Paradox

[Orbran]

The pursuit of enlightenment or a deeper understanding of oneself presents a paradox. In this pursuit, one is expected to eventually realize that there is nothing to be sought and that the seeker themselves is part of the illusion. This introduces a paradox that seems to require following a path somewhat blindly to see where it leads—a requirement not unlike those made by various religions.
 

One could argue that this path is not about blind faith but about validating truths through direct personal experience and continual questioning. However, a significant challenge arises in that this path demands not only a relentless questioning of everything but also necessitates a fundamental change in one’s perception of the external world. While there's a certain appeal to this approach, it undeniably requires a type of commitment and a leap of faith, believing that this shift will lead to something beneficial. This commitment, in my view, parallels the blind adherence to dogma found in traditional religions, as there is no option to leave it out.
 

At this juncture, I find myself seeking examples of individuals who have successfully navigated this path. Yet, much like religious followers who cite success without reliance on logical foundations, these personal spiritual journeys are highly individual and subjective. Success in this context is frequently touted by religious groups and spiritual teachings alike, though it's based on personal experiences that are inherently difficult to quantify or verify independently.
 

This reliance on personal validation raises a question: why should one not be skeptical of a spiritual path that requires similar faith to that demanded by organized religions? Both paths ask for trust in the process and suggest that personal experiences can validate their truths. However, many religious claims also hinge on personal experiences that followers find validating.
 

In conclusion, while the spiritual journey towards enlightenment offers a unique approach, it requires a commitment that is remarkably similar to religious faith. This similarity leaves me skeptical, as the inherently personal nature of such journeys seems to offer little objective evidence or reason to embark on such a path, beyond personal anecdotes and subjective experiences. I just want to emphasize that my skepticism stems from a personal perspective and I'm not dismissing your experiences or paths but expressing a personal stance. I'm open to receiving responses and value your insights.

[James123]

3 hours ago, Orbran said:

The pursuit of enlightenment or a deeper understanding of oneself presents a paradox. In this pursuit, one is expected to eventually realize that there is nothing to be sought and that the seeker themselves is part of the illusion. This introduces a paradox that seems to require following a path somewhat blindly to see where it leads—a requirement not unlike those made by various religions.
 

One could argue that this path is not about blind faith but about validating truths through direct personal experience and continual questioning. However, a significant challenge arises in that this path demands not only a relentless questioning of everything but also necessitates a fundamental change in one’s perception of the external world. While there's a certain appeal to this approach, it undeniably requires a type of commitment and a leap of faith, believing that this shift will lead to something beneficial. This commitment, in my view, parallels the blind adherence to dogma found in traditional religions, as there is no option to leave it out.
 

At this juncture, I find myself seeking examples of individuals who have successfully navigated this path. Yet, much like religious followers who cite success without reliance on logical foundations, these personal spiritual journeys are highly individual and subjective. Success in this context is frequently touted by religious groups and spiritual teachings alike, though it's based on personal experiences that are inherently difficult to quantify or verify independently.
 

This reliance on personal validation raises a question: why should one not be skeptical of a spiritual path that requires similar faith to that demanded by organized religions? Both paths ask for trust in the process and suggest that personal experiences can validate their truths. However, many religious claims also hinge on personal experiences that followers find validating.
 

In conclusion, while the spiritual journey towards enlightenment offers a unique approach, it requires a commitment that is remarkably similar to religious faith. This similarity leaves me skeptical, as the inherently personal nature of such journeys seems to offer little objective evidence or reason to embark on such a path, beyond personal anecdotes and subjective experiences. I just want to emphasize that my skepticism stems from a personal perspective and I'm not dismissing your experiences or paths but expressing a personal stance. I'm open to receiving responses and value your insights.

If one who seeks in the first place is an illusion itself? Thus, including these sentences?

[Phil]

@Orbran

Welcome!

[Jane]

@Orbran Hello! 

[Orbran]

4 hours ago, James123 said:

If one who seeks in the first place is an illusion itself? Thus, including these sentences?

My post addresses this line of thought and suggests that it requires making an initial leap of faith. What follows is why should I if I can take a leap of faith toward Christian or Muslim beliefs, just so I can see where it leads?

[Reena]

@Orbran hello 

[James123]

1 hour ago, Orbran said:

My post addresses this line of thought and suggests that it requires making an initial leap of faith. What follows is why should I if I can take a leap of faith toward Christian or Muslim beliefs, just so I can see where it leads?

Purpose of all religions is enlightenment, imo. 

[Robed Mystic]

15 hours ago, Orbran said:

The pursuit of enlightenment or a deeper understanding of oneself presents a paradox.

Indeed.  It is the finite attempting to grasp infinity. 

 

15 hours ago, Orbran said:

The pursuit of enlightenment or a deeper understanding of oneself presents a paradox. In this pursuit, one is expected to eventually realize that there is nothing to be sought and that the seeker themselves is part of the illusion. This introduces a paradox that seems to require following a path somewhat blindly to see where it leads—a requirement not unlike those made by various religions.
 

One could argue that this path is not about blind faith but about validating truths through direct personal experience and continual questioning. However, a significant challenge arises in that this path demands not only a relentless questioning of everything but also necessitates a fundamental change in one’s perception of the external world. While there's a certain appeal to this approach, it undeniably requires a type of commitment and a leap of faith, believing that this shift will lead to something beneficial. This commitment, in my view, parallels the blind adherence to dogma found in traditional religions, as there is no option to leave it out.
 

 

No that is not true. It is an unbiased inquiry into the nature of self and reality.   An unbiased inquiry. 

Edited April 21 by Robed Mystic

[Robed Mystic]

15 hours ago, Orbran said:

 

This reliance on personal validation raises a question: why should one not be skeptical of a spiritual path that requires similar faith to that demanded by organized religions? Both paths ask for trust in the process and suggest that personal experiences can validate their truths. However, many religious claims also hinge on personal experiences that followers find validating.
 

 

All validation of Truth is ultimately going to be subjective unless you could somehow prove objectivity.  Well - it turns out that becoming a mystic transcends subjectivity into objectivity.   But i guess you have to find out for yourself. 

[Robed Mystic]

15 hours ago, Orbran said:

 

 

 

This reliance on personal validation raises a question: why should one not be skeptical of a spiritual path that requires similar faith to that demanded by organized religions?

You don't need faith you need curiosity.   That is a key distinction.   Bias - in spirituality or the direct pursuit of Truth- is absent.  Religion requires a preference.  Excellent post.

Edited April 21 by Robed Mystic

[Orbran]

2 hours ago, Robed Mystic said:

You don't need faith you need curiosity.   That is a key distinction.   Bias - in spirituality or the direct pursuit of Truth- is absent.  Religion requires a preference.  Excellent post.

Does curiosity always need to lead to action, and how do we choose where to focus our efforts? It's not always clear how to pick the right path from the start. Deciding what's worthwhile can be tricky, and expecting to automatically know the best direction to take from our curiosity might not be realistic.

[Orbran]

2 hours ago, Robed Mystic said:

All validation of Truth is ultimately going to be subjective unless you could somehow prove objectivity.  Well - it turns out that becoming a mystic transcends subjectivity into objectivity.   But i guess you have to find out for yourself. 

The notion that mysticism can bridge the gap from subjectivity to objectivity is a fascinating one, yet it parallels the faith-based approaches seen in various religions, where commitment is premised on the unverifiable personal transformation. This "just try it" methodology lacks empirical support and hinges greatly on subjective experiences, which inherently vary from person to person. Given the unpredictable nature of such a journey and the profound commitment it entails, one must consider the logic and practicality of embarking on this path as opposed to others. How does one objectively choose mysticism—or any belief system—without clear, empirical evidence of its superiority or efficacy?

 

[Orbran]

To Phil, Jane, Reena, and active participants James123 and RobedMystic, hello! Thank you greeting and in some cases responding to what I have said.

[Phil]

@Orbran

Really great thread.

 

‘Two cents’, a key distinction is overlooking (or not) the believing of thoughts.

 

Investigation of the direct experience of thoughts appearing, vs investigation of what thoughts as concepts point to or are presumed to represent (like individual, subjective, objective, personal experience, validation of truth(s), trust, faith, religion, spirituality, reality, a universe or self, etc) and therein believing / having faith, becoming, attaining, obtaining, etc (seeking). 

 

Put another way, what’s the truth of what’s already the case?

(Rather than… “what might I learn, become, be, realize, validate, experience, etc”?

 

If it isn’t already, it’s soon ‘seen’ (via inspecting thoughts, not what thoughts seem to point to)… paradox is of thought / is just another thought.

 

There’s no commitment required in noticing commitment is the thought, committment. 

Same for effort & action. 

 

Curiosity of direct experience isn’t a path one can take. It’s what’s already the case. One need not ‘go’ anywhere at all. 

[Isagi Yoichi]

Great 

[Orbran]

Hi, @Phil
 

To clarify, when I refer to 'commitment,' I'm speaking about the conventional understanding of the term—how it is commonly perceived and how I personally interpret it. If you have a different interpretation of commitment, that's entirely valid. However, from my perspective, commitment involves making a conscious decision and then diligently following through with that decision. This process is crucial, especially for those embarking on a new journey for the first time (if they *start* with a conventional understanding of what commitment is). Without this, one remains static, not progressing along the suggested path. As I understand it, remaining stationary is not the goal for those who advocate for change, and you do make a suggestion that does require change.

Furthermore, suggesting that no path needs to be taken means that staying in place is acceptable. This, paradoxically, means that there is no need to change or reframe one's view.

[Phil]

@Orbran

Thanks for clarifying, but I’m not sure what the point is. 😬

I’m also not sure what you’re referring to by ‘you do make a suggestion that does require change’. 

 

I’m also not sure of the overall point of the op. Maybe it’s that there is paradox. Maybe it’s that you’re interested in awakening and comparing what’s offered here to religion, subjective experience, etc. Not sure. I don’t suggest any commitment is required, if maybe that’s in question... ? 

 

[Orbran]

@Phil
I made many points in my original post and it clearly made a one line conclusion that you can focus on if you wish: the spiritual journey towards enlightenment requires a commitment that is remarkably similar to religious faith. I stated that this is my personal stance. If the point I need to make needs to be anything other than that for your sake, I'm afraid I cannot oblige. Sharing my point of view, then welcoming any comments that may come.

 

Edited April 22 by Orbran

[Orbran]

9 hours ago, Phil said:

@Orbran

There’s no commitment required in noticing commitment is the thought, committment. 

This is the suggestion that does require change (to notice commitment is the thought)

Edited April 22 by Orbran

[Phil]

@Orbran

That’s very clarifying, thanks. I’d steer clear of anyone or any organization requiring commitment or talking about becoming. It’s a big red flag of misunderstanding. 

 

35 minutes ago, Orbran said:

This is the suggestion that does require change (to notice commitment is the thought)

I don’t see how noticing a thought is a thought is a required change.