If enlightenment is really experience without understanding, I don't know what you're all so interested in it for. Anyone can see something, but it is something else entirely to understand it.There's a difference between experience and understanding. Enlightenment is not an understanding, it is an experience which is ultimately the complete lack of understanding. The idea is that the universe just exists as it is, without conflict, without any of the descriptors that we apply to it. Unfortunately, it is the nature of our brains to name and observe and work out relationships, and we falsely ascribe these things to the universe. The universe just is. In order to see the universe for what it is, we have to forget all these constructs which limit our thinking.
I think there is something amazing about the human race, and that thing which is mostly intriguing is the human brain, and its capacity to learn and understand it's environment. That is one of the things that separates us from the "animals".
I agree, nothing needs to be described to exist. But not attempting to understand how the universe works and why seems to me to be the opposite of enlightenment. It's like reverting to the dark ages in order to further the human race. Seeing is not understanding. Seeing something doesn't make it exist.Something doesn't need to be described to exist. Furthermore, I don't need to know what something is and how it works in order to "see" it. See what I'm saying? The desire to "know" the universe by applying our constructs, rules, and descriptors can only lead you away from that understanding ultimately.
I don't think you figure out what something is by describing it, but you most likely can't find out is happening in quantum mechanics by merely observing it.I think you are looking at knowledge backwards. You don't figure out what something is by trying to describe it. You figure out what something is by observing it.
I wasn't saying that language is absolutely necessary in describing the world around us. I also didn't mean that these descriptions that humans use need to be understandable to other humans. The cavemen were able to comprehend the idea of heat, (a description of fire, the sun, etc.) and thus were able to comprehend the idea of sunburn or regular burns. They, as you said, identified common attributes shared by the fire and the sun by utilizing descriptive factors, such as light and heat. I would consider those "descriptions" of fire. Thus my idea that descriptions are necessary for understanding.The cavemen aren't stupid. They know that there is something different about the fire and the sun. But they also know there is something the same. When our genius caveman identified heat, he didn't identify what the fire or the sun is, he merely identified common attributes shared by both the fire and the sun.
The knowledge of these attributes came long before people had words for them. You don't have to know advanced laws of thermodynamics to know what a sunburn is.
I have definitely been in such a situation, but is that saying that an advancement of our vocabulary wouldn't possibly solve that problem? Or an advancement of the way we use language? Or possibly the loss of words is caused by my own lack of knowledge on the subject, which is why I would be at a loss of words to describe what a dream "feels like". That doesn't mean that I am not constantly taking down (in my head) descriptive things that make up what a dream is, whether or not I can comprehend it at my level of understanding.Seeing the universe for what "it is" is what enlightenment supposedly entails. It is an experience, not a description.
Here's another example. Have you ever been in a situation where you were trying to describe something, and were at a loss for words, yet you knew exactly what it was? That's basically how it is.
I don't see how that is a logical statement. Unless of course what you're saying is that enlightenment is plain impossible for the human species. There is no way to figure out what something is unless you ultimately are able to understand and describe it. (as i said before, you may not be able to describe it to another human, but you in your own head can definitely describe it, and understand it.)my revision: "you would have to figure out exactly what the universe is, and that is simply impossible with descriptions."
I never said that understanding is based on a humans ability to write an essay to another human which allows them to understand it. If you in your own mind understand it, then that qualifies as "knowing". (there are exceptions, of course. some people aren't there mentally) But how could you say that observing the universe without descriptions will allow you to know what you feel/think when you see a spider? Or predict what someone will do in a certain situation? Taking everything as untrue because our descriptions will never encompass the complete truth of the matter is like giving up. Enlightenment (if that means seeing the universe for what it is) would be nothing if you could not in your own head understand what is happening.impossible? tell me in 3 words or less who you are. do I now understand you? have you described you entirely? ok, 300 words then? in 3000 words? if you wrote a 3000 word essay about yourself, would I be able to read it, and instantly know exactly what you feel/think when you see a spider? how about 30,000 words? how about a biography? can you read a biography, and know what color crayon someone thought was their favorite when they were 3? or what they really think about their spouse if they're still married? or what their weirdest sexual fantasy is? could you predict exactly what they'd do in a particular situation?
If enlightenment is experiencing the universe with complete lack of understanding, I'll stick with my magic mushrooms, thanks anyway!There's a difference between experience and understanding. Enlightenment is not an understanding, it is an experience which is ultimately the complete lack of understanding. The idea is that the universe just exists as it is, without conflict, without any of the descriptors that we apply to it. Unfortunately, it is the nature of our brains to name and observe and work out relationships, and we falsely ascribe these things to the universe. The universe just is. In order to see the universe for what it is, we have to forget all these constructs which limit our thinking.
Once again, thank you all for your extremely intelligent responses, and take everything I say with a grain of salt, I'm merely thinking aloud, as always!
...
