If I have a choice between taking up organized religion and going to church or taking up spirituality and following empirical instructions to scale the mountain of enlightenment, why should I do the latter instead of the former?
What’s the common theme in all these books? I don’t see it. Impro contains some useful exercises, although I think most of the value in the book would come from people getting together IRL and actually doing them, and I haven’t heard of anyone doing this. (I tried to get someone whose social network is much bigger than mine to make this happen, but then she moved to the Bay.) But it’s about developing acting skills, not Buddhism...
Like Elo said, it’s quite difficult to describe. MTCB has an entire chapter on what Enlightenment is not as well as what is. My understanding is that Enlightenment is the state of seeing fundamental reality clearly, which:
removes an entire class of suffering: “delusional” identification with the self, which causes obsessive rumination, worrying about your status/position in the world, etc.
improves your relationship with others: related to the above, once you see how you’re actually not a separate, disconnected entity and very much part of this world, you “play well” with others.
provides access to states of extreme bliss, equanimity.
choice between taking up organized religion and going to church or taking up spirituality
Many people (including me) feel that there are many paths to achieving the intended outcomes of introspective practices, and that they are mostly equally valid. Some traditions and practices are arguably more effective, helpful, conducive to your philosophies, etc. It doesn’t matter which route you take up the mountain, as long as you are climbing the right one, not using the wrong maps, etc.
The reason I personally prefer the maps provided by Buddhism is that they can be used independently of Buddhist religious dogma, which is not possible with, let’s say, Christianity. There is no reason you can’t achieve the same results with Christianity, but arguably it’d be more difficult, and the dogma is a necessary component. whereas meditation lends itself quite well to empiricism. “Do these practices, and you’ll observe these results”.
most of the value in the book would come from people getting together IRL and actually doing them
Agree with “many paths” and Christianity works too. But it’s a different path. I know of someone on the Christian path using Christian meditation techniques.
Strangely and frustratingly hard to describe. Some people use the word nirvana. I don’t really understand why. Many people talk about everything being the same but different. I don’t really get it but it’s something of a goal to pursue.
common theme
If I could point at that with clarity I’d already have done that. Can’t help. Sorry.
What’s the value proposition of enlightenment?
If I have a choice between taking up organized religion and going to church or taking up spirituality and following empirical instructions to scale the mountain of enlightenment, why should I do the latter instead of the former?
What’s the common theme in all these books? I don’t see it. Impro contains some useful exercises, although I think most of the value in the book would come from people getting together IRL and actually doing them, and I haven’t heard of anyone doing this. (I tried to get someone whose social network is much bigger than mine to make this happen, but then she moved to the Bay.) But it’s about developing acting skills, not Buddhism...
Like Elo said, it’s quite difficult to describe. MTCB has an entire chapter on what Enlightenment is not as well as what is. My understanding is that Enlightenment is the state of seeing fundamental reality clearly, which:
removes an entire class of suffering: “delusional” identification with the self, which causes obsessive rumination, worrying about your status/position in the world, etc.
improves your relationship with others: related to the above, once you see how you’re actually not a separate, disconnected entity and very much part of this world, you “play well” with others.
provides access to states of extreme bliss, equanimity.
Many people (including me) feel that there are many paths to achieving the intended outcomes of introspective practices, and that they are mostly equally valid. Some traditions and practices are arguably more effective, helpful, conducive to your philosophies, etc. It doesn’t matter which route you take up the mountain, as long as you are climbing the right one, not using the wrong maps, etc.
The reason I personally prefer the maps provided by Buddhism is that they can be used independently of Buddhist religious dogma, which is not possible with, let’s say, Christianity. There is no reason you can’t achieve the same results with Christianity, but arguably it’d be more difficult, and the dogma is a necessary component. whereas meditation lends itself quite well to empiricism. “Do these practices, and you’ll observe these results”.
100%!
Check out communities like dharmaoverground.com :)
Agree with “many paths” and Christianity works too. But it’s a different path. I know of someone on the Christian path using Christian meditation techniques.
You shouldn’t assume that your current values are particularly objective, or that they are particularly fixed .
Strangely and frustratingly hard to describe. Some people use the word nirvana. I don’t really understand why. Many people talk about everything being the same but different. I don’t really get it but it’s something of a goal to pursue.
If I could point at that with clarity I’d already have done that. Can’t help. Sorry.