenment in Christianity, Buddhism and Communism

[Philos]

Folks,

There is something in the ideologies of Christianity, Buddhism and Communism which bears comparison. This is the notion of 'sudden enlightenment'. Superficially this would seem like a simple shortcut, just dropping the hard effort of good works or meditation and going direct to the source, like lightning to earth. I think this would be to misunderstand the concept.

In sudden enlightenment something different is going on: this is death to the self. Crucially, the abandonment of ego is 'The Way'. For the Christian, we give ourselves to Jesus - entirely. To achieve grace we must die to ourselves and trust implicity in the other. It is a Kierkegaardian leap of faith and nothing less will do.

In Buddhism a similar death to the self occurs. "Enlightenment in this case means a letting go of this unrealistic self concept or 'self aggrandized-ness' by awakening to the fact that it is a delusion."

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/awakening101/sudgrad2.html

In both cases the barrier to sudden enlightenment is the sense of self, what some Christians call 'pride' or 'haughtiness'; what Buddhists call 'attachment'.

In communism, a political process of death to the self involves the dropping of individuality in favour of the commune. There is no self, only the realisation of the commune to which we have given ourselves totally. Alone, we are nothing. All three of these ideologies seem to share this common factor, for good or ill, and the demands of membership are not insignificant.

What's not to like?

Alex.

 

[Angry Floof]

What's not to like is any ideology that claims to represent the mystery of existence.

If the personal identity is not our true nature, then what is? Any ideology that pretends to answer that, such as christianity and communism, only offers a new trap of identity and attachment. A newer, shinier delusion that at first feels like freedom until you realize it's just another story. Meanwhile, you can bet someone in the ideological circle of wagons is benefiting from your moment of relief and liberation as you trade your personal story to serve as a cog in a larger one.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

In communism, a political process of death to the self involves the dropping of individuality in favour of the commune. There is no self, only the realisation of the commune to which we have given ourselves totally. Alone, we are nothing. All three of these ideologies seem to share this common factor, for good or ill, and the demands of membership are not insignificant.

That sounds wonderful. I want to become a mindless drone too!

 

[Clivedurdle]

I had a book discussing something called the axial age, around 600 BCE, these ideas are alleged to have emerged together.

The bicameral mind is probably similar.

I don't know - it might be a side effect of reading and writing - technologies always have huge effects, but people have been caring for each other for hundreds of thousands of years, as is evidenced by skeletons with serious fractures obviously being well looked after for decades.

 

[jonJ]

So does one stop eating after attaining this enlightenment? Having realised that you have no separate existence and are merely an intangible part of an ineffable whole, presumably such mundane and self-centred activities as eating and drinking should no longer form part of your agenda, and you should pass away into cosmic bliss within a few days. Odd, then, that some people have survived for years or decades after claiming to achieve this so-called 'death of the self', and that they apparently go on eating, sleeping indoors, socialising and even having sex, even though these earthbound and physical activities can clearly have no significance for a mere fragment of the eternal void.

It's almost enough to make a sceptic wonder if they might be telling lies.

 

[Sarpedon]

Its pretty simple: all cults rely on self abnegation on the part of the followers. Whatever you call it, the individual member is called upon to put the group (and by extension, the will of the leaders) ahead of themselves. It is hardly surprising that seemingly different movements should have this in common. Cults operate by psychologically altering their members.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't see how Buddhism fits into this narrative. Enlightenment for Guantama was recognition that life is constantly changing and the desire to ignore that causes suffering. Buddhism doesn't tell one to neglect the self, but to recognize the impermanence of self. Even more to the point, Buddhism calls for following a middle path, not some extreme.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Alone, we are nothing. All three of these ideologies seem to share this common factor, for good or ill, and the demands of membership are not insignificant.

What's not to like?

I don't think they quite compare, though.
In the buddhist notion, the 'self' is an illusion and a block to enlightenment.
But in Christainity, the entire promise is based on the self. The biggest selling point for Christainity is the promise that _I_ will exist forever in paradise. The way to do that is to let the Christ into my heart and let him run my life, but never the promise that the immortal soul becomes lost into a greater mass.
That would seem like Hell to many, the thought that God could not perceive you as an individual and welcome you to eternity.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Alone, we are nothing. All three of these ideologies seem to share this common factor, for good or ill, and the demands of membership are not insignificant.

What's not to like?

I don't think they quite compare, though.
In the buddhist notion, the 'self' is an illusion and a block to enlightenment.

Isn't the permanance of self the illusion, not self itself?

 

[Sarpedon]

I don't see how Buddhism fits into this narrative. Enlightenment for Guantama was recognition that life is constantly changing and the desire to ignore that causes suffering. Buddhism doesn't tell one to neglect the self, but to recognize the impermanence of self. Even more to the point, Buddhism calls for following a middle path, not some extreme.

It's the difference between the teaching and practice. All religions have a nice story. In practice they are all about getting the flock to do what the priest says and give him money. Moderate religions back off on this and let the followers have greater freedom, in exchange for a smaller share of the greater wealth and power that a free society produces. But in every religion there are extremists who prefer the total power that comes from mind control. If you think Buddhists are different, you really need to look closer. And I don't really accept that there was a historical Buddha anyhow.

 

[Philos]

What's not to like is any ideology that claims to represent the mystery of existence.

If the personal identity is not our true nature, then what is? Any ideology that pretends to answer that, such as christianity and communism, only offers a new trap of identity and attachment. A newer, shinier delusion that at first feels like freedom until you realize it's just another story. Meanwhile, you can bet someone in the ideological circle of wagons is benefiting from your moment of relief and liberation as you trade your personal story to serve as a cog in a larger one.

Hi hy,

I think you have spotted the irony in my post.

It is amazing how far the notion of personal identity is undermined by folks all round. Materialist philosophers have their go, and I remember suffering a set book by Derek Parfit on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Parfit

Parfit claims that ".. there is no adequate criterion of personal identity.." in which claim I think he draws quite heavily on Buddhism.

For me, personal identity is quite a big deal in life, and having known a person who suffered psychological destruction from severe schizophrenia I have seen that it can be a big deal for others too.

Alex.

 

[rousseau]

The best 'religion', if you want to call it that, is science. Or if you want to avoid using the word science we can call it the scope of knowledge we have about ourselves and the universe.

Enlightenment isn't a real thing. I don't want to type out thousands of words to convince anyone of why it's not, it's just not. We're material, evolutionary life forms faced with the dynamic that this type of existence presents, nothing more, nothing less. No matter how we try to rationalize our existence, those are the parameters that we're faced with, and coming up with some type of false idea of 'enlightenment' doesn't change that reality, it just deludes us into a sense of calm, superiority, and value.

If I was going to re-define enlightenment, though, I would say it's the state a person has when they're committed to always learning and growing.

 

[abaddon]

I don't think they quite compare, though.
In the buddhist notion, the 'self' is an illusion and a block to enlightenment.

Isn't the permanance of self the illusion, not self itself?

I think the answer is “Both”. Anatta means no soul. So, no essential everlasting “me”.

But then Buddhists, maybe especially in Zen (which is rather the topic of the OP’s linked article), have a deep distrust of conceptions. And “self”, however you conceive it, is just a conception (so "self itself" will be a funny expression to Buddhist ears). The interest is more in wordless reality than “the world” - that is, the paint-by-numbers picture in our heads made of words like “self” and even “Buddhism”.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

What is the difference between True Enlightenment (tm) and a brainfart? Obviously, not conversion experiences. Whether Christianity, Islam,Scientology or Hare Krishnas. Why do we not seem to count realization that scientific discoveries such as Evolution are major and deep truths are enlightenment events?

 

[Angry Floof]

What is the difference between True Enlightenment (tm) and a brainfart? Obviously, not conversion experiences. Whether Christianity, Islam,Scientology or Hare Krishnas. Why do we not seem to count realization that scientific discoveries such as Evolution are major and deep truths are enlightenment events?

I count them. Enlightenment is supposed to be the ability to see more deeply into underlying reality. I'd say Einstein did so, and Newton, and so many others. To boot, they encouraged others to do the same without regard to any particular spiritual practices or teaching. (Well, granted, Newton did collapse into God belief in that thrilling moment of solving the puzzle of the solar system, but given his culture and genius-level crazy, that's not surprising.)

 

[Underseer]

"Death of ego"?

Of Christians?

Buwahahahahahahahahahahahahaa!

Oh wait. Of course. I'm the arrogant one because I disagreed with you in public. Will you ever forgive me?

 

[Philos]

The best 'religion', if you want to call it that, is science. Or if you want to avoid using the word science we can call it the scope of knowledge we have about ourselves and the universe.

Enlightenment isn't a real thing. I don't want to type out thousands of words to convince anyone of why it's not, it's just not. We're material, evolutionary life forms faced with the dynamic that this type of existence presents, nothing more, nothing less. No matter how we try to rationalize our existence, those are the parameters that we're faced with, and coming up with some type of false idea of 'enlightenment' doesn't change that reality, it just deludes us into a sense of calm, superiority, and value.

If I was going to re-define enlightenment, though, I would say it's the state a person has when they're committed to always learning and growing.

rousseau,

There is something in your post which is most relevant to the OP. This is about 'selflessness'.

When we are engaged with science at any level, we are dealing with matters objective. Whatever we are studying or working with is beyond our hopes. Of course we might hope to make a big discovery and become famous, but this is a psychological projection, it is not to be found in the subject matter.

We can experience this personally, just by doing some math, formal logic or building an engine. It is a peaceful and absorbing process, as we engage with what is beyond the ego. When we are working on science we are stepping outside the self for a time.

Alex.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't see how Buddhism fits into this narrative. Enlightenment for Guantama was recognition that life is constantly changing and the desire to ignore that causes suffering. Buddhism doesn't tell one to neglect the self, but to recognize the impermanence of self. Even more to the point, Buddhism calls for following a middle path, not some extreme.

It's the difference between the teaching and practice. All religions have a nice story. In practice they are all about getting the flock to do what the priest says and give him money. Moderate religions back off on this and let the followers have greater freedom, in exchange for a smaller share of the greater wealth and power that a free society produces. But in every religion there are extremists who prefer the total power that comes from mind control. If you think Buddhists are different, you really need to look closer. And I don't really accept that there was a historical Buddha anyhow.

There is a reason I said Buddhism and not Buddhists. And there was a historical Siddhartha Guantama... Jesus said so!

 

[Clivedurdle]

Buddhism calls for following a middle path, not some extreme.

Paul said similar - moderation in all things.

So is this a result of Alexander getting to India, or something everyone with a conservative mind set says?

 

[Angry Floof]

What's not to like is any ideology that claims to represent the mystery of existence.

If the personal identity is not our true nature, then what is? Any ideology that pretends to answer that, such as christianity and communism, only offers a new trap of identity and attachment. A newer, shinier delusion that at first feels like freedom until you realize it's just another story. Meanwhile, you can bet someone in the ideological circle of wagons is benefiting from your moment of relief and liberation as you trade your personal story to serve as a cog in a larger one.

Hi hy,

I think you have spotted the irony in my post.

It is amazing how far the notion of personal identity is undermined by folks all round. Materialist philosophers have their go, and I remember suffering a set book by Derek Parfit on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Parfit

Parfit claims that ".. there is no adequate criterion of personal identity.." in which claim I think he draws quite heavily on Buddhism.

For me, personal identity is quite a big deal in life, and having known a person who suffered psychological destruction from severe schizophrenia I have seen that it can be a big deal for others too.

Alex.

Sure, it's a big deal. It's just not the extent of human existence. I'm not familiar with Parfit but I would agree on that point. The personal narrative is constantly changing and circumstantial.

What "truth" is constantly changing and circumstantial? Some people are curious about this and some will never be.

A possibly more useful and fundamental comparison in the ideologies you mention might be how they deal with doubt and questioning. That would put Buddhism in a very different category than communism or christianity, even if all three contain some concept of personal transformation.